I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum. >Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches.
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - he
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum. Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 03:05:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches. It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - hewanted a longer bag,
so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
He started with his faith...
and ended up supporting it.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact.
An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver.
Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey.
Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - he
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
I wanted to know the size of the bag, stupid. That is why I asked about the size of the bag, stupid.On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
That is why I started a post asking someone to supply them. No wonder you can`t figure these simple crimes out.
I started out gathering information, stupid.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heNow the asshole is trying to lie his way out of it by saying he was asking a question about the length of the bag.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
His question was about the size of the flaps. He knew the size of the bag.
And he believed the poster's post that the bag was 41 inches.
He stated, "It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption."
So he bought into the bag being 41 inches.
His problem is that he can't admit he was wrong.
The only one who looks stupid here is you, no matter how you try to wriggle out of it, sir slick.I wanted to know the size of the bag, stupid. That is why I asked about the size of the bag, stupid.On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
That is why I started a post asking someone to supply them. No wonder you can`t figure these simple crimes out.
I started out gathering information, stupid.
The only question you asked had to do with the size of the flaps, not the length of the bag.
Then you stated:
"It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption."
Really ? A 40.2" rifle didn't have to be disassembled to fit in a 38" bag ?
Admit it. You fucked up.
You took some asshole's opinion that the bag was 41" from some forum and bought into it hook, line and sinker.
Then you wanted to add another inch or two to it.
You stated:
"In fact, looking at this photo it seems the flaps are over four, maybe as much as five inches..."
It seems your research skills are only exceeded by your cognitive skills. LOL.
Now that you're called out on it, you're back pedalling, trying to save face.
But you're not squirming out of this one, asshole.
Not even your lone nut buddies want to chime in on this gaffe.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver.Exactly as described by numerous witnesses at the scene who saw the gunman leaving the scene. For example, the Davis sisters (or sisters in law) and Benavides:
Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds? The Commission never did. They said it could have taken over 7.9 seconds or more if the first or third shot missed:
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey.The jacket in evidence appears darker in photographs taken in artificial light than it does in bright sunlight. This is true because of the nature of film.
Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?
So why did he make a bag too short to contain the actual rifle?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
That's what the Kleins business records show...
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver.
Exactly as described...
Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds?
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey.
Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
The evidence establishes...
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - he
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
Now the asshole is trying to lie his way out of it by saying he was asking a question about the length of the bag.
His question was about the size of the flaps. He knew the size of the bag. >And he believed the poster's post that the bag was 41 inches.
He stated, "It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption."
So he bought into the bag being 41 inches.
His problem is that he can't admit he was wrong.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
This is what Huckster's famous for... logical fallacies.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 05:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
That's what the Kleins business records show...
Produce it, let's examine it together...
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver.
Exactly as described...
There you go, lying again.
And unlike Corbutt, Chuckles, or Chickenshit, you *DO* know the
evidence well enough to understand that you're not being truthful.
Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds?Steve Keating, for one: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/152dp7pvUFI/m/MwPcbuqHTT0J
R2Judge, for another. https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5Tv-SPjBw_k/m/5FOMBRuYvAIJ
Tony Marsh... many times, here's just one: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/mSHuS_iv730/m/ghfih-WWwiQJ
John McAdams, yet another... https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/naG8f8ip3lM/m/S4xSgqX7A3wJ
Now, I only needed one to prove you a liar.
This is what believers do all the time, they simply move on, and
absolutely REFUSE to retract previously made statements.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey. Non refutation deleted.
Sheer speculation deleted.Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
The evidence establishes...
That Gil is right.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:23:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
This is what Huckster's famous for... logical fallacies.
Translation:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:17:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 05:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
That's what the Kleins business records show...
Produce it, let's examine it together...
Ben deletes the proof I produce...
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver. >>>Exactly as described...
There you go, lying again.
Ben deletes the evidence...
And unlike Corbutt, Chuckles, or Chickenshit, you *DO* know the
evidence well enough to understand that you're not being truthful.
I understand...
Steve Keating, for one:Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/152dp7pvUFI/m/MwPcbuqHTT0J >>
R2Judge, for another.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5Tv-SPjBw_k/m/5FOMBRuYvAIJ >>
Tony Marsh... many times, here's just one:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/mSHuS_iv730/m/ghfih-WWwiQJ
John McAdams, yet another...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/naG8f8ip3lM/m/S4xSgqX7A3wJ
Now, I only needed one to prove you a liar.
Nope.
We're not examining those person's claims.
Gil is talking about the Warren Commission's argument.
