It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

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

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

You're pathetic Gil. Just yesterday you deleted an entire post by me in which I pointed out the
fallacies of your arguments about chain of custody and now you want me to answer your question
on the same subject. But since I'm not a gutless coward like you, I'll answer your question.
It is unknown who first spotted the jacket but it was Captain Westbrook that first took
possession of it. He testified to that fact before the Warren Commission. The jacket was tied
to Oswald by fibers matching his shirt.

Now would you like to take a crack at the questions I raised regarding your whining about
chain of custody? Of course it's a rhetorical question because we both know you lack both
the courage and the intellect to take those on.

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

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

What do you mean by "found"?

And how is this information necessary to establish a chain of possession?

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

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:32:12 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

What do you mean by "found"?

And how is this information necessary to establish a chain of possession?

How cute! Bus is not pretending to be stupid! He really is!

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

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:44:32 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

You're pathetic Gil. Just yesterday you deleted an entire post by me in which I pointed out the
fallacies of your arguments about chain of custody and now you want me to answer your question
on the same subject. But since I'm not a gutless coward like you, I'll answer your question.
It is unknown who first spotted the jacket but it was Captain Westbrook that first took
possession of it. He testified to that fact before the Warren Commission. The jacket was tied
to Oswald by fibers matching his shirt.

Now would you like to take a crack at the questions I raised regarding your whining about
chain of custody? Of course it's a rhetorical question because we both know you lack both
the courage and the intellect to take those on.

That's not Pinky Westbrook! https://postimg.cc/hJMcsFs8

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

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 02:21:26 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

No-one will give the correct answer. CERTAINLY not Huckster.

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

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 03:32:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 03:44:31 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.

Question #1: Who found Oswald's jacket ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

It is unknown who first spotted the jacket...

It is also unknown who found the jacket.

Why was that so difficult for you to publicly state?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

The following is another example that Corbett says doesn't exist. Maybe you can set us straight.

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and given to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe.

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but identified the two Western shells allegedly recovered from the Tippit murder scene as the two shells he marked. ( 7 H 69 )

The Dallas Police record however, shows one of the Western shells was found by Virginia Davis.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

QUESTION # 5: Who found that Western shell, Benavides or Virginia Davis ?

And what is the chain of custody for that shell, Benavides to Off. Poe or Virginia Davis to Det. C.N. Dhority ?

Please provide evidence supporting your choice.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

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

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:27:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

The following is another example that Corbett says doesn't exist. Maybe you can set us straight.

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and given to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe.

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but identified the two Western shells allegedly recovered from the Tippit murder scene as the two shells he marked. ( 7 H 69 )

The Dallas Police record however, shows one of the Western shells was found by Virginia Davis.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

QUESTION # 5: Who found that Western shell, Benavides or Virginia Davis ?

And what is the chain of custody for that shell, Benavides to Off. Poe or Virginia Davis to Det. C.N. Dhority ?

Please provide evidence supporting your choice.

It doesn't matter who found them nor who they gave them to. They were positively matched to
the revolver Oswald had in his position when arrested to the exclusion of all other weapons in
the world. We are not conducting a trial here. We have no requirement for COC documentation.
All we need to know is those shells were found at the scene of the shooting and came from
Oswald's gun. Why do you keep trying to exonerate Oswald on technicalities when the evidence
is obvious he murdered two people? Are we supposed to believe ALL the evidence against
Oswald was fabricated? Are we supposed to believe that the entire law enforcement community
involved in investigating the two murders conspired to frame an innocent man while allowing
the real killers of a US president and a police officer to go free? How stupid would one have to
be to believe that? Gil Jesus stupid.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:29:00 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

Who knows? Who gives a fuck? How many times did James Earl Ray make threats against MLK?
How many times did Sirhan Sirhan make threats against RFK? How many times did Sarah Jane
Moore or Squeaky Fromme make threats against Gerald Ford? How many times did John
Hinckley make threats against Ronald Reagan? Do you think assassins typically announce their
intentions in advance? Why do you think your question is the least bit relevant?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:30:47 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

Nobody fucking knows. Nobody fucking cares. We know he obtained it somewhere. He didn't
create it by magic. Why do you think it matters?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:17 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

Again, nobody knows. Nobody cares. That is one of the most common types of ammo for
revolvers and could have been purchased at just about any gun store in the country. Now tell
us why you think it is important to know this.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 03:32:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:29:00?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

Who knows?

Any honest person who's reviewed the evidence.

Clearly, you aren't honest enough to acknowledge the truth.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 03:28:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:27:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ >>
The following is another example that Corbett says doesn't exist. Maybe you can set us straight.

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and given to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe.

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but identified the two Western shells allegedly recovered from the Tippit murder scene as the two shells he marked. ( 7 H 69 )

The Dallas Police record however, shows one of the Western shells was found by Virginia Davis.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

QUESTION # 5: Who found that Western shell, Benavides or Virginia Davis ?

And what is the chain of custody for that shell, Benavides to Off. Poe or Virginia Davis to Det. C.N. Dhority ?

Please provide evidence supporting your choice.

It doesn't matter who found them nor who they gave them to.

Yes stupid, it does.

You couldn't answer...

They were positively matched to
the revolver Oswald had in his position when arrested to the exclusion of all other weapons in
the world.

Cite for that claim. (But you won't.)

We are not conducting a trial here. We have no requirement for COC documentation.

Then you lose.

All we need to know is those shells were found at the scene of the shooting and came from
Oswald's gun.

Both statements are simply your speculation. You can't support either
of them.

Why do you keep trying to exonerate Oswald on technicalities when the evidence
is obvious he murdered two people?

**WHAT** evidence?????

You keep refusing to cite any.

Are we supposed to believe ALL the evidence against
Oswald was fabricated?

What evidence? Cite it. Let's examine it.


How stupid does one have to be to swallow Corbutt's speculations,
fallacies, and inability to cite?

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 03:34:20 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:30:47?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

Corbutt's obscenity filled evasion deleted.

