1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - #38 - Refuted

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 12 08:29:08 2023
    (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession
    on arrest.

    It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far
    stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano.
    However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much
    of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their
    hands on it.

    But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as
    credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in
    Dallas that day who owned a pistol.

    Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere
    possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that
    someone committed a crime.

    Now to help out the falsely maligned B.T George - here's the FULL
    argument:

    38. The revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest at
    the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver,
    serial number V 510210.

    Giving this much detail is a common tactic for liars - who desperately
    try to convince someone of the truthfulness by going into extreme
    detail.

    Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

    Actually no. Handwriting experts will tell that they need ORIGINALS
    to work their craft.

    And owning a revolver has **NOTHING** to do with JFK - who everyone
    accepts was shot by a RIFLE BULLET.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BT George@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Wed Jul 12 10:15:41 2023
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 10:29:12 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession
    on arrest.

    It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far
    stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano.
    However, the same problem exists here as it does for the rifle - much
    of the original paperwork simply disappeared once the FBI got their
    hands on it.

    But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as
    credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in
    Dallas that day who owned a pistol.

    Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere
    possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that
    someone committed a crime.

    Now to help out the falsely maligned B.T George - here's the FULL
    argument:

    38. The revolver in Oswald's possession at the time of his arrest at
    the Texas Theater was a Smith & Wesson .38 Special caliber revolver, serial number V 510210.

    Giving this much detail is a common tactic for liars - who desperately
    try to convince someone of the truthfulness by going into extreme
    detail.

    Handwriting experts found that the mail-order coupon for the revolver contained the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the seller of the revolver sent it to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

    Actually no. Handwriting experts will tell that they need ORIGINALS
    to work their craft.

    And owning a revolver has **NOTHING** to do with JFK - who everyone
    accepts was shot by a RIFLE BULLET.

    Sure it does. The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit by the self-same Oswald on that *very* day. Yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that Oswald was a guilty man on a flight from justice having just killed the
    POTUS. So sure, the existence of ownership and evidence of identity are relevant. Also, while handwriting experts would *like* originals to work with, it's simple nonsense to say that good facsimile cannot produce adequate results. Especially when
    other original exemplars of Oswald's writing did exist to compare them against. They might not be able to identify it as well based on paper indentions and such, but shape of letters, type of words or phrases, are all fair game and can be gleaned from a
    facsimile. And the conclusions they drew look anything but a whitewash or uninformed guesswork as may be seen here as seen by the findings starting mid-page here, for example: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://history-matters.
    com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_HF_2_Conclusions.pdf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to BT George on Thu Jul 13 02:31:13 2023
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit

    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Thu Jul 13 02:38:21 2023
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?

    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.

    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?

    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Thu Jul 13 02:55:20 2023
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:38:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?
    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit

    What "conclusive piece of evidence" ?
    The bullets can't be matched to the gun.
    Was this the only gun in the world that fired undersized bullets ?

    The shells were never identified by the people who found them.
    How do you know those shells weren't fired somewhere else ?
    How do you know those shells weren't fired by the Dallas Police ?

    And you ask: "what does it matter ?"

    This is what you call evidence ? Shit that can't be identified ?
    Sit down and STFU, John. You're ignorance regarding murder cases abounds.
    And you're making a fool out of yourself in front of the whole world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Thu Jul 13 03:49:05 2023
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:55:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:38:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?
    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit
    What "conclusive piece of evidence" ?
    The bullets can't be matched to the gun.
    Was this the only gun in the world that fired undersized bullets ?

    The bullets aren't the damning piece of evidence. The shells are.

    The shells were never identified by the people who found them.

    How would you expect them to do that. One spent shell looks just like another. Once again,
    you place unreasonable demands that aren't required under the rules of evidence. You just
    need excuses to reject this evidence so you come up with this red herring.

    How do you know those shells weren't fired somewhere else ?
    How do you know those shells weren't fired by the Dallas Police ?

    We have the testimony of the people who gathered them. That is enough to establish chain
    of custody. We also have all those witnesses who IDed Oswald at the scene. All of this evidence
    fits together and clearly indicates Oswald killed Tippit. Only a moron would think otherwise.

    And you ask: "what does it matter ?"

    This is what you call evidence ? Shit that can't be identified ?
    Sit down and STFU, John. You're ignorance regarding murder cases abounds.

    Tell us what qualifies you as an expert on the rules of evidence.

    And you're making a fool out of yourself in front of the whole world.

    Now we're getting into your area of expertise.

    In order to believe Oswald was innocent, we would have to believe the cops who gathered the
    evidence engaged in a cover up because they didn't want to find the guy who really killed their
    fellow officer and that all the witnesses who IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man seen
    fleeing the scene with a gun in hand were lying.

    Or we can believe Oswald killed Tippit.

    You're an idiot if you believe the first one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From robert johnson@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Thu Jul 13 06:05:56 2023
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:49:07 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:55:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:38:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?
    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit
    What "conclusive piece of evidence" ?
    The bullets can't be matched to the gun.
    Was this the only gun in the world that fired undersized bullets ?
    The bullets aren't the damning piece of evidence. The shells are.

