( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )Nutters don't make assertions. The Lord their Warren Commission makes all of their assertions for them.
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?Nutters don't make assertions. The Lord their Warren Commission makes all of their assertions for them.
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:59:40 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
Conspiracy idiots always believe what they are comfortable believing, truth be damned.What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?Nutters don't make assertions. The Lord their Warren Commission makes all of their assertions for them.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
Did that make them all murderers ?
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.There's a lot you don't know.
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.
No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:determined to have been taken on March 9th or 10th. Oswald purchased the money order used to pay for his rifle on March 12th.
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?The "miscellaneous photographs" in the list include the photos later determined to have been taken in early March of 1963 of General Walker's home and the surrounding area, did it not? Due to construction work in the background, the photos were
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
Did that make them all murderers ?
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.There's a lot you don't know.
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.
No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this who claim that all of these powerful groups with near unlimited resources were behind the assassination and then turn around and say the evidence is thin, weak, spotty at best. If these groups were
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?Nothing that directly implicates him. The evidence that implicates him was mostly at the TSBD.
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which
matched the fibers in the rifle bag. Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the
one that took the backyard photos. Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which
could have been established by the paper trail alone. Mostly it's a list of nothing burgers.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:determined to have been taken on March 9th or 10th. Oswald purchased the money order used to pay for his rifle on March 12th.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?The "miscellaneous photographs" in the list include the photos later determined to have been taken in early March of 1963 of General Walker's home and the surrounding area, did it not? Due to construction work in the background, the photos were
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.Instead of making a positive assertion, Lying and Cowardly Weasel Hank asks Gil to prove a negative.
Eurassys Dragon Sienzant.
What is a negative fallacy?
Formal Fallacy. Definition. Example. When it is claimed or implied that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true, or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Of course, Hank is too cowardly even to make the above claim.
Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this who claim that all of these powerful groups with near unlimited resources were behind the assassination and then turn around and say the evidence is thin,
weak, spotty at best. If these groups were behind it all why not have people say Oswald said he hated JFK? Why not have a dozen fingerprints on the rifle? Why not have the cheek paraffin test be positive? Why not
have six, eight, ten people in the Dealey Plaza stating, "I saw Oswald shoot from that window?" You can't say "A" - they faked the films and wounds and intimidated witnesses - and then say "B" - there's no evidence.
But they do anyway.
To put a bow on this one: the same people who demand "A" and "B" and "C" in the JFK shooting ignore "A" and "B" and "C" in the Tippit shooting. They want direct witnesses in the shooting of JFK. Well, there are
direct witnesses in the Tippit shooting and they still reject it. A good litmus test is the Tippit murder: if a conspiracist rejects all of the evidence in this shooting they sure as hell aren't going to accept the evidence in > the JFK murder.
Conspiracy idiots always believe what they are comfortable believing, truth be damned.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:12:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO
This is an example of your piss poor reasoning abilities.
Why do you think that list of items by itself needs to prove Oswald's guilt.
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
Did that make them all murderers ?
No, just the ones whose rifle and fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. How many
would that be?
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.There's a lot you don't know.
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
When has that ever happened.
I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.
None was needed.
No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
The fool is the one who thinks there needed to be damning evidence among Oswald's possessions.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
Did that make them all murderers ?
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
There's a lot you don't know.
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.
No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this ...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
SMH
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< bullshit deleted >
I'm asking you what specifically on that list ties Oswald to the three shootings.
Am I understanding you correctly that your answer is "miscellaneous photographs" ?
Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned,
That's bullshit.
Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two
separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and
negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those
photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
That's bullshit.
Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
I'm not letting you change the subject.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:Oh the irony!!!
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.I'm not letting you change the subject.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Ok, I`ll play.
No, you won't.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
I'm not letting you change the subject.As merely an average person, I have a problem with it. This is why
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
our jury system works.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned,
That's bullshit.
Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.I'm not letting you change the subject.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.He's also been completely unable to show any "political nature" of the crime. It's mere speculation based on the victim.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO
The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?Nor was he a sharpshooter at the time of the crime - he wasn't even a marksman.
Did that make them all murderers ?
Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?You can't have reasonable debate with dishonest people.
Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
There's a lot you don't know.Indeed!
Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.
No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.And, of course, Chickenshit doesn't believe the proof Bugliosi
uncovered showing that RFK was a conspiracy.
Ironic, as he's currently running from what Bugliosi stated...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:18:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster again shows his inability to reason... Here he demonstrates
his cowardice:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
You are the one telling three lies...
