Discussion:
The Truth That WCR Believers Run From... #1
(too old to reply)
Ben Holmes
2023-12-29 16:25:02 UTC
Permalink
My Scenario Part 1

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.

From Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew:

"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned. The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself. And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.

By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."

Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)

Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.

And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.

He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...

(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)

This **IS** a scenario - despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.

This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!

The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.

http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner - this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
conspiracy:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.

Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.

As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."

The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.

Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.

(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
Bud
2023-12-29 18:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
Ben is tedious with his lying. When I posted a scenario he removed it.
Post by Ben Holmes
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
Or to believe one occurred.
Post by Ben Holmes
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
Meaningless, empty claim.
Post by Ben Holmes
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...."
Cherry picked out of context quotes aren`t very impressive.
Post by Ben Holmes
Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned. The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself. And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Meaningless, empty claim.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Where are the people who can show conspiracy?
Post by Ben Holmes
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE...
Empty claims look so much better in all caps.
Post by Ben Holmes
as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Who cares about "conflicts"? People gave all sorts of differing shot numbers, so any possibility has conflicting evidence.
Post by Ben Holmes
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
You are simply lying.
Post by Ben Holmes
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
I will continue to tell the truth.
Post by Ben Holmes
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario - despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
Meaningless, empty claim.
Post by Ben Holmes
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
I will continue to tell the truth.
Post by Ben Holmes
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper -
Does appearing in a newspaper determine truth?
Post by Ben Holmes
so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
You refuse to establish these attempts existed.
Post by Ben Holmes
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one...
Meaningless, empty claim.
Post by Ben Holmes
most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner - this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin.
You refuse to establish them.
Post by Ben Holmes
The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself.
Bitch, bitch, bitch.
Post by Ben Holmes
This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
Perhaps they just looked at information correctly. To this day no one has made a compelling argument that there were any serious previous assassination attempts against Kennedy.
Post by Ben Holmes
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
So the huge, elaborate conspiracy that existed in Dallas was also in pace in other cities. So huge, complex, elaborate fantastic plots that couldn`t even occur once happened three times.
Post by Ben Holmes
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner.
The fact that you can`t make a compelling argument for them (one that can stand against scrutiny, critical thinking and reason) says it all.
Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Empty claim.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Post by Ben Holmes
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
Is there any reason to believe you have any interest in an honest exchange of ideas?

If you were you would have started a post outlining all the reasons there are to believe there were plans to kill Kennedy in Tampa and Chicago. That will never happen.
Post by Ben Holmes
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
Another invitation to play Ben`s crooked games, how boring.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-29 23:29:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 10:26:44 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Chuck Schuyler
2023-12-31 05:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null hypothesis. And you've never posted a scenario. Ever. Your multi-segment Magnum Opus is simply your usually begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies.
Who?
Post by Ben Holmes
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy? Claiming something else happened, somehow, or that on 11/22/63 some people did something, isn't a "conspiracy" theory.
Post by Ben Holmes
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed Oswald shot JFK. You and Gil are among a dwindling band of aging, dope smoking baby boomers who are on the radical fringes of a dying hobby who thing Oswald was a misunderstood sort of anti-hero railroaded for a crime he was 100% innocent of being involved in. Boris the Truther, Gentleman Don Willis, The Toilet, etc. all disagree with you. You all have weird, wild theories that sharply disagree with each other. Different captains on different ships, etc.

The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
Post by Ben Holmes
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.

And those were the
Post by Ben Holmes
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah. Oswald Alone is the historically accepted conclusion. Even JFK's library posts links to the WCR for people who want to learn more about the assassination. No links to your Magnum Opus or to The Tom Rossley Collection at Gil's website.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what? Stop shifting the burden and produce something before the lights go out here.
Post by Ben Holmes
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits. Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report. Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you, to do what you do best: molest.
Post by Ben Holmes
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
Post by Ben Holmes
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
Post by Ben Holmes
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case? You are deeply delusional. You live in your little world, where you are tall and handsome and don't constantly lie.
Post by Ben Holmes
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.

- despite any whining from believers who can't
Post by Ben Holmes
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
Post by Ben Holmes
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario. Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
Post by Ben Holmes
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How? You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
Post by Ben Holmes
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.

- this
Post by Ben Holmes
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
Post by Ben Holmes
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
Kid molested at the Encino Judo Club? Check Ben's alibi first.
Post by Ben Holmes
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
Melodramatic hogwash.
Post by Ben Holmes
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd. You've got less than eight weeks of trolling left.
Gil Jesus
2023-12-31 10:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Schuyler
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null hypothesis. And you've never posted a scenario. Ever. Your multi-segment Magnum Opus is simply your usually begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies.
Who?
They all believed Oswald shot JFK. You and Gil are among a dwindling band of aging, dope smoking baby boomers who are on the radical fringes of a dying hobby who thing Oswald was a misunderstood sort of anti-hero railroaded for a crime he was 100% innocent of being involved in. Boris the Truther, Gentleman Don Willis, The Toilet, etc. all disagree with you. You all have weird, wild theories that sharply disagree with each other. Different captains on different ships, etc.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Nah. Oswald Alone is the historically accepted conclusion. Even JFK's library posts links to the WCR for people who want to learn more about the assassination. No links to your Magnum Opus or to The Tom Rossley Collection at Gil's website.
From what? Stop shifting the burden and produce something before the lights go out here.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
...in your opinion.
...in your opinion.
You'll never post a scenario. Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How? You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
Kid molested at the Encino Judo Club? Check Ben's alibi first.
Melodramatic hogwash.
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd. You've got less than eight weeks of trolling left.
Notice that all of Chuckles' responses contain:

No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No links

What Charles Schuyler DOES post are comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
Charles Schuyler does no research of his own.

He acts like a 10 year old online, insulting people and making fun of their names.
Lurkers can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
That's why we call Charles Schuyler, "Chuckles the Clown".

And to his resume' he adds that he is a coward who avoided responding to 39 of the 40 questions I posted.
Then lied about it and said he answered them all.

Chuckles is a closed-minded, hate-filled, coward and a liar
who lives in a fantasy world where there is no such thing as corruption and it is impossible to get away with murder.
Bud
2023-12-31 12:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Chuck Schuyler
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null hypothesis. And you've never posted a scenario. Ever. Your multi-segment Magnum Opus is simply your usually begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies.
Who?
They all believed Oswald shot JFK. You and Gil are among a dwindling band of aging, dope smoking baby boomers who are on the radical fringes of a dying hobby who thing Oswald was a misunderstood sort of anti-hero railroaded for a crime he was 100% innocent of being involved in. Boris the Truther, Gentleman Don Willis, The Toilet, etc. all disagree with you. You all have weird, wild theories that sharply disagree with each other. Different captains on different ships, etc.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Nah. Oswald Alone is the historically accepted conclusion. Even JFK's library posts links to the WCR for people who want to learn more about the assassination. No links to your Magnum Opus or to The Tom Rossley Collection at Gil's website.
From what? Stop shifting the burden and produce something before the lights go out here.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
...in your opinion.
...in your opinion.
You'll never post a scenario. Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How? You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
Kid molested at the Encino Judo Club? Check Ben's alibi first.
Melodramatic hogwash.
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd. You've got less than eight weeks of trolling left.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No links
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
What Charles Schuyler DOES post are comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
Charles Schuyler does no research of his own.
Just coming here is research, to see if you guys have any valid ideas. So far nothing.
Post by Gil Jesus
He acts like a 10 year old online, insulting people and making fun of their names.
Do you even read what Ben writes?
Post by Gil Jesus
Lurkers can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
Plenty of insight into the minds of conspiracy hobbyists.