Gil said this as a lead-in to his series of straw man claims:
"Just like the Warren Commission they support."
And I made that clear in my response.
And I provided exactly what the Commission said about the timing of
the shots. You don't get to change the subject to what some other
posters said (some of whom are dead and no longer able to clarify or
defend their claims).
You change the subject from what the Commission said...
This is what believers do all the time, they simply move on, and
absolutely REFUSE to retract previously made statements.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey. >> Non refutation deleted.
I pointed out...
Sheer speculation deleted.Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
No...
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
The evidence establishes...
That Gil is right.
No...
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:long enough to contain the 40.2-inch rifle he was shipped.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?So why did he make a bag too short to contain the actual rifle?
Good question. Remember that Oswald ordered from an advertisement that specified a 36-inch rifle. And he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
So he, not having measured the rifle he received (why would he?) assumed he needed to make a bag longer than 36-inches. He did, making one 38-inches in length from Depository paper, which was long enough to contain the 36-inch rifle he ordered. But not
Oops.
So there he is, on the morning of 11/22/1963, in the Paine garage, with a bag too short to conceal a 40.2-inch weapon. What does he do?
He dismantles the rifle into two component parts, the stock and the barrel, each short enough to conceal within the 38-inch bag he made from Depository paper.
And he smuggles the weapon into the Depository that way, and reassembles the weapon within the sniper's nest as he awaits the arrival of the President's motorcade.
If he realized the rifle was not the 36-inch weapon he ordered, he could have and would have made the bag 42 or 43-inches long, and the rifle would not have to be disassembled.
The fact he constructed a 38-inch bag speaks eloquently to the fact he never measured the rifle he received, and simply assumed it was the 36-inch weapon he ordered.
he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
He dismantles the rifle into two component parts, the stock and the barrel, each short enough to conceal within the 38-inch bag he made from Depository paper.
he probably assembled the rifle previously elsewhere, then put the assemble rifle back in the bag for transport to the SN)
So lets look at Oswald in the Paine`s garage on the morning of the 22nd. He is surprised to find the rifle doesn`t fit in the bag he made. He needs a screwdriver to disassemble the rifle, which he probably wouldn`t
have if he expected the rifle to fit in the bag. It is a garage, and garages often have tools or a toolbox around, so maybe he finds one or knows where one can be found.
So he breaks down the rifle. Now he has two parts, which have the potential to cause problems, They move around, make noise when they hit each other, and can possible tear the bag. But he has the solution to
these problems right in his hand. The blanket the rifle was stored in. It deadens sound, and can be used to cushion parts. But instead he drops the parts in the bag and goes on his way.
Or, he opts to find a way to make the bag work with a rifle that isn`t disassembled.
I can go deeper on that, but I`ll leave it there for now. But I will say this, I`m am confident I could take the full assassination rifle, put it in the bag in evidence and lay it on the backseat of a car in such a way as there
would be no part of the rifle visible.
If he realized the rifle was not the 36-inch weapon he ordered, he could have and would have made the bag 42 or 43-inches long, and the rifle would not have to be disassembled.
I think there is little doubt he didn`t have the rifle on hand when he made the bag. If he had the rifle handy he would just manufacture the bag around the rifle.
The fact he constructed a 38-inch bag speaks eloquently to the fact he never measured the rifle he received, and simply assumed it was the 36-inch weapon he ordered.
The common assumption (from CTers and LNers alike) is that the rifle needed to be broken down to fit in the bag. I`m not convinced this was a necessity.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:59:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Source ?he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
Source ?He dismantles the rifle into two component parts, the stock and the barrel, each short enough to conceal within the 38-inch bag he made from Depository paper.
he probably assembled the rifle previously elsewhere, then put the assemble rifle back in the bag for transport to the SN)Probably ? What did the FBI say about markings inside the bag ?
So lets look at Oswald in the Paine`s garage on the morning of the 22nd. He is surprised to find the rifle doesn`t fit in the bag he made. He needs a screwdriver to disassemble the rifle, which he probably wouldn`tMaybe ?
have if he expected the rifle to fit in the bag. It is a garage, and garages often have tools or a toolbox around, so maybe he finds one or knows where one can be found.
So he breaks down the rifle. Now he has two parts, which have the potential to cause problems, They move around, make noise when they hit each other, and can possible tear the bag. But he has the solution toSource ?
these problems right in his hand. The blanket the rifle was stored in. It deadens sound, and can be used to cushion parts. But instead he drops the parts in the bag and goes on his way.
Or, he opts to find a way to make the bag work with a rifle that isn`t disassembled.???????