Corbutt can't answer... he KNOWS that the true facts point to a
frameup, but he can't say that.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 03:36:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:17?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

Again, nobody knows...

Certainly not you.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:35:37 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

Corbutt's Answer: "Why would it have anything on it???"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:34:11 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

Corbutt's answer: "Nobody knows, nobody cares. It happened."


ROTFLMAO!!!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:34:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

Did JCS actually do classified U-2 work? I've seen it alleged ad nauseum, but have never seen a source for this. JCS did do some work for Vought Aircraft, but Vought wasn't involved with the U-2 program.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:35:38 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:29:00 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

Prior to his murderous ascent to the UT bell tower, how many times had Charles Whitman threatened the people of Austin or the UT student body?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:30:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

When was the last time that a case was overturned or an acquittal obtained because the prosecution could not demonstrate how and where an accused murderer obtained ammunition?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:17 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

When has a conspiracy hobbyist ever looked at the correct things correctly?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

By applying.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:04:21 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 01:35:37 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

Corbutt's Answer: "Why would it have anything on it???"

That seems to be the right question.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:30:47 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

You mean the ammunition he used to kill Kennedy?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

I`ve never seen where such things were found on the bullet that went through both victims.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:29:00 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

How many times did someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald kill John F Kennedy? Zero.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:14:19 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

I`ve never seen where such things were found on the bullet that went through both victims.

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it. FBI agent Robert
Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
that. He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
examination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:44:51 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:30:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

When was the last time that a case was overturned or an acquittal obtained because the prosecution could not demonstrate how and where an accused murderer obtained ammunition?

I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecutor failed to provide evidence as to where the
accused bought his ammo. We convicted the guy anyway. What were we thinking?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:14:19 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

I`ve never seen where such things were found on the bullet that went through both victims.

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it. FBI agent Robert
Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
that. He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
examination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Fish Part Messiah apparently thinks CSI Miami techniques should've been employed in 1963. Wait for him to ask us to explain why DNA evidence wasn't collected.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:44:13 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:14:19 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering

my questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

I`ve never seen where such things were found on the bullet that went through both victims.

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it. FBI agent Robert
Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
that. He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
examination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Fish Part Messiah apparently thinks CSI Miami techniques should've been employed in 1963. Wait for him to ask us to explain why DNA evidence wasn't collected.

DNA could have told them who got shot. I think they figured that out anyway.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:27:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

The following is another example that Corbett says doesn't exist. Maybe you can set us straight.

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and given to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe.

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but identified the two Western shells allegedly recovered from the Tippit murder scene as the two shells he marked. ( 7 H 69 )

You are simply lying, he never made a positive identification of those being the two shells he handled.

Mr. POE. There were two in an empty Winston cigarette package.
Mr. BALL. Did you save the Winston cigarette package?
Mr. POE. I turned it in with the two cartridges.
Mr. BALL. To the crime lab?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, I have here a package which has been marked "Q"--FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
Mr. POE. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn't swear to it.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
Mr. POE. I can't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.
Mr. BALL. Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think it is 'these two? Q-77 and Q-75?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir; those two there.
Mr. BALL. Both marked Western Special? They both are marked Western Special. How long did you stay there?

You are too stupid to understand qualifiers.

The Dallas Police record however, shows one of the Western shells was found by Virginia Davis.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png

QUESTION # 5: Who found that Western shell, Benavides or Virginia Davis ?

And what is the chain of custody for that shell, Benavides to Off. Poe or Virginia Davis to Det. C.N. Dhority ?

Please provide evidence supporting your choice.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.

Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )

Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )

QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?

Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 12. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?

Please reply withe evidence and not just opinion.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 13: Who was the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and on what date did he pick it up ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 14: Who was the person at the REA office who handed Oswald the handgun and on what date did he pick it up ?

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:29:35 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 15: Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" FOUR MONTHS AFTER the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints ( CE 1952 ) ?

Please reply with evidence and not just opinion.

Just what kind of evidence would you expect there to be which would tell us why?

Do these questions have a point or are you just trying to be a whiny bitch? You are succeeding
at one of those.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 15: Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" FOUR MONTHS AFTER the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints ( CE 1952 ) ?

Please reply with evidence and not just opinion.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:23:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 13: Who was the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and on what date did he pick it up ?

Your questions keep getting dumber and dumber. You expect there to be records of things for
which records are not kept. The fact that you have these questions is proof positive you are
looking at all the wrong things. Do you think by raising unanswerable questions you are doing
anything to exonerate Oswald?

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 12. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?

Please reply withe evidence and not just opinion.

Your question calls for speculation, not evidence.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.

Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )

Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )

QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?

Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.

Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
All four shells in evidence were positively matched to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all
other weapons in the world. That is what matters. Being a CT, you continue to look at the wrong
things incorrectly.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 7:08:47 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:29:00 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

How many times did someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald kill John F Kennedy? Zero.

As is his custom, when the idiocy of Gil's questions are pointed out to him, Gil disappears. If
he had a purpose for these questions or a point to be made, he would address the points others
make, but that's not his game. He is just trying to be a pain in the ass. A slightly less obnoxious
one than his idol Benny Yellowpanties.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:29:35 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 15: Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" FOUR MONTHS AFTER the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints ( CE 1952 ) ?

Please reply with evidence and not just opinion.

This is a good question. If they were found in Paine's garage, then what would be the point in looking for Oswald's prints? It wouldn't mean anything. They wouldn't bother. If they were found somewhere else, then where else where they found? The dates on
the documents indicate that the dusted rods were found before the WC's Paine garage episode. In fact, the Paine Garage Episode reads like Kabuki Theater acted out to explain where the rods were found. But the documents say these were either different
rods, or the same ones found somewhere else. The fact that such an elaborate ruse was employed implies that the curtain rods were found in the TSBD. Where else? It wouldn't prove anything about the assassination, but it would prove that the WC and the
Secret Service were going to great lengths to coverup the truth, whatever it is.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:32:17 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

When was the last time that a case was overturned or an acquittal obtained because the prosecution could not demonstrate how and where an accused murderer obtained ammunition?