Coming here for decades I`ve acquired an intimate understanding of the workings of the minds of the conspiracy-afflicted.

They cherry pick the wrong things to focus on, while being totally blind to the right things. Anything to get to where they are desperate to go.
Post by Gil Jesus
That's why we call Charles Schuyler, "Chuckles the Clown".
Clowns can take the greasepaint off whenever they like. You are stuck in your skin, you are a stump for life.
Post by Gil Jesus
And to his resume' he adds that he is a coward who avoided responding to 39 of the 40 questions I posted.
Then lied about it and said he answered them all.
The answer he gave covered most of them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Chuckles is a closed-minded, hate-filled, coward and a liar
who lives in a fantasy world where there is no such thing as corruption and it is impossible to get away with murder.
Using your thinking (such as it is), since Charles Whitman shot all those people on his own, then Oswald acted likewise.

And it isn`t that it is impossible to get away with murder. It is that the ideas you hint at, but never completely spell out or put into a cohesive package, are impossible.
Gil Jesus
2023-12-31 12:48:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 7:43:11 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual nonsense >

Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-02 16:03:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:48:20 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual nonsense >
Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion.
Hopefully, Chickenshit's too cheap to pay for access to the forum...
Bud
2024-01-02 21:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:48:20 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual nonsense >
Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion.
Hopefully, Chickenshit's too cheap to pay for access to the forum...
It`s not worth what I`m paying now. You guys refuse to up your game.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-02 21:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:48:20 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual nonsense >
Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion.
Hopefully, Chickenshit's too cheap to pay for access to the forum...
It`s not worth what I`m paying now. You guys refuse to up your game.
You refuse to answer:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Your refusal shows that *YOU* know you lost..
Ben Holmes
2024-01-02 16:03:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:43:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-02 16:03:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 02:04:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Chuck Schuyler
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null hypothesis. And you've never posted a scenario. Ever. Your multi-segment Magnum Opus is simply your usually begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies.
Who?
They all believed Oswald shot JFK. You and Gil are among a dwindling band of aging, dope smoking baby boomers who are on the radical fringes of a dying hobby who thing Oswald was a misunderstood sort of anti-hero railroaded for a crime he was 100% innocent of being involved in. Boris the Truther, Gentleman Don Willis, The Toilet, etc. all disagree with you. You all have weird, wild theories that sharply disagree with each other. Different captains on different ships, etc.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Nah. Oswald Alone is the historically accepted conclusion. Even JFK's library posts links to the WCR for people who want to learn more about the assassination. No links to your Magnum Opus or to The Tom Rossley Collection at Gil's website.
From what? Stop shifting the burden and produce something before the lights go out here.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
...in your opinion.
...in your opinion.
You'll never post a scenario. Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How? You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
Kid molested at the Encino Judo Club? Check Ben's alibi first.
Melodramatic hogwash.
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd. You've got less than eight weeks of trolling left.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No links
What Charles Schuyler DOES post are comments, speculations, opinions and insults.
Charles Schuyler does no research of his own.
He acts like a 10 year old online, insulting people and making fun of their names.
Lurkers can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
That's why we call Charles Schuyler, "Chuckles the Clown".
And to his resume' he adds that he is a coward who avoided responding to 39 of the 40 questions I posted.
Then lied about it and said he answered them all.
Chuckles is a closed-minded, hate-filled, coward and a liar
who lives in a fantasy world where there is no such thing as corruption and it is impossible to get away with murder.
Chuckles can't deny it...
Ben Holmes
2024-01-02 16:03:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:37:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null
hypothesis.
Yet you run away from your OWN scenario daily.

You demand we support what we say, THEN REPEATEDLY REFUSE TO SUPPORT
WHAT *YOU* SAY.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
And you've never posted a scenario. Ever.
Yet I say I have. **YOU** admit you've never posted a scenario. Why
not?

<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Who?
Are you too stupid to be able to find out?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
The one that took JFK's life.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed...
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Will you acknowledge your lie if I do?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah.
Not a refutation.

And indeed, polling shows that it *IS* factually a minority opinion.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what?
The facts and evidence.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Stop shifting the burden
Stop running from your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
and produce something before the lights go out here.
They only "go out" for cheapskates.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits.
Facts are not "nits."
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report.
"Spitballs" you can't refute???
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you...
Au contraire... it's *YOUR* hobby that ends when you can't afford to
continue.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
Asserting that you're stupid is hardly an argument.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
You're lying again, of course.

And it's simple provable FACT that you've never posted a scenario.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case?
Indeed. You ran the first time I posted this series, you'll end up
running again.


<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.
In yours as well - your abject refusal to post a scenario proving it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
Not a refutation.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario.
Provably a lie.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
Carry your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How?
Hello???

Can you name the same identical person being targeted?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
Not to a moron's satisfaction, no.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.
Cowardice from your own fear.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
- this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
You beg the question by assuming that Oswald is the only person who
targeted JFK.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd.
The hobby of free trolling, I presume.