I can go deeper on that, but I`ll leave it there for now. But I will say this, I`m am confident I could take the full assassination rifle, put it in the bag in evidence and lay it on the backseat of a car in such a way as thereAnd make it look like it was only 27 inches long ?
would be no part of the rifle visible.
But the Commission said and PROVED that the bag was 38 inches longIf he realized the rifle was not the 36-inch weapon he ordered, he could have and would have made the bag 42 or 43-inches long, and the rifle would not have to be disassembled.
I think there is little doubt he didn`t have the rifle on hand when he made the bag. If he had the rifle handy he would just manufacture the bag around the rifle.You still haven't gotten that 40" rifle in the 38" bag.
The fact he constructed a 38-inch bag speaks eloquently to the fact he never measured the rifle he received, and simply assumed it was the 36-inch weapon he ordered.
The common assumption (from CTers and LNers alike) is that the rifle needed to be broken down to fit in the bag. I`m not convinced this was a necessity.It's not an assumption is simple math.
You've proven NOTHING here, just a lot of hot air opinons and speculation.
You haven't proven Klein's shipped a 40.2 rifle because it ran out of 36s.
You haven't proven the rifle was broken down.
You haven't proven that Oswald used a screwdriver in the Paine garage.
You haven't proven that Oswald assembled the rifle in the TSBD on the morning of the assassination.
You haven't proven the bag was 42 or 43 inches long.
You haven't proven the rifle was even in the bag.
Maybe, could have, probably...all buzz words LNers use when they don't have any evidence to prove what they say.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 3:00:42?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:59:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Source ?
he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
Who are you asking?
Don`t you understand how the ">"s work, stupid?
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:23:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper >>>>>
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
This is what Huckster's famous for... logical fallacies.
Translation:Huckster Sienzant is famous in this forum for the logical fallacies he
uses, yet can't name.
Let me know if you need any more help with that.
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?
Or will you dodge and run away again?
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:17:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 05:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer >>>>> bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
That's what the Kleins business records show...
Produce it, let's examine it together...
Ben deletes the proof I produce...
Presumably, Huckster is speaking about this:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
But this is a LOOOOONNNG way away from proving that Oswald owned a Mannlicher Carcano.
Indeed, the complete lack of any cleaning equipment, rounds, ANYTHING related to owning a rifle is completely missing from the inventory of
what he owned.
Huckster's well aware of the evidence he's lying by omission about...
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver. >>>Exactly as described...
There you go, lying again.
Ben deletes the evidence...
You are flat lying.
You know full well the evidence for an automatic
being used in this case, and you then pretend that eyewitnesses
DESCRIBED the revolver.
This is both a lie of omission, and a logical fallacy.
And unlike Corbutt, Chuckles, or Chickenshit, you *DO* know the
evidence well enough to understand that you're not being truthful.
I understand...
No you don't.
Steve Keating, for one:Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/152dp7pvUFI/m/MwPcbuqHTT0J
R2Judge, for another.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5Tv-SPjBw_k/m/5FOMBRuYvAIJ
Tony Marsh... many times, here's just one:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/mSHuS_iv730/m/ghfih-WWwiQJ
John McAdams, yet another...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/naG8f8ip3lM/m/S4xSgqX7A3wJ
Now, I only needed one to prove you a liar.
Nope.
You asked who said it... implying that no believer has ever said this
- although this is EXACTLY what Gil pointed out.
I've answered the question, proving you a liar.
We're not examining those person's claims.Yes moron, that's EXACTLY what we're doing.
Gil made that clear... and you're desperately trying to change what he clearly stated into something else... AFTER you just got spanked again
by me.
Gil is talking about the Warren Commission's argument.So you believe that that when Gil said: "Everytime they can't deal
with the evidence, they just revise the evidence." he was referring to
the WC.
YOU'RE A MORON AND A VERY *STUPID* LIAR!
And clearly, you're at the point of molesting your own mother when you
read what Gil said, and assert that you think that he's talking about
the WC. It's CRYSTAL CLEAR what he's talking about.
Gil said this as a lead-in to his series of straw man claims:That was an aside, not a lead in.
"Just like the Warren Commission they support."
And provably so.
As demonstrated by his first sentence, his first, second, third and
fourth paragraphs, and concluding sentence.
You're simply a liar... desperately trying to get out of the mess
you've dropped YOURSELF into.
And I made that clear in my response.You asked the question, I spanked you with answers you thought I
couldn't give.
This happens ALL the time... believers honestly think that they can
stump us with questions we won't answer...