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 04:27:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:29:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 15: Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" FOUR MONTHS AFTER the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints ( CE 1952 ) ?

Please reply with evidence and not just opinion.

Just what kind of evidence would you expect there to be which would tell us why?

Do these questions have a point or are you just trying to be a whiny bitch? You are succeeding
at one of those.

Notice folks, that Corbutt couldn't answer the question. Proving
himself a moron & coward is evidently his life goal.

He's succeeding...

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

Fish Part Messiah apparently thinks CSI Miami techniques should've been employed in 1963. Wait for him to ask us to explain why DNA evidence wasn't collected.

Can you name these logical fallacies? Or should I wait for Huckster
to refuse to name them?

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.

And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.

Who said anything about a criminal trial ?

I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.

On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:44:55 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:43:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ

I'd like to know how knowledgeable he is. I have questions, maybe he can answer them.

Aren't you the asshole who said there was documents covering ALL of the evidence in this case ?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

Show us the documentation for the chain of custody of the Benavides shells so we can see which shell, Q-74 or Q-77, was the one he found.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:30:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

You'll NEVER cite for that lie. You can't.

Neither you or Gil will ever show that they tested bullets for blood doing this time period.

FBI agent Robert
Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
that.

Yet another claim you can't cite for.

He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
examination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Sorry stupid, this doesn't support your lies posted above.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:38:30 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.

Nice one, Jerry.
What kind of an expert do you need to tell you that a bullet that makes 7 wounds in two victims, and ends up in the second victim's thigh,
should have blood on it ?

It's a "yes or no" question Jerry.
There are only two ways to answer.
Good luck.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:38:30 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.

Nice one, Jerry.
What kind of an expert do you need to tell you that a bullet that makes 7 wounds in two victims, and ends up in the second victim's thigh,
should have blood on it ?

What kind of idiot would expect blood on it after it was in a couple people`s pockets?

It's a "yes or no" question Jerry.
There are only two ways to answer.
Good luck.

You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question.
No, it's YOU that has nothing.
You prove it every time you post.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

There you go lying again.

Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof
and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting. It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question. >No, it's YOU that has nothing.
You prove it every time you post.

They prove both their dishonesty and their cowardice.

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

There you go lying again.

Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof
and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting. It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

You're only stating the obvious, Gil.

And these morons already know this - they're just too dishonest to
admit it.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:53:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 7:35:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Since we are not conducting a criminal trial here, your questions are irrelevant and immaterial.

And yet, you can't pass one by without responding.

To point out how irrelevant and immaterial your questions are.

Who said anything about a criminal trial ?

You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.

I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.

That's not much to brag about, but he is.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:06:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:34:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecutor failed to provide evidence as to where the
accused bought his ammo. We convicted the guy anyway. What were we thinking? Proffering the rambling thoughts of a proven coward & moron won't

convince anyone.

Because it really helped Jim Jordan, didn’t it.

mk5000

nside,
A phantom haunts my opera.
There's a poem that I just cannot write.
It's been written,
I Am The Me You See...Now
DIGITAL POET

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:39:25 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question.

To your "What about this, huh, huh, huh?" questions? The fact that you have to ask other people about these things is merely an admission that you can`t take them anywhere.

No, it's YOU that has nothing.

I have what you never will, an explanation on the table for consideration.

You prove it every time you post.

Conspiracy forum, I have no conspiracy ideas to sell.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:37:30 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

There you go lying again.

Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof

Proof of what? CE399 had markings that proved conclusively that it was fired by the rifle found on the same floor of the same building where witnesses saw a gunman and where three spent
shells were found, shells that also could only have been fired by that same rifle. Since only one
other fragmented bullet was ever recovered, it doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out the
bullets hit somebody.

and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting.

Ballistic matching already did that.

It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

We don't need to negate that. For some strange reason you think it is significant that witnesses
couldn't say with certainty that CE399 was the same bullet they had handled. Do you think most
people could distinguish one bullet from another?

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:29:00 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

Who knows? Who gives a fuck?

They are not the same but similar things impact both

mk5000

But not scribed,
I've imbibed It,
Lived It,
I breathe it,--DIGITAL POET

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:58:05 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 5:32:55 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

Whether Gil is correct or not he's thread spamming...

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 19: Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the trigger guard of the rifle. Did he photograph the palm print when he found it ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 16: Were the bullet fragments found in the limousine photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:10:28 PM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

Whether Gil is correct or not he's thread spamming...

I post 5 questions a day.
Others, including you, have done more than that.

So GFY.

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:53:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I'm simply asking questions of Hank, who bragged he was more knowledgeable than me.

That's not much to brag about, but he is.

Says the guy who claimed that they didn't dust the rifle for fingerprints at the crime scene.
The evidence determined that was a lie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7uLMSs4KQ

Says the guy who asked, "Why do you keep citing an FBI report that doesn't say JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots ? The highlighted passage does not conflict with the SBT."
The evidence determined that was a lie: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

Says the guy who said, "Gil is speculating as to why Oswald went to Irving. He has no evidence to back up his speculation."
The evidence determined that was a lie: https://gil-jesus.com/the-real-reason-oswald-went-to-irving-on-11-21/

Says the guy who has no recall:
Gil: When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
Corbett: I don't recall ever writing that. I don't recall ever thinking that. The evidence determined that was a lie: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/BI_ZOaLh-30/m/29tla-YeCQAJ

Funny how the guy who has been proven to have little knowledge time and time again can be an expert on who has more knowledge than whom.
ROFLMAO
( 20 questions up there, some of them simple "yes or no" questions, and he still hasn't answered any )

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.

But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.

Why can't you get that through your cement head ?

Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
Where is it ?

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

Of course they didn't, Gil. Lt. Day had lifted the print from the rifle prior to turning it over to the
FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:40:29 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?

The WC did not call every Dealey Plaza witness to testify. Their staff reviewed the statements
and made a judgement call as to which witnesses had information to offer that would help
determine the facts of the case. Below is Bill Newman's affidavit. Tell us what he saw that
couldn't be determined from the Z-film. What did he have to add to the body of knowledge?