Too bad you won't be around to see my continued posting.
Chuck Schuyler
2024-01-03 00:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:37:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null
hypothesis.
Yet you run away from your OWN scenario daily.
You demand we support what we say, THEN REPEATEDLY REFUSE TO SUPPORT
WHAT *YOU* SAY.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
And you've never posted a scenario. Ever.
Yet I say I have.
Because you enjoy lying.
Post by Ben Holmes
**YOU** admit you've never posted a scenario. Why
not?
Because I don't have one that differs from the historical null hypothesis: Oswald alone, no KNOWN help. Even JFK's library links to the WCR for visitors who want to learn about the assassination. Your Magnum Opus somehow didn't make the cut.
Post by Ben Holmes
<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Who?
Are you too stupid to be able to find out?
Didn't they build dirigibles for the Kaiser in the early 1900s or something? Or maybe they wrote songs on tin pan alley in the 1920s. Anyways, who cares.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
The one that took JFK's life.
Unknown snipers firing unknown weapons from unknown directions causing unstated wounds to JFK? That conspiracy?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed...
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Will you acknowledge your lie if I do?
Sure.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah.
Not a refutation.
Indeed. I don't need to refute what you assert without evidence. You're shifting the burden for the 1,221,001,158,990 time since you've been posting here.
Post by Ben Holmes
And indeed, polling shows that it *IS* factually a minority opinion.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what?
The facts and evidence.
The facts and evidence that prove to you that on 11/22/63, some people did something?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Stop shifting the burden
Stop running from your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
and produce something before the lights go out here.
They only "go out" for cheapskates.
That would be me.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits.
Facts are not "nits."
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report.
"Spitballs" you can't refute???
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you...
Au contraire... it's *YOUR* hobby that ends when you can't afford to
continue.
Yeah, I'll be gone. It'll be you and Gil and the spammers
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
Asserting that you're stupid is hardly an argument.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
You're lying again, of course.
And it's simple provable FACT that you've never posted a scenario.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case?
Indeed. You ran the first time I posted this series, you'll end up
running again.
<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.
In yours as well - your abject refusal to post a scenario proving it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
Not a refutation.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario.
Provably a lie.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
Carry your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How?
Hello???
Can you name the same identical person being targeted?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
Not to a moron's satisfaction, no.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.
Cowardice from your own fear.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
- this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
You beg the question by assuming that Oswald is the only person who
targeted JFK.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd.
The hobby of free trolling, I presume.
Too bad you won't be around to see my continued posting.
Soon enough, you'll be out, too. All you and Gil need to do is trade emails. Include Don and the Toilet and a few others, and you're good.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 15:28:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:04:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:37:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null
hypothesis.
Yet you run away from your OWN scenario daily.
You demand we support what we say, THEN REPEATEDLY REFUSE TO SUPPORT
WHAT *YOU* SAY.
Dead silence. Chuckles couldn't deny it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
And you've never posted a scenario. Ever.
Yet I say I have.
Because you enjoy lying.
Your insistent refusal to provide your own example of what a
"scenario" looks like shows that *YOU* know you lost.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
**YOU** admit you've never posted a scenario. Why
not?
Because I don't have one...
Then why are you here?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Who?
Are you too stupid to be able to find out?
(The answer is obvious. Chuckles is too stupid to put "Walter F. Graf
and Richard R. Bartholomew" in a search engine.)
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
The one that took JFK's life.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed...
Logical fallacy deleted.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Will you acknowledge your lie if I do?
Sure.
You're lying again...

You've never *once* retracted or admitted any lie that I've cited for.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah.
Not a refutation.
Indeed.
Good of you to agree with me.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
I don't need to refute what you assert without evidence. You're
shifting the burden for the 1,221,001,158,990 time since you've been
posting here.
Polling proves what I state.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And indeed, polling shows that it *IS* factually a minority opinion.
Notice that Chuckles read this, but refused to respond to it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what?
The facts and evidence.
The facts and evidence that prove to you that on 11/22/63, some people did something?
I've answered the question. Are you going to continue to run and post
logical fallacies?
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Stop shifting the burden
Stop running from your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
and produce something before the lights go out here.
They only "go out" for cheapskates.
That would be me.
Yep. And Chickenshit, and probably Huckster as well. Of course, Von
Penis who can't afford real hosting has always proven how cheap he is.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits.
Facts are not "nits."
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report.
"Spitballs" you can't refute???
Dead silence.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you...
Au contraire... it's *YOUR* hobby that ends when you can't afford to
continue.
Yeah, I'll be gone.
Good of you to agree with me.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
Asserting that you're stupid is hardly an argument.
Dead silence.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
You're lying again, of course.
And it's simple provable FACT that you've never posted a scenario.
Dead silence.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case?
Indeed. You ran the first time I posted this series, you'll end up
running again.
And Chuckles couldn't deny it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
<logical fallacy deleted>
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.
In yours as well - your abject refusal to post a scenario proving it.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
Not a refutation.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario.
Provably a lie.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
Carry your burden.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How?
Hello???
Can you name the same identical person being targeted?
Chuckles was too stupid to be able to admit that it was JFK.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Chuck Schuyler
You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
Not to a moron's satisfaction, no.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.
Cowardice from your own fear.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
- this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
You beg the question by assuming that Oswald is the only person who
targeted JFK.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Post by Ben Holmes
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd.
The hobby of free trolling, I presume.
Too bad you won't be around to see my continued posting.
Soon enough, you'll be out, too.
An assertion that you won't be around to admit was a lie.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-03 13:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.

You apparently think if you ignore everything that went before and simply repeat your claims, they become more true. They don't, they expose you as repeating falsehoods. This isnother in a long line offringe resets by you.

For example, I cited the testimony of J.C.Day concerning the rifle recovered from the Depository here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vj9_hwq-G4I/m/vMCApxhQAgAJ

You quibbled over what I quoted, but offered no corresponding testimony to dispute what Day said.

I then moved on to the scientific analysis of the backyard photos by the HSCA photographic panel later in the same thread here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vj9_hwq-G4I/m/vHbQVgZkAwAJ

As you did initially, you offered no corresponding testimony to dispute that.
You didn't even try. Your claims are false. You won't match the citations to the evidence.

I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766, I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle, I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.

I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Each citation will tighten the noose around Oswald’s neck just a bit tighter..

You won’t offer any corresponding evidence pointing to anyone else, nor will you name anyone else as a shooter and establish - using the evidence - how they are implicated.

You have no evidence. You have non-expert opinion, you have insults, you have misdirection, you have quotes out of context, and you have logical fallacies. And you have deletions. You simply excise and ignore the testimony you find inconvenient.

None of which meets your own claim about what you can and will do.

In short, your claim above is false, and has been established as false in the past, and in reposting what transpired back in April of 2022, I establish it as false once more. You ran away from the evidence I cited, and offered no evidence in rebuttal. You demonstrably failed before to substantiate your claim. What makes you think this time will be different?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 15:31:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 05:55:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
I *can't*. You refuse to provide a scenario.

And you're lying about the past - you've not refuted my scenario in
response to Conan's post.

Nor will you.

You're a coward and a proven liar.
You apparently think...
Logical fallacies won't change the fact that you've run from my post.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-03 21:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 05:55:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
I *can't*. You refuse to provide a scenario.
My scenario is simple, Oswald killed Kennedy using the C2766 rifle, and I’ve provided evidence from J.C.Day (C2766 rifle discovered in and taken from Depository) and the HSCA photographic panel that Oswald possessed the C2766 rifle (validated backyard photos). There is more evidence I haven't gotten to yet, but you need to rebut this evidence already on the table first.

You said you “will match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”

I posted that evidence supporting my scenario in April of 2022 — 21 months ago. Still awaiting your citations to the contrary evidence. You never did provide any. You haven't done so here in this thread either.
Post by Ben Holmes
And you're lying about the past - you've not refuted my scenario in
response to Conan's post.
Shifting the burden. I don't need to refute your scenario, and I never said I would. You need to prove your scenario, not just post and expect others to disprove your claims.

I’m challenging you to do what you said you could do: “match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
Post by Ben Holmes
Nor will you.
You're a coward and a proven liar.
No, that's not what you said you'd do. You said nothing about calling me names.

You said you “will match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”

When do you intend to start?

Still waiting your citations disproving the conclusions of the HSCA photo panel and the testimony of J.C.Day.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
You apparently think...
Logical fallacies won't change the fact that you've run from my post.
Deleting my points and not doing what you said you could do establishes exactly who laced up their track shoes and started sprinting. It's not me. It's you.