That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
Remember that the claim is they faked three - not one but *three* - photos. Plus a negative (they don't like to talk about this). So that's four fakes. Yes, let's quadruple our chances of being discovered by manufacturing *four* pieces of fake evidenceThat means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
You are the one telling three lies. These items all matched. It is true the positive match isn't 100%
conclusive, but that doesn't mean it isn't probative. If these items didn't match, then they could
have been excluded. If the fibers from the bag didn't match the blanket, then the blanket could
have been excluded as the source, but that isn't the case. Had the imperial reflex camera not
been a match to the negative, it could have been excluded as the camera which took the
backyard photos, but that isn't the case. Had the rifle in the photo not matched the rifle found
in the TSBD, those photos could have been excluded as evidence Oswald owned the rifle, but that
is not that case. You have this silly idea that any one piece of evidence by itself must be 100%
conclusive or it has no probative value. You are an idiot.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.I'm not letting you change the subject.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
Remember that the claim is they faked three - not one but *three* -
photos.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned,
That's bullshit.
Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?OK, Gil, Now that I've answered your questions, let's see you answer mine What evidence was
taken from Ruby's apartment that implicate him in the murder of Oswald? Does the lack of such
incriminating evidence exonerate him in the murder of Oswald?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:04:47?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.I'm not letting you change the subject.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:46:06?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank SienzantI believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned,
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
That's bullshit.
Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
Here's where...
In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg >>
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
My earlier post pointed out ...
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:As I mentioned above, they don't like to talk about the negative. How do you manufacture a fake/composite negative? That is fool proof?
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths. I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera
was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement. Gil
tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth. The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is
that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative,
CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
[quote on]
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
[quote off]
So as anyone can see, it is the negative, not the photos themselves that were matched to
Oswald's camera to the exclusion of all others. Gil leaves this part out in order to push the lie
that Oswald's camera could not be matched to the photos. It was matched to the negative and
the negative was shown to have produced one of the photos. The photos were all similar in
nature and Marina testified to having taken those photos. These are all key elements that Gil
leaves out of his big lie.
As I mentioned above, they don't like to talk about the negative.
Did you miss this question, Gil?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I mentioned above, they don't like to talk about the negative.Says the coward who doesn't like to talk to knowledgeable critics who
make him look the fool.
Gil is likely done in this post. His pattern is to say things, when the things he says are exposed or examined, he disappears. Later he will bring them up again as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths. I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera
was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement. Gil
tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth. The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is
that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative,
CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
[quote on]
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
[quote off]
So as anyone can see, it is the negative, not the photos themselves that were matched to
Oswald's camera to the exclusion of all others. Gil leaves this part out in order to push the lie
that Oswald's camera could not be matched to the photos. It was matched to the negative and
the negative was shown to have produced one of the photos. The photos were all similar in
nature and Marina testified to having taken those photos. These are all key elements that Gil
leaves out of his big lie.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument. That's the conspiracy "Get Out of Jail Free" card for all of this evidence.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths. I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera
was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement. Gil
tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth. The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is
that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative,
CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
[quote on]
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
[quote off]
So as anyone can see, it is the negative, not the photos themselves that were matched toGil is likely done in this post. His pattern is to say things, when the things he says are exposed or examined, he disappears. Later he will bring them up again as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.
Oswald's camera to the exclusion of all others. Gil leaves this part out in order to push the lie
that Oswald's camera could not be matched to the photos. It was matched to the negative and
the negative was shown to have produced one of the photos. The photos were all similar in
nature and Marina testified to having taken those photos. These are all key elements that Gil
leaves out of his big lie.
He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument. That's the conspiracy "Get Out of Jail Free" card for all of this evidence.
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:55:10?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument. That's the conspiracy "Get Out of Jail Free" card for all of this evidence.
Professor Numbnut can't seem to let go of the fact that all of the major pieces of evidence against Oswald in this case
have never been authenticated by the persons who found them.
This includes:
The rifle
The 3 shells found on the 6th floor
The 4 Tippit shells
Oswald's jacket
CE 399
He seems to have a real problem getting past this.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
No, that's his testimony as you can see here: >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
That negative, CE 750 is the negative from which CE 133-B was made.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
No, that's his testimony as you can see here: >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
CE 750 is the camera, not the negative. >https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You don't know the evidence.
You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
That was matched to the camera.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Gil is likely done in this post. His pattern is to say things, when the things he says are exposed or examined, he disappears. Later he will bring them up again as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.Says the guy who thinks the gunsack was 41 inches.
Another winner.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.No, that's his testimony as you can see here: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.CE 750 is the camera, not the negative. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You don't know the evidence.
You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
That was matched to the camera.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:25:57?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil'sNo, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.CE 750 is the camera, not the negative.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You don't know the evidence.
You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
That was matched to the camera.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.
Yes, I conflated CE749 and CE750. It doesn't change the fact...