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

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Your questions are comical, Gil. Most likely the company that sold him the gun would have
provided that information. Why the hell does that even matter. He knew he needed .38 Special
rounds. We know he knew that because he had those in his pocket and in his revolver when he
was arrested. Why do you keep asking such stupid questions?

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.

But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.

Why can't you get that through your cement head ?

Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
Where is it ?

That's the best you can do, Gil? An article on DNA evidence collection which wasn't even around
in 1963. You assume these current rules for DNA evidence were applicable to all evidence
collection in 1963. You assume the DPD hadn't done any documentation at the time. You
assume such documentation should have been filed even after Oswald's death. You assume it
wasn't. You assume it should have been retained indefinitely. You assume it wasn't. That is a
shitload of assumptions regarding things neither you nor I know the answers to. Your
assumptions are no reason any intelligent person should disregard the available evidence in
determining the truth of the JFK assassination. That available evidence leaves no doubt that
Oswald was the assassin and a cop killer. That is the simple truth that you don't want to accept
so you invent these bogus excuses for dismissing any and all evidence that leads to that
conclusion.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:36:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 16: Were the bullet fragments found in the limousine photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?

The reason you are still confused by a simple case of double murder that was solved 60 years
ago is because you keep focusing on stupid shit like this.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:42:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 19: Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the trigger guard of the rifle. Did he photograph the palm print when he found it ?

Who knows? Who cares? He lifted the palm print from the rifle. Oswald was the only one who
could have left that palm print on the rifle. That is what matters. That is the truth you don't want
to deal with.

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:47:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

Of course they didn't, Gil.

FINALLY!!! AN HONEST AND CORRRECT ANSWER!!!

Lt. Day had lifted the print from the rifle prior to turning it over to the >FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.

You imply that no evidence of the lift would be left. You *KNOW*
that's a lie, don't you?

You couldn't just stop with an honest answer, you needed to toss in a
lie...

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

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

To further expound on why the FBI did not find Oswald's palm print on the barrel of the rifle, I
offer this passage from FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona's WC testimony.

[quote on]
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was
no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as
to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Mr. DULLES. The original print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.
[quote off]

Notice that Latona testified the lifting of the print would remove it COMPLETELY. Ergo no trace
of the print was present when the FBI received the rifle. They received the lifted print on
11/29/1963.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:37:30?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

There you go lying again.

Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof

Proof of what? CE399 had markings that proved conclusively that it was fired by the rifle found on the same floor of the same building where witnesses saw a gunman and where three spent
shells were found, shells that also could only have been fired by that same rifle. Since only one
other fragmented bullet was ever recovered, it doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out the
bullets hit somebody.

CE572 proves you a liar.

Meaningless noise. Ben can never make a counter argument like a man, always vaguely allude to something he can`t support.

and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting.

Ballistic matching already did that.

No, it's didn't. CE572 proves you a liar.

Meaningless noise. Been coming here for decades and have never seen Ben make an adult, supported counter argument.

Notice that Corbutt DENIES all of the medical, and most of the
ballistic expert testimony.

No supported counter argument to be found there, just more meaningless noise.

It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

We don't need to negate that.

*YOU* don't.

That`s what he said.

*YOU* prefer your fantasies to the truth.

For some strange reason you think it is significant that witnesses >couldn't say with certainty that CE399 was the same bullet they had handled. Do you think most
people could distinguish one bullet from another?

99% of non-morons can differentiate a pointy nosed bullet from a blunt
nosed one.

Another non-argument from the forum troll.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.

But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.

Why can't you get that through your cement head ?

Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
Where is it ?

That's the best you can do, Gil?

OK John, YOU'RE the expert on Chain of Custody.
Take us through the process of implimentation of the Chain of Custody Form from the crime scene to the trial.
Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?

I know what I learned in my criminal justice classes and my experiences as a cop, but I
( and I'm sure all the lurkers ) want to hear the process from a REAL expert like you.

Enlighten us.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

The truth is ALWAYS the best someone can do.

Start citing for your wacky beliefs, Corbutt... for until you do, you won't convince anyone.

Good point.
First he said there was chain-of-custody documentation for ALL the evidence in the case.

Then, when he found out that wasn't true, he made up the excuse that the documentation wasn't needed until the trial
and because there was no trial, the documentation was never made.

ALL of the physical evidence in this case was found between the time of the assassination and 3:20 pm on Saturday afternoon.
I asked him how did they know at that time that they didn't need the documentation for ANY of the evidence because they weren't going to go to trial ?
He never answered.

Because the answer is that the cops knew that Oswald wasn't going to go to trial the second he was arrested and the proof of that is that they
never made up the chain-of-custody forms they needed for trial.

Can you feel that ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1MgDvXzgl8

ROFLMAO

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:46:27 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:47:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 4:33:41 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

You keep harping on chain of custody. A trial is the only place such documentation is required.

But the chain of custody documentation is created AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE IS FIRST HANDLED.
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm#:~:text=The%20chain%20of%20custody%20is%20established%20whenever%20an%20investigator%20takes,from%20another%20officer%20or%20detective.

Why can't you get that through your cement head ?

Whether or not there is a trial has nothing to do with the chain of custody documentation.
It may not be REQUIRED to be placed IN EVIDENCE until a trial, but it should still EXIST.
If evidence was collected, there should be a record.
Where is it ?

That's the best you can do, Gil?

OK John, YOU'RE the expert on Chain of Custody.
Take us through the process of implimentation of the Chain of Custody Form from the crime scene to the trial.
Who initiates it and when and where is it initiated ?

Shift that burden. This is your issue, Gil.

Didn`t you claim, but never support, that it is the first person to lay eyes on the evidence?

I know what I learned in my criminal justice classes and my experiences as a cop, but I
( and I'm sure all the lurkers ) want to hear the process from a REAL expert like you.

Enlighten us.

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

To further expound ...

On a lie? Why bother? You can't convince people with lies.