Do what you said you could do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”

Still waiting.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 21:52:35 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:27:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 05:55:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
I *can't*. You refuse to provide a scenario.
My scenario is simple, Oswald killed Kennedy using the C2766 rifle, and I’ve provided evidence from J.C.Day (C2766 rifle discovered in and taken from Depository) and the HSCA photographic panel that Oswald possessed the C2766 rifle (validated backyard photos). There is more evidence I haven't gotten to yet, but you need to rebut this evidence already on the table first.
You said you “will match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
I posted that evidence supporting my scenario in April of 2022 — 21 months ago. Still awaiting your citations to the contrary evidence. You never did provide any. You haven't done so here in this thread either.
You're a damned liar, coward.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ


Still waiting for you to answer this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Gil Jesus
2024-01-03 16:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?

Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?

Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 16:35:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:19:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
And, of course, Huckster's claim had NOTHING to do with what I posted,
hence simply a logical fallacy.

One that Huckster strangely couldn't see.
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
You'll *NEVER* get Huckster to publicly acknowledge this fact... or
give a credible explanation for it.
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Huckster is, of course, lying. The clothing descriptions don't
match... And Huckster knows this.
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Strange that Huckster can't cite *THIS* conclusion of "FBI experts."
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
Huckster is too much a coward to address what I post - and for some
amusing reason can't seem to recognize his logical fallacy.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-03 21:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.

J.C.Day testified to finding and photographing those prints here:
== quote ==
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them.
. . .
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
== unquote ==

Fingerprint expert Vincent Scalise examined those photographs and concluded they were Oswald’s prints. That’s the evidence before you. The evidence you ignore.
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
It’s already established that CE399 is admissible in evidence. It’s for the jury to decide how much weight to put on it, remember? I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd. That is likewise an acceptable way to validate the evidence.

On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
No, the barrel had corroded in the 15 years while the rifle sat unused, and therefore the HSCA test bullets didn't match the bullet or fragments recovered from Parkland or the limo. They said that. They also attributed it to changes due to repeated firings in 1963 and 1964 to test the accuracy and speed of the weapon. See pages 4 & 5 here:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf

They also confirmed the FBI’s original conclusions using the test bullets obtained from the FBI test firings. They said that too. It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?

Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 21:23:57 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:04:59 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious!
You think it's funny that you're proving yourself a coward?
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes...
End of story. You lose!
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence ...
You refuse to cite it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address...
Yes. *YOU* need to address the fact that Gil just posted.

Or run again.

Just as you've run from my post.

Such AMAZiNG cowardice from you, Huckster!
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
It’s already established...
No, it isn't.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
No...
Honesty! Did it hurt, Huckster?

And, lest you forget the proof of your lying and cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

(Be sure to snip this, and run again when you respond...)
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-03 22:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:04:59 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious!
You think it's funny that you're proving yourself a coward?
Straw Man argument.
Maybe you’d understand my point better if you didn't delete it? Just a thought.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes...
End of story. You lose!
Still deleting and ignoring my points. You did not say you could do that, and that’s not what i’m challenging you to do. I'm challenging you to do what you said you could: “match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted…”
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence ...
You refuse to cite it.
I cited the evidence of J.C.Day’s testimony and the HSCA photo experts conclusions. You and Gil both deleted any reference to that evidence. You refuse to acknowledge the evidence already cited.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address...
Yes. *YOU* need to address the fact that Gil just posted.
Or run again.
I referenced the conclusion of Vincent Scalise who examined first-generation photos taken by Day and concluded it was Oswald’s prints on the trigger guard. You ignored the photos and Scalise’s conclusions.
Post by Ben Holmes
Just as you've run from my post.
Such AMAZiNG cowardice from you, Huckster!
Nope, not what you said you’d do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted”.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
It’s already established that CE399 is admissible in evidence. It’s for the jury to decide how much weight to put on it, remember? I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd. That is likewise an acceptable way to validate the evidence.
No, it isn't.
Cited the law numerous times. Here’s once:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSwfPOfM9Fs/m/uhnWXVoUBgAJ
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
No...
Honesty! Did it hurt, Huckster?
Did you, like Gil did for the HSCA conclusions, taken my statement out of context?

Yes, you did.
Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
(Be sure to snip this, and run again when you respond...)
Waiting for you to do what you said you could do: “match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted…”
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 22:37:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:22:30 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Waiting for you to do what you said you could do: “match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted…”
You're lying again, Huckster.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ

Let's start with "length."

First, publicly admit that I answered you.

Then tell us how many words in your scenario, and how many words are
in my response.

As soon as you finish lying, we'll move on to the number of citations.
And end up with detail.

And... lest you forget the proof of your cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 00:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:44:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
According to Chuckles, you didn't provide a scenario.
But - of course, you're lying.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ
Why don't you click on that link, AND RESPOND TO THE POST YOU SAY
DOESN'T EXIST.
You make a lot of claims, but don't cite for many them. You also assume that there is only a nefarious explanation, although you don't show how you eliminated other possibilities.

The three assassination attempts? No evidence cited.
Agents removed? No evidence cited.
Motorcycle escorts not in normal position? No evidence cited.
Majority of witnesses thought shots from Knoll? No evidence cited.
You claim the windshield was struck from the front, but photos of the windshield are in the record, and they don’t show a bullet hole. In fact, according to the testimony, they establish the windshield was struck from behind.*
On and on and on….

You link to arguments from a conspiracist, you cite a doctor’s admission as many as three shots *could* have struck Connally, but ignore the fact that the majority of the witnesses heard only three shots, including Nellie Connally, and the Governor heard only two, believing he did not hear the one that struck him (for three shots total). If the doctor and the majority of the witnesses are both correct, this means one of the shots that struck the Governor must have gone through the President’s neck, and another went through the President’s head.

Alternately, either the doctor’s conclusion is wrong or the majority of the witnesses are wrong.

On the other hand, I have cited the actual testimony and conclusions of the experts, those like J.C.Day, the HSCA photographic panel, and William Waldman of Klein’s, to start to tighten the noose around Oswald’s neck.

You said you could match my citations. I’ve named my shooter (Oswald), and I’ve cited some of the *evidence* indicating he shot the President. There’s a lot more, but thus far, the evidence indicates Oswald possessed theC2766 rifle, the C2766 rifle was recovered from the TSBD, and the C2766 rifle was shipped to PO Box 2915.

Now we examine the testimony of Harry Holmes, Postal Inspector, who testified that Oswald opened that PO Box:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 3," and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. That is a photostatic copy of the original box rental application covering the rental of box 2915, at the main post office in Dallas, Tex. which shows that it was completed on October the 9th, 1962. The applicants name was Lee H. Oswald, home address, 3519 Fairmore Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Signed Lee H. Oswald. It shows that the box was closed on May 14, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, it is stamped date box opened, October 9, 1962. And that is the same date that it appears to be written in handwriting at the bottom of it.
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
== UNQUOTE ==

So the evidence indicates the C2766 rifle found in the TSBD (Day), was possessed by Oswald (HSCA), he left his fingerprints on the triggerguard (Scalise), was ordered from Klein’s (Waldman), and shipped to Oswald’s PO Box.