Yet I've embarrassed believers time and time again... and asked
questions no believer has EVER dared answer.
You included.
Do you need an example to run from?
And I provided exactly what the Commission said about the timing ofYou asked the question - you got a legitimate answer.
the shots. You don't get to change the subject to what some other
posters said (some of whom are dead and no longer able to clarify or defend their claims).
You tried to imply a lie... and you got spanked for it.
You change the subject from what the Commission said...
Gil was speaking about believers, you asked **WHO** had said that. You didn't ask which "investigation" came to that conclusion.
You're twisting in the wind right now... desperate to get away from
the proof that you're a liar.
Gil spanked you.
I just supported it with the evidence you implied didn't exist.
Notice that Huckster's embarrassed that he asked a question so easilyThis is what believers do all the time, they simply move on, and
absolutely REFUSE to retract previously made statements.
and correctly answered.
Non refutation deleted.Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey.
I pointed out...
What part of "non refutation" didn't you understand?
Sheer speculation deleted.Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
No...
Yes.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
The evidence establishes...
That Gil is right.
No...
Yes.
Take your spanking like a man, and learn from it.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:58:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:08:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:17:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 05:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - he >>>>>>> wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer >>>>>>> bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.All of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it off
as fact. An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any
corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
That's what the Kleins business records show...
Produce it, let's examine it together...
Ben deletes the proof I produce...
Presumably, Huckster is speaking about this:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
But this is a LOOOOONNNG way away from proving that Oswald owned a
Mannlicher Carcano.
Indeed, the complete lack of any cleaning equipment, rounds, ANYTHING
related to owning a rifle is completely missing from the inventory of
what he owned.
Huckster's well aware of the evidence he's lying by omission about...
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver. >>>>>Exactly as described...
There you go, lying again.
Ben deletes the evidence...
You are flat lying.
You know full well the evidence for an automatic
being used in this case, and you then pretend that eyewitnesses
DESCRIBED the revolver.
I quoted ...
This is both a lie of omission, and a logical fallacy.
And unlike Corbutt, Chuckles, or Chickenshit, you *DO* know the
evidence well enough to understand that you're not being truthful.
I understand...
No you don't.
You ...
Steve Keating, for one:Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/152dp7pvUFI/m/MwPcbuqHTT0J
R2Judge, for another.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5Tv-SPjBw_k/m/5FOMBRuYvAIJ
Tony Marsh... many times, here's just one:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/mSHuS_iv730/m/ghfih-WWwiQJ
John McAdams, yet another...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/naG8f8ip3lM/m/S4xSgqX7A3wJ
Now, I only needed one to prove you a liar.
Nope.
You...
I've answered the question, proving you a liar.
We're not examining those person's claims.Yes moron, that's EXACTLY what we're doing.
Gil made that clear... and you're desperately trying to change what he
clearly stated into something else... AFTER you just got spanked again
by me.
Gil is talking about the Warren Commission's argument.So you believe that that when Gil said: "Everytime they can't deal
with the evidence, they just revise the evidence." he was referring to
the WC.
YOU'RE A MORON AND A VERY *STUPID* LIAR!
And clearly, you're at the point of molesting your own mother when you
read what Gil said, and assert that you think that he's talking about
the WC. It's CRYSTAL CLEAR what he's talking about.
Gil said this as a lead-in to his series of straw man claims:That was an aside, not a lead in.
"Just like the Warren Commission they support."
And provably so.
As demonstrated by his first sentence, his first, second, third and
fourth paragraphs, and concluding sentence.
You're simply a liar... desperately trying to get out of the mess
you've dropped YOURSELF into.
I cited ...
And I made that clear in my response.You asked the question, I spanked you with answers you thought I
couldn't give.
This happens ALL the time... believers honestly think that they can
stump us with questions we won't answer...
Yet I've embarrassed believers time and time again... and asked
questions no believer has EVER dared answer.
You included.
Do you need an example to run from?
And I provided exactly what the Commission said about the timing ofYou asked the question - you got a legitimate answer.
the shots. You don't get to change the subject to what some other
posters said (some of whom are dead and no longer able to clarify or
defend their claims).
You...
You tried to imply a lie... and you got spanked for it.
You change the subject from what the Commission said...
Gil was speaking about believers, you asked **WHO** had said that. You
didn't ask which "investigation" came to that conclusion.
You're twisting in the wind right now... desperate to get away from
the proof that you're a liar.
Gil spanked you.
I just supported it with the evidence you implied didn't exist.
This is what believers do all the time, they simply move on, and
absolutely REFUSE to retract previously made statements.