According to Day himself: "I could still see traces of the print under
the barrel..." That demolishes your whining about a print being
completely obliterated when lifted...

Tell us why Day refused to sign an affidavit swearing he'd lifted the
print on the 22nd.

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:47:26 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Of course they didn't, Gil. Lt. Day had lifted the print from the rifle prior to turning it over to the
FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable. In fact, unlike you, I'm learning new things every day.

Lt. Day sent them the lifted print FOUR days after the assassination.
That's AFTER the FBI had returned the rifle to the Dallas Police.

From Wesley Liebeler's testimony to the HSCA:
" Four days later, the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited four days to send this lift to the
FBI, or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though tthe print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle and it was STILL THERE.
Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. IT OCCURRED TO US THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE PALM PRINT NEVER CAME FROM THE RIFLE." ( 6 HSCA 254 )

After examination, the FBI's Sebastian Latona determined that the print had been lifted from the rifle, but when asked why the FBI could not originally detect it,
his response was, "I have no explanation of that". ( ibid. )

The Dallas Police used as an excuse why they didn't send the lift to the FBI with the rifle, that the palm print had NOT been completely lifted, that it was "STILL THERE".
But they told the Commission that it WAS completely lifted. That still doesn't explain why they didn't send the lift on 11/22.
If it were completely lifted, it should have been sent. It wasn't.

And the two different stories the Dallas Police told regarding the palm print indicates that they were lying to somebody.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:56:25 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:47:26 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Of course they didn't, Gil. Lt. Day had lifted the print from the rifle prior to turning it over to the
FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable. In fact, unlike you, I'm learning new things every day.

But that doesn't stop you from ridiculing me for not knowing that Day had done a preliminary
dusting of the rifle at the TSBD before taking it back to HQ. That was ten years ago and you
still keep bringing it up. How long do I get to milk this for your lack of knowledge about the
lifted print?

Lt. Day sent them the lifted print FOUR days after the assassination.
That's AFTER the FBI had returned the rifle to the Dallas Police.

And your point is...?

From Wesley Liebeler's testimony to the HSCA:
" Four days later, the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited four days to send this lift to the

FBI, or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though tthe print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle and it was STILL THERE.

That contradicts what Latona testified to before the WC. Latona's testimony was much more
contemporaneous the Liebeler's.

Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. IT OCCURRED TO US THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE PALM PRINT NEVER CAME FROM THE RIFLE." ( 6 HSCA 254 )

After examination, the FBI's Sebastian Latona determined that the print had been lifted from the rifle, but when asked why the FBI could not originally detect it,
his response was, "I have no explanation of that". ( ibid. )

He gave his explanation to the WC.

The Dallas Police used as an excuse why they didn't send the lift to the FBI with the rifle, that the palm print had NOT been completely lifted, that it was "STILL THERE".
But they told the Commission that it WAS completely lifted. That still doesn't explain why they didn't send the lift on 11/22.
If it were completely lifted, it should have been sent. It wasn't.

This is Gil establishing more new rules of evidence so he doesn't have to deal with the lifted
print. Gil is not interested in the truth of the assassination. He never stops to ask if the
evidence is genuine or not. He just wants to create excuses to dismiss all of the evidence against Oswald because it is so damning.

And the two different stories the Dallas Police told regarding the palm print indicates that they were lying to somebody.

When two different people tell two different stories to two different investigations, it doesn't
mean one of them is lying. It could mean that one of them wasn't as clear on the details as the
other. Considering one of them was testifying from memory of events a dozen or more years
earlier, I'm betting it is the HSCA testimony that is less than accurate.

Why is it you are always trying to find excuses to dismiss the evidence instead of explaining
what the evidence actually indicates? You do this for just about every piece of evidence we have.
You dispute that Oswald ordered the rifle found in the TSBD. You think it matters that we don't
know which USPS employee handed the package containing the rifle to Oswald. You dispute
the authenticity of the backyard photos. You dispute that Oswald brought the 40 inch bag
into the TSBD despite the fact his fingerprints were on it and there were fibers matching his
rifle blanket inside the bag. You dispute that Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle. You dispute the significance of the fibers on the rifle. And those are just he excuses you have come
up with for the rifle. You do the same thing with the recovered bullets. You do the same thing
with the shells found at the scene of the Tippit murder. You dispute it was Oswald's jacket that
was found. Excuses, excuses, excuses. You know if you accept any of this evidence as genuine,
it incriminates Oswald in both murders, so you choose to reject the evidence altogether. Heck
of an approach to crime solving. Reject all the available evidence.

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:36:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:56:25?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 7:47:26?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Of course they didn't, Gil. Lt. Day had lifted the print from the rifle prior to turning it over to the
FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable. In fact, unlike you, I'm learning new things every day.

But that doesn't stop you from ridiculing me for not knowing that Day had done a preliminary
dusting of the rifle at the TSBD before taking it back to HQ. That was ten years ago and you
still keep bringing it up. How long do I get to milk this for your lack of knowledge about the
lifted print?

This is a simple matter - you don't state things that you cannot cite
for.

You like to do this - it's INVARIABLY a lie.

Lt. Day sent them the lifted print FOUR days after the assassination.
That's AFTER the FBI had returned the rifle to the Dallas Police.

And your point is...?

Don't worry about your inability to figure this out ... lurkers
undoubtedly caught the implication.

From Wesley Liebeler's testimony to the HSCA:
" Four days later, the Dallas Police Department forwarded to the FBI a lift of a palm print that they said had been taken from the underside of the rifle barrel. When they were asked, as they were, why they had waited four days to send this lift to

the FBI, or had not told the FBI that they had made this lift from the rifle, their reply was that even though tthe print had been lifted, that that lift had not removed the latent print from the underside of the rifle and it was STILL THERE.

That contradicts what Latona testified to before the WC. Latona's testimony was much more
contemporaneous the Liebeler's.

Sorry stupid, this corroborates what Day testified to as well.