You have offered nothing equivalent. You haven’t named a shooter, nor have you cited any evidence establishing their weapon was found anywhere in Dealey Plaza, nor have you cited any evidence linking the weapon to the shooter.

You said you could do this: “I will match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted”.

Still waiting….
_________
* CE350 shows the windshield.
The windshield itself is in the National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 00:24:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 16:17:53 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:44:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
According to Chuckles, you didn't provide a scenario.
But - of course, you're lying.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ
Why don't you click on that link, AND RESPOND TO THE POST YOU SAY
DOESN'T EXIST.
You make a lot of claims...
Can you publicly admit that I responded to your "scenario?"

Once you do that... we'll do a word count, then a citation count, then
go into the amount of detail.

But you'll run again, AS YOU JUST DID RIGHT HERE!



(Of course, you *have* to run - you've been caught in a lie you can't
defend.)
Gil Jesus
2024-01-04 10:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
Loading Image...
Post by Hank Sienzant
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Post by Hank Sienzant
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
Bud
2024-01-04 11:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
It is done that way.

"Sheriff’s forensic experts reviewing the case last September combined two partial prints of the same finger from the Ford’s steering wheel and submitted the result to the FBI. The match was from a 1956 burglary conviction."

https://camemorial.org/honor-roll/tribute/richard-a-phillips/

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/iafis-fingerprint-search-solves-45-year-old-double-police-officer

It is valid science, just another thing you have to contrive reasons to disregard in order to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
As shown, his approach was valid.
Post by Gil Jesus
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
This is what is known as a begged argument. It assumes what hasn`t been shown, different parts.

The partial prints were found in one specific place on the rifle.
Post by Gil Jesus
It's ridiciulous.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
Post by Hank Sienzant
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Post by Hank Sienzant
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
Gil Jesus
2024-01-04 11:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
It is done that way.
"Sheriff’s forensic experts reviewing the case last September combined two partial prints of the same finger from the Ford’s steering wheel and submitted the result to the FBI. The match was from a 1956 burglary conviction."
https://camemorial.org/honor-roll/tribute/richard-a-phillips/
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/iafis-fingerprint-search-solves-45-year-old-double-police-officer
It is valid science, just another thing you have to contrive reasons to disregard in order to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
"On what basis do you accept the authenticity of the fingerprint? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?"
OMG, I sound like Hank !!!
ROFLMAO
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 17:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
It is done that way.
"Sheriff’s forensic experts reviewing the case last September combined two partial prints of the same finger from the Ford’s steering wheel and submitted the result to the FBI. The match was from a 1956 burglary conviction."
https://camemorial.org/honor-roll/tribute/richard-a-phillips/
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/iafis-fingerprint-search-solves-45-year-old-double-police-officer
It is valid science, just another thing you have to contrive reasons to disregard in order to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
"On what basis do you accept the authenticity of the fingerprint? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?"
OMG, I sound like Hank !!!
Yes, you're learning, but much too slowly. They matched the partial prints taken off the steering wheel 45 years earlier to find Mason's fingerprint in the current FBI's fingerprint database.

Here's the Forensic Files episode on this:

Post by Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO
You laugh because you don't understand the joke is on you.

You claimed combining prints is the wrong way to find a match. But that's exactly what was done to find the killer of two police officers. You were wrong, as you were wrong about 45 bullets not changing the microscopic markings used in ballistic matching.

Are you learning anything yet?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 17:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Are you learning anything yet?
That you're a coward?

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 17:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Are you learning anything yet?
That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario. I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle found in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.

Ball in your court: Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the murder weapon(s).

Go ahead, we'll wait.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 17:20:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:14:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Are you learning anything yet?
That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ

Matched AND EXCEEDED in length, number of cites, and detail.

You've ran the last time I asked this: HOW MANY WORDS IN YOUR
SCENARIO, AND HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN MY RESPONSE?
Post by Hank Sienzant
I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle found
in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.
I've exceeded your scenario's length, number of citations, and detail.

I understand why you refuse to publicly acknowledge this - you lied.
Give the total number of words in yours vs mine. Or run again...
Post by Hank Sienzant
Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the
murder weapon(s).
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we'll wait.
It's your turn to answer coward.

And lest you forget the proof of your cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 18:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:14:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Are you learning anything yet?
That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ
Matched AND EXCEEDED in length, number of cites, and detail.
You've ran the last time I asked this: HOW MANY WORDS IN YOUR
SCENARIO, AND HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN MY RESPONSE?
Post by Hank Sienzant
I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle found
in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.
I've exceeded your scenario's length, number of citations, and detail.
No, you haven't even named the shooter(s) nor provided any link to the murder weapon(s).
Post by Ben Holmes
I understand why you refuse to publicly acknowledge this - you lied.
Give the total number of words in yours vs mine. Or run again...
Nobody cares about the length. I'm challenging you on the *details*.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the
murder weapon(s).
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Uh, asking you to keep your word, match my scenario on the details (names, please), and cite the evidence for your claims is a logical fallacy now?

Did you attend Harvard by any chance?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we'll wait.
It's your turn to answer coward.
Nope, calling me names is still not what you said you'd do. You said you'd match the details.

I'm asking you to do that by naming the shooter(s), and provide the evidence to the weapon(s) used.

You put on your track shoes back in this thread.

Name the shooter(s), provide the evidence of the shooter(s) weapon(s).

As I have done.

Match me on the details.

Or run.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 18:47:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 10:08:05 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:14:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Are you learning anything yet?
That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ
Matched AND EXCEEDED in length, number of cites, and detail.
You've ran the last time I asked this: HOW MANY WORDS IN YOUR
SCENARIO, AND HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN MY RESPONSE?
Post by Hank Sienzant
I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle found
in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.
I've exceeded your scenario's length, number of citations, and detail.
No, you haven't even named the shooter(s) nor provided any link to the murder weapon(s).
Name that logical fallacy, COWARD!!

And stop running from giving a word count.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
I understand why you refuse to publicly acknowledge this - you lied.
Give the total number of words in yours vs mine. Or run again...
Nobody cares about the length. I'm challenging you on the *details*.
No, first you're going to admit that the length "matches" yours,
actually far exceeds it. Then you're going to admit that I far
exceeded your number of cites.

**THEN** we can discuss the number of details.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the
murder weapon(s).
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Again... can you name this logical fallacy?

Stop running, and name it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we'll wait.
It's your turn to answer coward.
Nope, calling me names
I'm directly AND ACCURATELY describing your cowardice.
Post by Hank Sienzant
is still not what you said you'd do. You said you'd match the details.
Tut tut tut... did I match your length and number of cites?

INDEED - *DID I RESPOND TO YOUR SCENARIO?*
Post by Hank Sienzant
I'm asking you to do that
Already did. As I cited for.

You lied and implied that I'd never responded

You're still lying, and refusing to acknowledge that I exceeded you in
length and number of cites.

Those two items aren't subjective AT ALL.

Which is why you keep running...
Post by Hank Sienzant
by naming the shooter(s)
Name this logical fallacy.
Post by Hank Sienzant
and provide the evidence to the weapon(s) used.
Name this logical fallacy. (Hint: same as above...)
Post by Hank Sienzant
You put on your track shoes back in this thread.
YOU'VE BEEN RUNNING EVER SINCE I CITED THE PROOF THAT YOU LIED ABOUT
ME NOT RESPONDING TO YOUR SCENARIO.