Notice that Huckster's embarrassed that he asked a question so easily
and correctly answered.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey. >>>> Non refutation deleted.
I pointed out...
What part of "non refutation" didn't you understand?
Sheer speculation deleted.Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
No...
Yes.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
The evidence establishes...
That Gil is right.
No...
Yes.
Take your spanking like a man, and learn from it.
Your ability...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:57:18 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:not long enough to contain the 40.2-inch rifle he was shipped.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?So why did he make a bag too short to contain the actual rifle?
Good question. Remember that Oswald ordered from an advertisement that specified a 36-inch rifle. And he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
So he, not having measured the rifle he received (why would he?) assumed he needed to make a bag longer than 36-inches. He did, making one 38-inches in length from Depository paper, which was long enough to contain the 36-inch rifle he ordered. But
determined for certain. What I was looking at is whether it was necessary to break the rifle down, or was there a work around?Oops.
So there he is, on the morning of 11/22/1963, in the Paine garage, with a bag too short to conceal a 40.2-inch weapon. What does he do?That is exactly what I was exploring, what did he do? Or more importantly, what did he *have* to do? Did he have to break down the rifle in order to conceal it or could he make this bag work without disassembling the rifle?
He dismantles the rifle into two component parts, the stock and the barrel, each short enough to conceal within the 38-inch bag he made from Depository paper.Is that what Cardigan concluded? I honestly don`t know.
And he smuggles the weapon into the Depository that way, and reassembles the weapon within the sniper's nest as he awaits the arrival of the President's motorcade.That could very well be what he did. In fact, it would be what I would bet (with a minor change, I think he probably assembled the rifle previously elsewhere, then put the assemble rifle back in the bag for transport to the SN) on if the truth could be
So lets look at Oswald in the Paine`s garage on the morning of the 22nd. He is surprised to find the rifle doesn`t fit in the bag he made. He needs a screwdriver to disassemble the rifle, which he probably wouldn`t have if he expected the rifle to fitin the bag. It is a garage, and garages often have tools or a toolbox around, so maybe he finds one or knows where one can be found. So he breaks down the rifle. Now he has two parts, which have the potential to cause problems, They move around, make
Or, he opts to find a way to make the bag work with a rifle that isn`t disassembled.rifle visible.
I can go deeper on that, but I`ll leave it there for now. But I will say this, I`m am confident I could take the full assassination rifle, put it in the bag in evidence and lay it on the backseat of a car in such a way as there would be no part of the
If he realized the rifle was not the 36-inch weapon he ordered, he could have and would have made the bag 42 or 43-inches long, and the rifle would not have to be disassembled.I think there is little doubt he didn`t have the rifle on hand when he made the bag. If he had the rifle handy he would just manufacture the bag around the rifle.
The fact he constructed a 38-inch bag speaks eloquently to the fact he never measured the rifle he received, and simply assumed it was the 36-inch weapon he ordered.Like I said, I was exploring different options. The common assumption (from CTers and LNers alike) is that the rifle needed to be broken down to fit in the bag. I`m not convinced this was a necessity.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Logical fallacy deleted.
You can't cite for lies... deleted.
You need a quote?
Me.
No.
Answered the question. Yes.
To correct your lies is still beyond dispute.
Huckster Sienzant Is So Dumb That He Believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:18:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:JFK's neck wound was dissected".
Huckster Sienzant Is So Dumb That He Believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.Watch, as Ben commits yet another logical fallacy, and Hank not only names it, but cites for it.
This one is called a "red herring", or changing the subject. Ben couldn't rebut any of the evidence I cited (and didn't even try) so he instead now tries the logical fallacy of changing the subject.
And within that change of subject post, he again commits a Begging the Question claim twice!
He claims I am somehow "TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the Autopsy Report" but doesn't explain how he knows that, and in fact, can't know that (short of mind reading), and he asserts I made "the baseless and lyiing claim that
Neither claim by Ben is supported by citations by Ben. But again, this is two logical fallacies imbedded within a post that is an attempt to change the subject, another logical fallacy by Ben.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:18:18?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster Sienzant Is So Dumb That He Believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
Watch, as Ben ...
He claims I am somehow "TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that
precedes that in the Autopsy Report" but doesn't explain how he knows
that,
and in fact, can't know that
(short of mind reading),
and he asserts I made "the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's
neck wound was dissected".
Neither claim by Ben is supported by citations by Ben.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:37:32?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:18:18?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster Sienzant Is So Dumb That He Believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
Ben is so desperate...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:37:32?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:18:18?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster Sienzant Is So Dumb That He Believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
Ben is so desperate...