Well, the problem was that the FBI never found it there. IT OCCURRED TO US THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE PALM PRINT NEVER CAME FROM THE RIFLE." ( 6 HSCA 254 )

After examination, the FBI's Sebastian Latona determined that the print had been lifted from the rifle, but when asked why the FBI could not originally detect it,
his response was, "I have no explanation of that". ( ibid. )

He gave his explanation to the WC.

There you go, lying again...

The Dallas Police used as an excuse why they didn't send the lift to the FBI with the rifle, that the palm print had NOT been completely lifted, that it was "STILL THERE".
But they told the Commission that it WAS completely lifted. That still doesn't explain why they didn't send the lift on 11/22.
If it were completely lifted, it should have been sent. It wasn't.

Logical fallacy deleted.

And the two different stories the Dallas Police told regarding the palm print indicates that they were lying to somebody.

When two different people tell two different stories to two different investigations, it doesn't
mean one of them is lying. It could mean that one of them wasn't as clear on the details as the
other. Considering one of them was testifying from memory of events a dozen or more years
earlier, I'm betting it is the HSCA testimony that is less than accurate.

Sadly, you can relly ONLY on the WC testimony, and find the same contradictions.

Why is it you are always trying to find excuses...

I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 20: Did the FBI find Oswald's palm print on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?

No. NEXT!

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

You mean the gun he had in his possession when he was arrested, the one he tried to use of the arresting officers.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Oswald didn`t say what he knew about the ammunition for the weapon, and when he knew it. NEXT!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

No. NEXT!

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:36:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 16: Were the bullet fragments found in the limousine photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?

I`ve never seen such photos. NEXT!

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:40:29 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?

Why did the WC say? NEXT!

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:18:03 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ

Two spent shells were found at the Tippit murder scene by Domingo Benavides and placed in a Winston cigarette pack and give to Dallas Officer J.M. Poe. Poe reportedly gave the shells to Sgt. Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab.

Poe was interviewed by the FBI and told them that, "he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes". ( 24 H 414-415 )

During his testimony, Officer Poe could not find his mark on the shells, but felt the two Western shells were the two shells he marked.
The FBI designation for these shells was Q-75 and Q-77. ( 7 H 69 )

Poe wasn`t sure. NEXT!

Sgt. Pete Barnes testified that he was the one who received the shells from Poe. Barnes identified the shells that Poe gave him as FBI #s Q-74 and Q-75. ( 7 H 275 )

QUESTION # 11: Which was the shell in the chain of custody between Benavides, Poe and Barnes, Q-74 or Q-77 ?

Please cite evidence for your choice and not opinion.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:42:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 19: Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the trigger guard of the rifle. Did he photograph the palm print when he found it ?

No. NEXT!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:30:47 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 7: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his 6.5mm ammunition ?

It is unknown where Oswald bought the ammunition he used to kill Kennedy.

NEXT!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:17 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 8: When and where did Lee Harvey Oswald purchase his .38 special ammunition ?

Unknown where Oswald bought the ammunition he used to kill Officer Tippit.

NEXT!

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:21:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 12. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?

Please reply withe evidence and not just opinion.

To detect nitrates.

NEXT!

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:26:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 14: Who was the person at the REA office who handed Oswald the handgun and on what date did he pick it up ?

Unknown who handed Oswald the handgun he used to kill Officer Tippit.

NEXT!

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:23:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 13: Who was the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and on what date did he pick it up ?

Unknown who at the Post Office handed Oswald the rifle he bought to kill General Walker but eventually used to kill President Kennedy.

NEXT!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

By applying.

NEXT!

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

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:29:35 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 15: Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" FOUR MONTHS AFTER the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints ( CE 1952 ) ?

Please reply with evidence and not just opinion.

To see if there were prints on them. These are getting easier.

NEXT!

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:29:00 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

“I didn’t want to harm the man. I thought he was a very nice gentleman. Soft-spoken. I thought so right up to the moment I cut his throat.”


--Perry Smith on killing Herb Clutter from 'In Cold Blood' by Truman Capote

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:39:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

Question # 22: Did the Dallas Police record Oswald's interrogation ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 23: Nine SS agents drank liquor at the Fort Worth Press Club on the night before the assassination, in violation of SS regulations prohibiting agents from drinking while on "travel status".
Were they reprimanded ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 17: What make and model rifle has a recoil so powerful as to shake a seven story building ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

There were last minute changes to the motorcade at Love Field. One of those changes was that the general who normally sat in the front seat between the SS agents was told he would not be riding in the limousine and placed in a car further back in the
motorcade.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/motorcade-montage.jpg

QUESTION # 25: Why was this done ?

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:31:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

There were last minute changes to the motorcade at Love Field. One of those changes was that the general who normally sat in the front seat between the SS agents was told he would not be riding in the limousine and placed in a car further back in the

motorcade.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/motorcade-montage.jpg

QUESTION # 25: Why was this done ?

Why did they say?

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:23:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 23: Nine SS agents drank liquor at the Fort Worth Press Club on the night before the assassination, in violation of SS regulations prohibiting agents from drinking while on "travel status".
Were they reprimanded ?

Not that I know of.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:20:52 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 17: What make and model rifle has a recoil so powerful as to shake a seven story building ?

All rifles cause vibrations. I don`t know if there is one so powerful that those vibrations could be felt everywhere in a seven story building.

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:39:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Damn it! Quit confusing Gil with the facts.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:12:35 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:22:16 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 22: Did the Dallas Police record Oswald's interrogation ?

No.

There you go, Gil. Bud answered "no" to your simple "yes" or "no" question. Does that make you
happy?

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Thank you for that.
But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.

What magazine is your ad from ?
How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 7:31:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Thank you for that.
But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.

What magazine is your ad from ?
How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

So you think the January ad would have had less information than the April ad? Why?

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:12:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:58:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

There you go, Gil. Bud answered "no" to your simple "yes" or "no" question. Does that make you
happy?

Corbutt seems unduly pleased that critics are able to catch a believer
telling a partial truth...

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

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 18:54:01 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:29:00?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

QUESTION # 6: Prior to 11/22/63, how many times did Oswald make threats about President Kennedy ?