    The shells were never identified by the people who found them.
    How would you expect them to do that. One spent shell looks just like another. Once again,
    you place unreasonable demands that aren't required under the rules of evidence. You just
    need excuses to reject this evidence so you come up with this red herring.
    How do you know those shells weren't fired somewhere else ?
    How do you know those shells weren't fired by the Dallas Police ?
    We have the testimony of the people who gathered them. That is enough to establish chain
    of custody. We also have all those witnesses who IDed Oswald at the scene. All of this evidence
    fits together and clearly indicates Oswald killed Tippit. Only a moron would think otherwise.

    And you ask: "what does it matter ?"

    This is what you call evidence ? Shit that can't be identified ?
    Sit down and STFU, John. You're ignorance regarding murder cases abounds.
    Tell us what qualifies you as an expert on the rules of evidence.
    And you're making a fool out of yourself in front of the whole world.
    Now we're getting into your area of expertise.

    In order to believe Oswald was innocent, we would have to believe the cops who gathered the
    evidence engaged in a cover up because they didn't want to find the guy who really killed their
    fellow officer and that all the witnesses who IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man seen
    fleeing the scene with a gun in hand were lying.

    Or we can believe Oswald killed Tippit.

    You're an idiot if you believe the first one.


    CUNTbet and his denials.
    Buhahahahahaha.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to robert johnson on Thu Jul 13 07:41:00 2023
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 11:49:07 AM UTC+1, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:55:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:38:22 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?
    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit
    What "conclusive piece of evidence" ?
    The bullets can't be matched to the gun.
    Was this the only gun in the world that fired undersized bullets ?
    The bullets aren't the damning piece of evidence. The shells are.

    The shells were never identified by the people who found them.
    How would you expect them to do that. One spent shell looks just like another. Once again,
    you place unreasonable demands that aren't required under the rules of evidence. You just
    need excuses to reject this evidence so you come up with this red herring.
    How do you know those shells weren't fired somewhere else ?
    How do you know those shells weren't fired by the Dallas Police ?
    We have the testimony of the people who gathered them. That is enough to establish chain
    of custody. We also have all those witnesses who IDed Oswald at the scene. All of this evidence
    fits together and clearly indicates Oswald killed Tippit. Only a moron would think otherwise.

    And you ask: "what does it matter ?"

    This is what you call evidence ? Shit that can't be identified ?
    Sit down and STFU, John. You're ignorance regarding murder cases abounds.
    Tell us what qualifies you as an expert on the rules of evidence.
    And you're making a fool out of yourself in front of the whole world.
    Now we're getting into your area of expertise.

    In order to believe Oswald was innocent, we would have to believe the cops who gathered the
    evidence engaged in a cover up because they didn't want to find the guy who really killed their
    fellow officer and that all the witnesses who IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man seen
    fleeing the scene with a gun in hand were lying.

    Or we can believe Oswald killed Tippit.

    You're an idiot if you believe the first one.
    CUNTbet and his denials.
    Buhahahahahaha.

    Another articulate response.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Thu Jul 13 08:34:59 2023
    On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 02:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43?PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit

    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?

    No.

    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    No.

    Yes or no ?

    I know that no believer will honestly give the correct answer to Gil's questions, so I did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Thu Jul 13 08:37:35 2023
    On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 02:38:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43?PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit
    Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?

    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.


    All you had to say is "no." But you couldn't be honest enough to do
    so...


    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?

    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit.

    ROTFLMAO!!! "Honest" enough to publicly state that there's no chain of
    custody, yet stupid enough to claim that this is "conclusive evidence"
    for his faith.

    What a moron!!!

    No wonder he's terrified of debating me!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Thu Jul 13 08:41:12 2023
    On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 03:49:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:55:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:38:22?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:31:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 1:15:43?PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
    The revolver was involved in the subsequent murder of Officer JD Tippit >>>> Were the bullets removed from Tippit matched to the handgun to the exclusion of all other weapons ?
    Why do you persist with this red herring, Gil. You know, or at least you should know, that
    bullets fired through an oversized barrel cannot be positively matched to the gun that fired
    them.
    Were the shells found at the scene identified by the witnesses who found them ?

    Yes or no ?
    No. Why does that matter? Oh, that's right. You needed an excuse to disregard this conclusive
    piece of evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit
    What "conclusive piece of evidence" ?
    The bullets can't be matched to the gun.
    Was this the only gun in the world that fired undersized bullets ?

    The bullets aren't the damning piece of evidence. The shells are.


    Yet you acknowledged that there was no chain of custody.

    Can't be "conclusive evidence."


    The shells were never identified by the people who found them.

    How would you expect them to do that. One spent shell looks just like another. Once again,
    you place unreasonable demands that aren't required under the rules of evidence. You just
    need excuses to reject this evidence so you come up with this red herring.


    You're lying again, moron.


    How do you know those shells weren't fired somewhere else ?
    How do you know those shells weren't fired by the Dallas Police ?

    We have the testimony of the people who gathered them. That is enough to establish chain
    of custody.


    No it's not. YOU'RE A *DAMNED* LIAR!!!


    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)