Huckster is so desperate that he's doing everything he can not to
answer this post.
Remember folks, I predicted it!
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:59:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:not long enough to contain the 40.2-inch rifle he was shipped.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:57:18 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?So why did he make a bag too short to contain the actual rifle?
Good question. Remember that Oswald ordered from an advertisement that specified a 36-inch rifle. And he was instead shipped a 40.2-inch weapon, as Kleins had run out of the shorter weapon.
So he, not having measured the rifle he received (why would he?) assumed he needed to make a bag longer than 36-inches. He did, making one 38-inches in length from Depository paper, which was long enough to contain the 36-inch rifle he ordered. But
be determined for certain. What I was looking at is whether it was necessary to break the rifle down, or was there a work around?Oops.
So there he is, on the morning of 11/22/1963, in the Paine garage, with a bag too short to conceal a 40.2-inch weapon. What does he do?That is exactly what I was exploring, what did he do? Or more importantly, what did he *have* to do? Did he have to break down the rifle in order to conceal it or could he make this bag work without disassembling the rifle?
He dismantles the rifle into two component parts, the stock and the barrel, each short enough to conceal within the 38-inch bag he made from Depository paper.Is that what Cardigan concluded? I honestly don`t know.
And he smuggles the weapon into the Depository that way, and reassembles the weapon within the sniper's nest as he awaits the arrival of the President's motorcade.That could very well be what he did. In fact, it would be what I would bet (with a minor change, I think he probably assembled the rifle previously elsewhere, then put the assemble rifle back in the bag for transport to the SN) on if the truth could
fit in the bag. It is a garage, and garages often have tools or a toolbox around, so maybe he finds one or knows where one can be found. So he breaks down the rifle. Now he has two parts, which have the potential to cause problems, They move around, makeSo lets look at Oswald in the Paine`s garage on the morning of the 22nd. He is surprised to find the rifle doesn`t fit in the bag he made. He needs a screwdriver to disassemble the rifle, which he probably wouldn`t have if he expected the rifle to
the rifle visible.Or, he opts to find a way to make the bag work with a rifle that isn`t disassembled.
I can go deeper on that, but I`ll leave it there for now. But I will say this, I`m am confident I could take the full assassination rifle, put it in the bag in evidence and lay it on the backseat of a car in such a way as there would be no part of
bag without the flap, which would make the bag longer, but then, in the Depository while awaiting the motorcade, he would have to pull the tape off the bottom, create a flap, lick the used tape and reapply it to the flap.According to the FBI, and testimony, the paper tape came out of the machine wet, and ready to be applied. The bag was therefore made within the Depository, within a minute or two of pulling the tape out. To get around this, Oswald could have made theIf he realized the rifle was not the 36-inch weapon he ordered, he could have and would have made the bag 42 or 43-inches long, and the rifle would not have to be disassembled.I think there is little doubt he didn`t have the rifle on hand when he made the bag. If he had the rifle handy he would just manufacture the bag around the rifle.
The fact he constructed a 38-inch bag speaks eloquently to the fact he never measured the rifle he received, and simply assumed it was the 36-inch weapon he ordered.Like I said, I was exploring different options. The common assumption (from CTers and LNers alike) is that the rifle needed to be broken down to fit in the bag. I`m not convinced this was a necessity.
I don't see the necessity or a reason to do this. The bag was manufactured once, within the Depository, from Depository paper and tape.
Regarding ...
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
SMH
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:08:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. >> No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
SMH
Here's the problem:
Evidence exists for all that stuff.
Multiple investigations have examined the evidence and concluded it is legitimate.
You reject all that evidence, and don't accept it.
If those multiple investigations haven't convinced you the evidence
exists,
my repeating their conclusions here (and citing for them)
won't convince you either.
So what kind of conversation regarding this event can we have if you
reject all the evidence and all the conclusions from the
investigations that have concluded Oswald kill the President?
What's your purpose in posting your conclusions here but refusing to
discuss how you reached those conclusions here?
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:08:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Why would you expect there to be.
He was photographed with the rifle.
His palm print was on the rifle.
A logical inference can be drawn that he picked up the rifle.
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
You're lying. A 38 inch package was found in the TSBD with his prints on it.
No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Another lie.
No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
Still more lies. He worked in the building with the materials to make the bag. Do you think they
kept a guard around that station?
No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
Another lie. Fibers matching his rifle blanket were found in the bag.