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument.Did the facts change???
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:25:57?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.CE 750 is the camera, not the negative.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You don't know the evidence.
You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
That was matched to the camera.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.
Yes, I conflated CE749 and CE750. It doesn't change the fact...
ROTFLMAO!!!
Only a believer can say this...
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
SMH
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
SMH
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?Nothing that directly implicates him. The evidence that implicates him was mostly at the TSBD.
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which
matched the fibers in the rifle bag. Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the
one that took the backyard photos. Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which
could have been established by the paper trail alone. Mostly it's a list of nothing burgers.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
same size of delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color.That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
SMH
Yoo Hoo, Gil!
Why did you avoid this post (linked and copied below)
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fn03q13tfeE/m/PXF6sA6dAwAJ On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.You've told three lies in this one post.
The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.Did we not cover this six months ago in detail? Yeah, we did: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SkkX2zeieyo/m/elQMpGQvCAAJ -- quote --
ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
He didn't conclude the fibers came from the blanket, but he did say, the fibers in the bag matched the blanket fibers, which is what John Corbett wrote: "the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag."
Stombaugh testified that the fibers he did find he did match to fibers in the blanket, in all observable microscopic respects.
— quote —
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the color, was the color a match between the fiber found in 140---in 142--and the fiber which is in the composition of 140, the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color matched some of the viscose fibers, the brown viscose fibers in the blanket. Of course, these colors also varied slightly but not to any great extent, not like the diameter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other common characteristics between the viscose fibers found in the blanket and the viscose fibers found in the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter, the diameter of that same fiber would have the
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the green cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony mentioned?133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which are contained in the composition of the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. These matched in all observable microscopic characteristics. Mr. EISENBERG. And those were what?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The color and the amount of twist of the cotton fibers were the same as the color and twist found in these. Mainly the color is what we go by on cotton.
— unquote —
What John said was the absolute truth, the fibers from the bag matched in all observable characteristics the fibers from the blanket. It's not a lie, your claim that it's a lie is false.
Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit
conditions. (139)That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
Shaneyfelt is the photo expert. You are not. He concluded CE 133A and CE133B were taken with the same camera
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(356) Although he could not document absolutely the origin of CE 133-A because its negative was not available, Shaneyfelt concluded that both prints were taken with the same camera since they showed virtually identical background and lighting
-- UNQUOTE --camera because
And what about the negative of 133-B? Is it unclear to you that all three photos are taken of the same person in the same clothes on the same day in the same location (the Neely Street side yard)? Shaneyfelt concluded 133A & B were taken by the same
Here's Shaneyfelt's conclusions about CE 133B (of which CE 749 is the negative) :133-B negative, 11 unique identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print, although the panel notes that in
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 2
Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the
On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)
...
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
Ergo, 133A was likewise taken with Oswald's camera.
Further, the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel determined 133A and 133B were taken with the same camera due to scratch marks on the emulsion that could be seen in first generation prints:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with the test photograph. In the case of the
(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis . Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints' whiteborders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph . (See figs . IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)
(395) This analysis established that the Oswald backyard pictures had been exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera .that the newspapers that appear in the photographs did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192) Aside from the
-- UNQUOTE --
But wait, there's more!
The DeMohrenschildt CE 133A bears Oswald's signature. This establishes that CE 133 was in Oswald's possession. That helps to link it to the Imperial Reflex camera. As the HSCA pointed out:
(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI established
configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general
they?That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
Let's start at the top. Oswald is known to have ordered one rifle, and one rifle only? The one shipped from Kleins bearing the serial number C2766? If that's all we knew, a reasonable person would conclude he's holding the same CE 139 rifle, wouldn't
But didn't Shaneyfelt say there were also no dissimilarities?or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences.Box would be a entirely reasonable one to reach?
So at the very least, a reasonable person have to conclude it was, if not the same weapon, the same make and model of the weapon Oswald ordered? And therefore the conclusion that it's the same C2766 weapon that is known to have been shipped to his PO
And members of the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel went further 15 years later, and concluded using more sophisticated techniques it WAS Oswald's C2766 weapon, right?find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk3.htm
-- QUOTE --
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Thank you.
Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir.
Mr. FITHiAN. Why don't you?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern.
Mr. FITHiAN. As a what?
Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not
Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it wasfinished the same color as the stock.
It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same
Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 134, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even betterillustrates this damage.
I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.that was photographed?
So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
-- UNQUOTE --
Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
They are not lies.
Your claims of lies are falsehoods.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Asked and answered here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/nrLFcg83AgAJArgumentum ad Linkum. Here the Weasling Sienzant runs away by throwing up a link as a squid will squirt ink to hide himself as he weasels away!
You have done a masterful job...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 128:19:19 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,189 |