I'm waiting...


And, lest you forget the proof of your cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Bud
2024-01-04 20:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
It is done that way.
"Sheriff’s forensic experts reviewing the case last September combined two partial prints of the same finger from the Ford’s steering wheel and submitted the result to the FBI. The match was from a 1956 burglary conviction."
https://camemorial.org/honor-roll/tribute/richard-a-phillips/
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/iafis-fingerprint-search-solves-45-year-old-double-police-officer
It is valid science, just another thing you have to contrive reasons to disregard in order to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
"On what basis do you accept the authenticity of the fingerprint? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?"
OMG, I sound like Hank !!!
ROFLMAO
Your babbling non sequitur doesn`t address what I showed.

Scalise used valid techniques in order to determine that it was Oswald`s prints on the rifle. Making childish noises doesn`t impact that reality.

This is another example of consilience, a concept you and Ben have shown yourself to have no understanding of.

"In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions."

The paperwork from Klein`s, the photos of Oswald holding the rifle, prints found by two fingerprint experts, the testimony of Oswald`s wife, someone saying they saw Oswald shoot Kennedy, shells and rifle found in Oswald`s workplace and various other evidence converge on one strong conclusion. This was Oswald`s rifle.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 20:58:34 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 12:56:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

You can run, Chickenshit - but you can't hide!
Post by Bud
Your babbling non sequitur doesn`t address what I showed.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 15:42:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 03:25:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 15:42:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
detail, and number of cites - HE POSTED NOT A *SINGLE* CITATION!

It would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask why believers
constantly ask us to cite, yet refuse to do so themselves.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
No.
Post by Gil Jesus
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this. Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,
and compare it to Oswald.

Specifics get believers in trouble.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.
Post by Gil Jesus
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
OUCH!

Huckster will run from this fact.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 17:00:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 10:42:21 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
...
Post by Ben Holmes
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
I claimed Oswald was the assassin and thus far have presented four items of evidence pointing to that. I've linked the C2766 rifle found in the Depository to the C2766 rifle in the archives, and the C2766 rifle in the archives to photographs of Oswald holding that very weapon, and the C2766 rifle shipped from Klein's to Oswald's PO Box 2915.

* ITEM 1 *
Cited the evidence that the C2766 rifle was found in the Depository.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any recollection as to what the serial number was of that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I recorded it at the time, C--2566.
Mr. BELIN. Before you say that----
Mr. DAY. C-2766, excuse me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
== unquote ==

* ITEM 2 *
Cited the evidence that the C2766 rifle in the National Archives is the same one held by Oswald in the backyard photos.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
== quote ==
a. A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent.
b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas Police, that appears in various post assassination photographs.
== unquote ==

* ITEM 3 *
Cited the evidence that PO Box 2915 was opened by Oswald.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 3," and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. That is a photostatic copy of the original box rental application covering the rental of box 2915, at the main post office in Dallas, Tex. which shows that it was completed on October the 9th, 1962. The applicants name was Lee H. Oswald, home address, 3519 Fairmore Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Signed Lee H. Oswald. It shows that the box was closed on May 14, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, it is stamped date box opened, October 9, 1962. And that is the same date that it appears to be written in handwriting at the bottom of it.
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
== UNQUOTE ==

* ITEM 4 *
Cited the evidence that Klein's shipped the C2766 rifle to the PO Box 2915.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
==UNQUOTE ==

Ben pretends none of this evidence was presented here ("Huckster is terrified of citing for his empty claims").

But I have cited, and it has been ignored by him. Because he can't argue this evidence.

Ben isn't arguing over the evidence, because he has learned what Gil has yet to learn, the evidence points to Oswald, and only Oswald.

Gil has no knowledge of how ballistic matching is done, or how 15 years of corrosion or firing 45 bullets through a barrel can change the microscopic markings, he doesn't understand what's admissible evidence, he doesn't understand how a case is built. He won't admit to any of that, but eventually, he'll stop discussing the evidence as Ben has learned to avoid it, because it points solely to Oswald.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 17:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:00:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
...
Post by Ben Holmes
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
I claimed...
Then ran from citing for several posts... Much like this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-06 01:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
...
Post by Ben Holmes
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
I claimed Oswald was the assassin and thus far have presented four items of evidence pointing to that. I've linked the C2766 rifle found in the Depository to the C2766 rifle in the archives, and the C2766 rifle in the archives to photographs of Oswald holding that very weapon, and the C2766 rifle shipped from Klein's to Oswald's PO Box 2915.
* ITEM 1 *
Cited the evidence that the C2766 rifle was found in the Depository.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any recollection as to what the serial number was of that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I recorded it at the time, C--2566.
Mr. BELIN. Before you say that----
Mr. DAY. C-2766, excuse me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
== unquote ==
* ITEM 2 *
Cited the evidence that the C2766 rifle in the National Archives is the same one held by Oswald in the backyard photos.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
== quote ==
a. A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent.
b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas Police, that appears in various post assassination photographs.
== unquote ==
* ITEM 3 *
Cited the evidence that PO Box 2915 was opened by Oswald.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 3," and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. HOLMES. That is a photostatic copy of the original box rental application covering the rental of box 2915, at the main post office in Dallas, Tex. which shows that it was completed on October the 9th, 1962. The applicants name was Lee H. Oswald, home address, 3519 Fairmore Avenue, Dallas, Tex. Signed Lee H. Oswald. It shows that the box was closed on May 14, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, it is stamped date box opened, October 9, 1962. And that is the same date that it appears to be written in handwriting at the bottom of it.
Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.
== UNQUOTE ==
* ITEM 4 *
Cited the evidence that Klein's shipped the C2766 rifle to the PO Box 2915.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
==UNQUOTE ==
Ben pretends none of this evidence was presented here ("Huckster is terrified of citing for his empty claims").
But I have cited, and it has been ignored by him. Because he can't argue this evidence.
Ben isn't arguing over the evidence, because he has learned what Gil has yet to learn, the evidence points to Oswald, and only Oswald.
Gil has no knowledge of how ballistic matching is done, or how 15 years of corrosion or firing 45 bullets through a barrel can change the microscopic markings, he doesn't understand what's admissible evidence, he doesn't understand how a case is built. He won't admit to any of that, but eventually, he'll stop discussing the evidence as Ben has learned to avoid it, because it points solely to Oswald.
I've posted some of the evidence pointing to Oswald as the assassin.

I refer you to this summary post:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SaQW0WP-yA4/m/H-oNLYRAAgAJ

Ben ignored it all, deleting every one of my points. Gil has again vanished after he made a few claims that were clearly wrong (45 bullets fired through a weapon won't change the microscopic markings used to match bullets to a weapon; putting partial prints together to match to a suspect isn't proper; the chain of custody begins with the first person to discover the item, even if it's a civilian, and if the civilian can't identify it, then the item is inadmissible).

So let's review the items on the table thus far.