Logical fallacy deleted. Logical fallacies are *NEVER* legitimate
answers to a question.

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit can't answer...

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:21:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

There's a major event happening in the evidence however Ben and Gil are jealous so they are thread spamming for attention like little kids...

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 08:39:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

For once, you are absolutely correct.

When a moron tells a troll that they are "correct" ... it doesn't mean anything...

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:34:19 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:21:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

There's a major event happening in the evidence however Ben and Gil are jealous so they are thread spamming for attention like little kids...

For once, you are absolutely correct.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:11:53 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:25:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg

What reason did the person who discarded them give?

Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is
supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could
not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.

We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.

== unquote ==
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be
followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third
portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they
have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look
in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case? Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.
== unquote ==

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:11:53 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:25:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg

What reason did the person who discarded them give?

Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is

supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could
not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.

We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.

== unquote ==
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be

followed when that package came in?

Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third

portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and

they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They
look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.
== unquote ==

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

It just shows that conspiracy hobbyists will use any little anomaly as an indication of conspiracy.
Some USPS employee didn't follow regulations to the letter and that is somehow an indication
of a cover up. Gee , that never happens. Government employees always follow regulations, don't
they? The conspiracy hobbyists focus on all the silly things and ignore everything that's
probative. No wonder they remain in a perpetual state of confusion.

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

It just shows that conspiracy hobbyists will use any little anomaly as an indication of conspiracy.

If they didn't - we'd not be able to use them.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:11:53 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:25:37 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg

What reason did the person who discarded them give?

Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is

supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could
not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.

We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.

== unquote ==
Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be

followed when that package came in?

Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?
Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third

portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and

they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They
look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?
Mr. HOLMES. Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it.
== unquote ==

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Gil (or Ben or any other CT), what problems do you have with the above explanation? Did I summarize the critical literature adequately? Did I quote Holmes correctly?

And weren’t the backyard photos determined by the HSCA photographic panel of experts to be genuine and unaltered, and didn’t those experts also determine Oswald was holding the same rifle that Klein’s business records establish was shipped to
Oswald’s PO Box under the alias of Hidell?

So doesn’t the evidence you’re ignoring establish the question you’re asking is moot, and “either way, he got it”?

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

What was illogical about my argument and/or my quote of Holmes? Be specific.

Don’t change the subject as you’re trying to do below. *That* is a logical fallacy:

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?

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@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?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

QUESTION # 27: How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 26. Why does the rifle in the CE 133-A "backyard" photograph have a bottom mounted sling mount
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CE_133a.jpg

and the TSBD Carcano does not ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139a.jpg

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A on the night of the assassination.

But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of the Paine residence.

QUESTION # 28: How did Michael Paine see a photo which had not yet been found ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

Oswald was placed in lineups that included "fillers" who were blonds, mid 30s, wearing jackets, sweaters and vests, teenagers and even a Mexican.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png

QUESTION # 29 : How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as any of these ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?

Was it shipped free of charge ?

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:46:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 26. Why does the rifle in the CE 133-A "backyard" photograph have a bottom mounted sling mount

It doesn`t.

NEXT!

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CE_133a.jpg

and the TSBD Carcano does not ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139a.jpg

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:51:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Oswald was placed in lineups that included "fillers" who were blonds, mid 30s, wearing jackets, sweaters and vests, teenagers and even a Mexican.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png

QUESTION # 29 : How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as any of these ?

Some said Oswald was wearing a jacket when they saw him.

NEXT!

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:50:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A on the night of the assassination.

But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of the Paine residence.

QUESTION # 28: How did Michael Paine see a photo which had not yet been found ?

He didn`t.

NEXT!

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?

Was it shipped free of charge ?

Unknown.

NEXT!

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:48:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

Not what they said.

NEXT!

QUESTION # 27: How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 11:42:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

When a moron tells a troll that they are "correct" ... it doesn't mean anything...

Is the enemy of your enemy your friend ?
It seems like when it comes to attacking you or myself, the result makes for strange bedfellows.

But if we weren't here, would Corbett be so agreeable with Doyle ?
I doubt it.

In fact, some of Corbett's responses to Doyle's posts prove me correct.
For example:

"This is all about which faction of wackos has the nuttiest theory." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1NrHXtJVdwI/m/dvsx9NCtAQAJ

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fjoEXdMEdzk/m/OnclSbpNAgAJ

"I think we have just entered the Twilight Zone." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fjoEXdMEdzk/m/jE_hlfslAAAJ

"Any army of conspiracy hobbyists have been picking through the evidence for almost six
decades and now we are supposed to believe that Scrum Dumb has "cracked the case".
Call Sixty Minutes. I'm sure they would enjoy a good laugh as much as I have." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/TnOHBWeKBCA/m/AElr8pAxBgAJ

Those are just a few.

But as his agreement with Doyle shows, Corbett will bend over and spread his asscheeks for anyone who insults us,
regardless of their belief in the case. That's what the LN trolls are here for--- to insult.

As for Doyle, he's the first one who screams at you , "GET OUT OF MY THREAD" when YOU post something,
but it's OK for him to come into someone else's thread just to cast aspersions.

He's not only an agent of disinformation, he's a hypocrite as well.

He's for peer review, as long as he's doing the reviewing. Others are not allowed to peer review him, however.

Doyle + Corbett. A typical example of how 1+1 can equal zero.

And yes, you are correct, their opinions don't mean anything.
They just haven't realized it yet.

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?

Was it shipped free of charge ?

Why do you obsess over the trivialities and ignore the important stuff?

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:48:33 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 11:42:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

When a moron tells a troll that they are "correct" ... it doesn't mean anything...

Is the enemy of your enemy your friend ?
It seems like when it comes to attacking you or myself, the result makes for strange bedfellows.

But if we weren't here, would Corbett be so agreeable with Doyle ?
I doubt it.