No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Jesus, even for you that's a whopper. Shells from that rifle were found at the window where
the shooter was seen.
No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
Fibers matching his shirt were on the butt plate.
No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
Howard Brennan said in sworn testimony he saw Oswald there. Sworn testimony is evidence.
No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
We have evidence he went to Irving and returned to work with the rifle.
No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
None is needed.
No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
He constructed the bag. He went to Irving to get his rifle. He brought it to work. That establishes
forethought.
And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:54:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:How is asking for the facts about the bag "bullshit"?
It's also interesting to see how a believer does "research" - heAll of these lone nut trolls make me laugh.
wanted a longer bag, so he went looking INTENTIONALLY for a longer
bag. The actual facts were of no interest to Chickenshit.
They come here all high and mighty, proclaiming themselves to be the "sane" ones
here to straighten out the "kooks" and then they come up with bullshit like this.
This mental midget found some asshole's opinion on a forum and tried to pass it offAss backwards as usual. I searched for the dimensions of the bag and this came up. I first started looking through Day`s, Frazier`s and Cadigan`s testimony and came up empty so I tried general google searches.
as fact.
An opinion, BTW, that has no basis in fact and is not supported by any corroborating evidence.
That's what he calls "research".I found and posted a link to the actual bag, stupid. That was what I called research, stupid.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce142.jpg
Should we expect any more from these LN trolls ?
Just like the Warren Commission they support.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.You do better with strawmen than the actual arguments.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver. Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds.
Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey. Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.We just look at it correctly.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:49:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:08:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office.
Why would you expect there to be.Normal postal regulations.
He was photographed with the rifle.Is that what you believe?
His palm print was on the rifle.Not according to the best evidence...
A logical inference can be drawn that he picked up the rifle.So you agree that there's no evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle
at the Dallas Post Office.
Why didn't you just say that?
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
You're lying. A 38 inch package was found in the TSBD with his prints on it. You're lying.
Simply another logical fallacy on your part.
No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Another lie.Indeed. On your part.
Notice folks, that Corbutt cited *NOTHING*.
No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
Still more lies. He worked in the building with the materials to make the bag. Do you think theyNo-one who's read the testimony would call that the truth.
kept a guard around that station?
You're lying again, Corbutt.
No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
Another lie. Fibers matching his rifle blanket were found in the bag. Untrue... another blatant lie.
No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Jesus, even for you that's a whopper. Shells from that rifle were found at the window whereNot much of a heavy thinker, are you?
the shooter was seen.
No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
Fibers matching his shirt were on the butt plate.THE WRONG SHIRT!!! You prove yourself an ignorant moron.
No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
Howard Brennan said in sworn testimony he saw Oswald there. Sworn testimony is evidence.You failed to mention the intimidation Howard Brennan faced.
Indeed,
you're too dishonest to acknowledge what HE said on that topic.
No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
We have evidence he went to Irving and returned to work with the rifle.No you don't. You'll never cite any such evidence.
No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
None is needed.Believers, when faced with a complete lack of motive, start crying...
No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
He constructed the bag. He went to Irving to get his rifle. He brought it to work. That establishesSpeculation isn't evidence.
forethought.
Logical fallacies simply show that you have no facts.And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:59:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
It's not an assumption is simple math.
You've proven NOTHING here, just a lot of hot air opinons and speculation. You haven't proven Klein's shipped a 40.2 rifle because it ran out of 36s.
You haven't proven the rifle was broken down.
You haven't proven that Oswald used a screwdriver in the Paine garage.
You haven't proven that Oswald assembled the rifle in the TSBD on the morning of the assassination.
You haven't proven the bag was 42 or 43 inches long.
You haven't proven the rifle was even in the bag.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum. >> Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
And that is what he said it was.
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 12:00:22?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:12:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:23:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:40:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper >>>>>>>
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Here's the supposed logical fallacy you deleted...
This is what Huckster's famous for... logical fallacies.
Translation:
Huckster Sienzant is famous in this forum for the logical fallacies he
uses, yet can't name.
Let me know if you need any more help with that.
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?
Or will you dodge and run away again?
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
And that is what he said it was.
And you presume that hearsay from some unknown forum poster to be more
valid than the WCR.
Interesting!
Non-refutation deleted.The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
Non-refutation deleted.This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
Whining deleted.When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches. Logical fallacy deleted.
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 11:40:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 10:06:06?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:49:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:08:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Normal postal regulations.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:21:54?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote: >>>>> ".......such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."Why would you expect there to be.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html
Oh boy, another "winner" for Davey boy to post on his blog.