1. The testimony of J.C.Day establishes the weapon found in and taken from the Depository was the C2766 rifle.
2. The testimony of William Waldman establishes the C2766 rifle was ordered from and shipped from Klein's to PO Box 2915.
3. The testimony of Harry Holmes establishes the PO Box 2915 was Oswald's PO Box.
4. The analysis of the backyard photos establishes the C2766 rifle in the National Archives is the same weapon Oswald is holding in the backyard photos.

But there's so much more that puts this weapon in Oswald's hands as his weapon. For example, handwriting analysis establishes the Post Office Money Order was filled out by Oswald. For that, we refer to the testimony of handwriting expert James Cadigan of the FBI:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
== unquote ==

This testimony establishes Oswald paid for the weapon purchased from Klein's. The previous testimony established he ordered it from Klein's (Waldman testimony), and had it shipped to his PO Box 2915 (Waldman and Holmes testimony), and that the rifle found in the Depository (Day testimony)was the same rifle in his possession (his fingerprints on the trigger guard and photographs of him with the weapon). The handwriting analysis establishes he also paid for the weapon.

If you pay for a sofa, have it delivered to your home, if your fingerprints are found on it, and there are photographs of you sitting on the sofa in your home, you clearly own that sofa. This is undeniable. But many critics deny all that evidence of Oswald owning the C2766 rifle.

But not Ben. Ben doesn't deny this evidence; he just deletes it and ignores it; holding his hands over his ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" as he runs past this evidence like a scared child past a graveyard on Halloween.

But beyond all this evidence is also the matter of consilience. That is when several separate disciplines all point to the same conclusion, thereby reinforcing the conclusion that each discipline is separately correct. Here we have fingerprint analysis, handwriting analysis, and photographic analysis all pointing to the C2766 rifle being Oswald's. We also have the testimony of three men, one who took possession of the rifle in the Depository, one who designed the system used at Klein's for trackings orders and shipments, and one who was a postal inspector, testifying in turn the weapon they took was the C2766 rifle, the C2766 rifle was shipped to PO Box 2915, and that PO Box 2915 was opened by Oswald.

There is so much more. I have named the assassin and produced much evidence pointing to that person. Ben hasn't yet named an assassin, let alone produced any evidence supporting his claim of a conspiracy with multiple shooters.

So let's move on to more evidence against Oswald. We know Oswald paid for, ordered, and possessed the C2766 rifle. There is no evidence produced that Oswald owned another rifle. And we know that Marina Oswald, Oswald's wife, testified she had seen a rifle in Oswald's possession when they were living on Neely Street, and then again in the Paine garage within a blanket earlier in the year:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
...
Mr. RANKIN. Is this rifle at Neely Street the only rifle that you know of that your husband had after you were married to him?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
...
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
== unquote ==

But when the Dallas Police arrived at the Paine residence on the afternoon of the assassination, Oswald's rifle was missing from within the blanket.

Here's Marina's account:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine.
But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.
== unquote ==

Here's Mrs. Paine's account:
Mrs. PAINE - Yes--I translated the question, asking Marina if she knew if Lee had a rifle, and she said, "Yes"--she had seen some time previously--seen a rifle which she knew to be his in this roll, which she indicated the blanket roll.
...
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; and then translated to the police officers what she had said.
...
Mr. JENNER - In any event, as I recall your testimony, one of the policemen stooped down and picked up the blanket wrapped package about in its center, having in mind its length?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - And when he did that, did the blanket remain firm and horizontal?
Mrs. PAINE - It wilted.
Mr. JENNER - It drooped?
Mrs. PAINE - It folded.
Mr. JENNER - It just folded, and from that you concluded there was nothing in the package?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
Mr. JENNER - In the blanket?
Mrs. PAINE - That's right.
== unquote ==

So on the afternoon of the assassin, the C2766 rifle which Oswald had ordered, paid for, and had shipped to his PO Box of 2915, which he was photographed holding, which he left his fingerprints on the trigger guard, was missing from its normal place within the blanket within the Paine garage.

Because his C2766 rifle had been transported to the Depository.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-08 15:27:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:07:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

How many words did your scenario contain?

Bud
2024-01-04 21:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
detail, and number of cites - HE POSTED NOT A *SINGLE* CITATION!
It would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask why believers
constantly ask us to cite, yet refuse to do so themselves.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
No.
Post by Gil Jesus
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this. Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,
and compare it to Oswald.
Specifics get believers in trouble.
No trouble at all, we look at information correctly.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
OUCH!
Huckster will run from this fact.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Post by Hank Sienzant
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 21:15:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 13:06:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 23:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
detail, and number of cites - HE POSTED NOT A *SINGLE* CITATION!
It would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask why believers
constantly ask us to cite, yet refuse to do so themselves.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
No.
So what are Oswald’s prints doing on the trigger guard in the photos taken by J.C.Day, according to
Scalise? And according to Gil, the photos show *partial* prints (which Scalise identified), so is Gil wrong, or are you about what the photos show?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this.
You didn't watch the FORENSIC FILES link, it was done and resulted in the murder of two police officers being solved 45 years later. Nothing odd about it.
Post by Ben Holmes
Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,
and compare it to Oswald.
Gee, try being honest for once.

I named Fischer, Edwards, and Rowland.
Post by Ben Holmes
Specifics get believers in trouble.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.
He deleted my points! You found those deletions convincing?

I guess you would. Perhaps that’s why you do it so frequently.
You must think others find deleting other people’s arguments convincing as well.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.
I already admitted it, but I also pointed out we have the chain of possession established, and by law, questions about chain of possession don't make the evidence inadmissible.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
OUCH!
Huckster will run from this fact.
It's not a fact circa 1963. Nor is it a fact today. Henry Lee is a pathologist, not a lawyer. Gil is quoting him outside his realm of expertise.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Gee, you deleted my response here. I wonder why.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
Except I've cited the evidence for Oswald buying and possessing the rifle found in the Depository shortly after the assassination. As is typical, you ignored all that evidence.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-05 00:14:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:48:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

Here's the proof that Huckster isn't a man...

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
detail, and number of cites - HE POSTED NOT A *SINGLE* CITATION!
It would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask why believers
constantly ask us to cite, yet refuse to do so themselves.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
No.
So ...
So nothing. My answer is complete.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this.
You ...
You've run from all of the oddities of this case for years...
Post by Ben Holmes
Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.
Here's a perfect example supporting my statement above... Dead silence
on Huckster's part.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,
and compare it to Oswald.
Gee, try being honest for once.
Cite your previous response.

Oh, that's right... it's above in this thread.

Giving names *NOW* doesn't turn my statement above into a lie.

It only proves *YOU* a liar.
I named Fischer, Edwards, and Rowland.
Now cite their testimony that describes the assassin on the 6th floor
in terms matching Oswald.

Or run again like you have already done.
Post by Ben Holmes
Specifics get believers in trouble.
Watch folks, as Huckster runs away again...
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.
He ...
I'm examining *YOUR* cowardice, Huckster.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.
I already admitted it...
Cite where you did this.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
OUCH!
Huckster will run from this fact.
It's not a fact circa 1963. Nor is it a fact today.
Cite for your lie. Oh, you can't, can you?
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Gee...
Golly...
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Gil Jesus
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
Except I've cited ...
You're lying again, Huckster.

Tell us, how many cites were in your scenario that I responded to?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 16:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
What part of the below did you fail to understand?

Here’s the testimony of William Waldman affirming that his company shipped the C2766 rifle to PO Box 2915 (testimony provided in the near future will establish that PO Box was opened by Oswald):

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/waldman.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
==UNQUOTE ==

You can find it above by clicking this link.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SaQW0WP-yA4/m/8Adb3GwBAgAJ
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
Not exactly what he did. Day took multiple images *of the same prints* at different angles and lighting conditions. By finding matches across all the images, he was able to determine it was the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald on the trigger guard. He didn't "piece together partial prints" - he used multiple images of the same prints to identify the prints.
Post by Gil Jesus
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
You fail to understand what Scalise did.
Post by Gil Jesus
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
No, it's like taking the individual original pieces of a Cadillac together - photos of the same prints - and calling it a Cadillac.
Post by Gil Jesus
It's ridiciulous.
Only to you.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
Let's start with Fischer and Edwards and Rowland. All described a young white slender male.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
No, you simply ignored it.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
Could not *positively* identify the bullet. Because they didn't mark it in any fashion.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
What if a civilian finds it? Is he or she supposed to mark it so they can *positively* identify it later? What if he gives it to his boss, another civilian, who does not mark it either?
Is it still admissible? Or do we just discard that evidence entirely?

What if we know who handled the evidence, and it's the second person who handled it who marked it and he says he got it from Mrs. Jones, and she admits to finding it and giving it to him? Still inadmissible if she can't positively identify it as the evidence she found, because she didn't mark it in any fashion? That evidence gets thrown out?

Can you cite for your claim using 1963 standards?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
Yes. And 15 years of corrosion on top of that. You don't understand ballistic matching if you think this is a problem. It is done on a *microscopic level*.

The Warren Report itself has a section devoted to explaining how it works. You apparently never read it, or didn't understand it if you did read it.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#general

== quote ==
Q. How are you able to conclude that a given bullet was fired in a given weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons, Mr. Frazier?
A. That is based again upon the microscopic marks left on the fired bullets and those marks in turn are based upon the barrel from which the bullets are fired.
The marks in the barrel originate during manufacture. They originate through use of the gun, through accidental marks resulting from cleaning, excessive cleaning, of the weapon, or faulty cleaning.
They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the firing of cartridges, bullets through it.
...
Q. Have you examined consecutively manufactured barrels to determine whether their microscopic characteristics are identical?
A. Yes, sir; I have three different sets of, you might say, paired barrels, which have been manufactured on the same machine, one after the other, under controlled conditions to make them as nearly alike as possible, and in each case fired bullets from those barrels could not be identified with each other; in fact, they looked nothing at all alike as far as individual microscopic characteristics are concerned. Their rifling impressions of course would be identical, but the individual marks there would be entirely different.
== unquote ==
Post by Gil Jesus
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
Yes, that would work. Friction of a bullet traveling down the barrel changes the microscopic markings slightly. After 45 shots, those microscopic characteristics would be different. Using undersized bullets for the weapon's barrel would work as well. This is why the bullets taken from Tippit's body couldn't be confirmed as being fired from Oswald's weapon. The bullets didn't pick up the same markings as test bullets, because what they struck in the barrel was random.
Post by Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
So everybody's wrong except you. I find your take on more than a little amusing.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Hank Sienzant
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
I'm the one citing the evidence. You have told us your opinion. And it's an opinion based on ignorance. You think a test bullet fired fifteen years and at a minimum of 45 bullets fired after the weapon was used in a crime should still match. That's ignorance of the basic procedure used to match bullets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_firearm_examination#:~:text=Although%20bullet%20striations%20are%20individualized,weapon%20found%20at%20a%20scene.

Here's what WIKI Says About Your Failure to Understand:
"Although bullet striations are individualized unique evidence, microscopic striations in the barrel of the weapon are subject to change slightly, after each round that is fired.[1] For this reason, forensic ballistics examiners may not fire more than five shots from a weapon found at a scene.[3]"

After those FIVE shots are fired, you may not be able to match the weapon.

Live and learn. Or not. It's up to you.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 16:46:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 08:30:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

You can't deal with past lies - yet you continue and post new lies
daily...
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-04 17:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 08:30:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
You can't deal with past lies - yet you continue and post new lies
daily...
Ben ignores the cited evidence (as he always does) and desperately tries to change the subject.

I cite the evidence for my claims.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-04 17:23:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:10:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 08:30:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
You can't deal with past lies - yet you continue and post new lies
daily...
Ben ignores the cited evidence
You gave *NOT EVEN A SINGLE CITE* in your scenario, nor in your claims
above.
Post by Hank Sienzant
(as he always does) and desperately tries to change the subject.
You can run, Huckster, but you can't hide in an open forum.
Post by Hank Sienzant
I cite the evidence for my claims.
No, you clearly don't. In neither your scenario or the following:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-03 21:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
You apparently think if you ignore everything that went before and simply repeat your claims, they become more true. They don't, they expose you as repeating falsehoods. This is another in a long line of fringe resets by you.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vj9_hwq-G4I/m/vMCApxhQAgAJ
You quibbled over what I quoted, but offered no corresponding testimony to dispute what Day said.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vj9_hwq-G4I/m/vHbQVgZkAwAJ
As you did initially, you offered no corresponding testimony to dispute that.
You didn't even try. Your claims are false. You won't match the citations to the evidence.
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766, I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle, I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Each citation will tighten the noose around Oswald’s neck just a bit tighter..
You won’t offer any corresponding evidence pointing to anyone else, nor will you name anyone else as a shooter and establish - using the evidence - how they are implicated.
You have no evidence. You have non-expert opinion, you have insults, you have misdirection, you have quotes out of context, and you have logical fallacies. And you have deletions. You simply excise and ignore the testimony you find inconvenient.
None of which meets your own claim about what you can and will do.
In short, your claim above is false, and has been established as false in the past, and in reposting what transpired back in April of 2022, I establish it as false once more. You ran away from the evidence I cited, and offered no evidence in rebuttal. You demonstrably failed before to substantiate your claim. What makes you think this time will be different?
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”

Maybe he can't. So far, I've seen no evidence he can do what he said he could.

Let’s move on to the evidence Oswald was shipped the C2766 rifle. We’ve already seen the evidence that the C2766 rifle was found in the Depository and the conclusions of the HSCA panel that the backyard photos are legit.

Here’s the testimony of William Waldman affirming that his company shipped the C2766 rifle to PO Box 2915 (testimony provided in the near future will establish that PO Box was opened by Oswald):

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/waldman.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
==UNQUOTE ==

Ben said he could “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted…”

Still waiting.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-03 21:55:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:44:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
According to Chuckles, you didn't provide a scenario.

But - of course, you're lying.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ

Why don't you click on that link, AND RESPOND TO THE POST YOU SAY
DOESN'T EXIST.

Or run again, as you do every time...

Lest you forget the proof of your cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Run coward... RUN!!!
Loading...