Except that there is:
No evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle at the Dallas Post Office. >>>
Like?You already know the answer.
This is the sort of stupidity that
believers use all the time in order to evade the truth. You have to
teach morons over and over and over again.
He was photographed with the rifle.Is that what you believe?
What reason is there not to?The facts you're intentionally omitting.
His palm print was on the rifle.Not according to the best evidence...
Who cares about your subjective op[inions?Not "subjective" at all.
A logical inference can be drawn that he picked up the rifle.
So you agree that there's no evidence that Oswald picked up the rifle
at the Dallas Post Office.
The photo of him holding it speaks to him picking it up.Another logical fallacy on your part.
Why didn't you just say that?
No evidence Oswald took a 38 inch package to work on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.
You're lying. A 38 inch package was found in the TSBD with his prints on it.
You're lying.
Your denials are menaingless.Your lying is meaningless.
Logical fallacy deleted.Simply another logical fallacy on your part.
Indeed. On your part.No evidence Oswald brought a 38 inch package into the building.
Another lie.
Notice folks, that Corbutt cited *NOTHING*.
No-one who's read the testimony would call that the truth.No evidence that Oswald ever had an opportunity to construct the 38 inch paper "gunsack".
Still more lies. He worked in the building with the materials to make the bag. Do you think they
kept a guard around that station?
There is no reason...
You're lying again, Chickenshit.
You're lying again, Corbutt.
Untrue... another blatant lie.No evidence that the "gunsack" ever contained a rifle.
Another lie. Fibers matching his rifle blanket were found in the bag.
The fact that ...
Corbutt lied shows that he's a liar, yes...
Logical fallacy deleted.Not much of a heavy thinker, are you?No evidence that the rifle was fired on Nov. 22nd.
Jesus, even for you that's a whopper. Shells from that rifle were found at the window where
the shooter was seen.
Chickenshit suddenly couldn't defend the moron...THE WRONG SHIRT!!! You prove yourself an ignorant moron.No evidence that Oswald fired the rifle.
Fibers matching his shirt were on the butt plate.
Logical fallacy deleted.You failed to mention the intimidation Howard Brennan faced.No evidence Oswald knew in advance that the motorcade would pass in front of his place of work.
No evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.
Howard Brennan said in sworn testimony he saw Oswald there. Sworn testimony is evidence.
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed,
you're too dishonest to acknowledge what HE said on that topic.
No evidence that Oswald went to Irving on the evening of the 21st to retrieve a rifle.
We have evidence he went to Irving and returned to work with the rifle. >> No you don't. You'll never cite any such evidence.
Believers, when faced with a complete lack of motive, start crying... Logical fallacy deleted.No evidence that Oswald had any animosity towards the President.
None is needed.
Logical fallacy deleted.Speculation isn't evidence.No evidence that Oswald planned the assassination in advance.
He constructed the bag. He went to Irving to get his rifle. He brought it to work. That establishes
forethought.
Logical fallacies simply show that you have no facts.And even if a man lies about the contents of a package he's carrying, does Davey boy assume that telling that lie is "a solid indication" that the man is a murderer ?
Is every liar a murderer ?
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:02:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 6:05:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:27:41?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 7:11:21?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Except your source is "Tony Fratini", a "new member" posting in a JFK forum.
I know the bag is said to be 38 inches long. How big are the flaps, and are they included in the length (pretty sure they are not)?I found this source, that says the flaps were 3 inches...
"The size of the taped flap at one end was approximately 3 inches, meaning the paper was initially long enough (41 inches) to completely conceal a fully assembled CE 139 with the scope."
https://jfk.boards.net/thread/51/lee-harvey-oswald-construct-paper
It doesn`t seem the rifle needed to be disassembled to fit in the bag. I always thought that was an unwarranted assumption.
Apparently, Mr. "Fratini" never looked at Commission Exhibit 1304, which shows the "bag" alongside a ruler.
The length is 38 inches, just as the Commission stated in its Report ( pg. 133 )
And that is what he said it was.
And you presume that hearsay from some unknown forum poster to be more
valid than the WCR.
Interesting!
The "flap" adds nothing to the length of the "bag" because the measurement was taken from the longest end.
Non-refutation deleted.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol22_480-CE-1304-flap.jpg
Logical fallacy deleted.
Non-refutation deleted.This is what happens when you rely on other people's opinions instead of doing your own research.
Whining deleted.When you use their fuck ups, you end up looking stupid.
Unless you can cite in the official record that the "bag" was 41 inches. >> Logical fallacy deleted.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:52:34 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,293 |