In fact, some of Corbett's responses to Doyle's posts prove me correct.
For example:

"This is all about which faction of wackos has the nuttiest theory." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1NrHXtJVdwI/m/dvsx9NCtAQAJ

"ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fjoEXdMEdzk/m/OnclSbpNAgAJ

"I think we have just entered the Twilight Zone." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fjoEXdMEdzk/m/jE_hlfslAAAJ

"Any army of conspiracy hobbyists have been picking through the evidence for almost six
decades and now we are supposed to believe that Scrum Dumb has "cracked the case".
Call Sixty Minutes. I'm sure they would enjoy a good laugh as much as I have."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/TnOHBWeKBCA/m/AElr8pAxBgAJ

Those are just a few.

But as his agreement with Doyle shows, Corbett will bend over and spread his asscheeks for anyone who insults us,
regardless of their belief in the case. That's what the LN trolls are here for--- to insult.

As for Doyle, he's the first one who screams at you , "GET OUT OF MY THREAD" when YOU post something,
but it's OK for him to come into someone else's thread just to cast aspersions.

He's not only an agent of disinformation, he's a hypocrite as well.

He's for peer review, as long as he's doing the reviewing. Others are not allowed to peer review him, however.

Doyle + Corbett. A typical example of how 1+1 can equal zero.

And yes, you are correct, their opinions don't mean anything.
They just haven't realized it yet.

The Warren Commission`s opinions mattered. Your don`t.

You just haven`t realized that yet.

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 31: Why did the Warren Commission question members of the Oswald family as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was left or right handed ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 34: What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 33: Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor, called before the Warren Commission ?

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

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my
questions.

QUESTION # 35: How did Jack Ruby know that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" ?

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:14:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 34: What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ?

None.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:15:31 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 35: How did Jack Ruby know that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" ?

It had been announced eariler.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:12:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 33: Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor, called before the Warren Commission ?

They didn`t say.

NEXT!

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:10:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

That's when they decided to arraign him.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:12:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 33: Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor, called before the Warren Commission ?

The WC decided not to.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:10:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

That's when they decided to arraign him.

I didn`t answer this one because I vaguely remember there being some conflict over the time. I didn`t answer the question about the PO box because I vaguely remember the name "Hidel" being on one of the boxes Oswald opened. I may look into these things,
I may not.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:15:55 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:10:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

That's when they decided to arraign him.

I didn`t answer this one because I vaguely remember there being some conflict over the time. I didn`t answer the question about the PO box because I vaguely remember the name "Hidel" being on one of the boxes Oswald opened. I may look into these things,

I may not.

The PO Box issue is a bogus one (aren't they all). The name Hidell wouldn't need to appear on
the list of those approved to receive mail. I had a PO Box for a small business I ran on the side.
I would receive mail there and could retrieve it using my key whenever I wanted to. If there was
a parcel received that was too large to fit in the box, I would get a notice in the box instead.
I would take the notice to the counter and would get the parcel no questions asked. There's
no reason Oswald could not have received the rifle the same way. Gil likes to create obstacles
where none existed.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:15:55 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:10:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering

my questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

That's when they decided to arraign him.

I didn`t answer this one because I vaguely remember there being some conflict over the time. I didn`t answer the question about the PO box because I vaguely remember the name "Hidel" being on one of the boxes Oswald opened. I may look into these

things, I may not.

The PO Box issue is a bogus one (aren't they all). The name Hidell wouldn't need to appear on
the list of those approved to receive mail. I had a PO Box for a small business I ran on the side.
I would receive mail there and could retrieve it using my key whenever I wanted to. If there was
a parcel received that was too large to fit in the box, I would get a notice in the box instead.
I would take the notice to the counter and would get the parcel no questions asked. There's
no reason Oswald could not have received the rifle the same way. Gil likes to create obstacles
where none existed.

Postal Inspector Holmes said otherwise, but I think he is almost certainly wrong about it, I strongly suspect they would put whatever mail in to the box that had the box number on it, regardless of the name. Doesn`t make sense that they would keep
track of all the names on all the boxes. I get mail delivered to my house with all sorts of names, they deliver to the location, not the person. I once toyed with the idea of opening one and inviting people to send mail under any name they liked, perhaps
with a short message to confirm I got them. But it occurred to me you can`t kill conspiracy ideas that easily, they can always contrive reasons to disregard what they don`t like.

I have gotten the pink slip telling me to pick up a package at the Post Office, and you used to be able to show the slip and get the package, now they ask for ID when they never did before. I wondered about that, because I would see them laying in the
street sometimes (the mail carriers were sometime lax how they put them in the doors), and anyone could pick them up (or take them right off the door) and get the package. Not so now. But a slip from inside a PO box is proof of access to the box, so they
might not ask for ID in that case.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:29:15 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:51:26 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:15:55 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:47:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:10:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering

my questions.

QUESTION # 32: Why was Oswald arraigned at 1:35 am ?

That's when they decided to arraign him.

I didn`t answer this one because I vaguely remember there being some conflict over the time. I didn`t answer the question about the PO box because I vaguely remember the name "Hidel" being on one of the boxes Oswald opened. I may look into these

things, I may not.

The PO Box issue is a bogus one (aren't they all). The name Hidell wouldn't need to appear on
the list of those approved to receive mail. I had a PO Box for a small business I ran on the side.
I would receive mail there and could retrieve it using my key whenever I wanted to. If there was
a parcel received that was too large to fit in the box, I would get a notice in the box instead.
I would take the notice to the counter and would get the parcel no questions asked. There's
no reason Oswald could not have received the rifle the same way. Gil likes to create obstacles
where none existed.

Postal Inspector Holmes said otherwise, but I think he is almost certainly wrong about it, I strongly suspect they would put whatever mail in to the box that had the box number on it, regardless of the name. Doesn`t make sense that they would keep

track of all the names on all the boxes. I get mail delivered to my house with all sorts of names, they deliver to the location, not the person. I once toyed with the idea of opening one and inviting people to send mail under any name they liked, perhaps
with a short message to confirm I got them. But it occurred to me you can`t kill conspiracy ideas that easily, they can always contrive reasons to disregard what they don`t like.

I have gotten the pink slip telling me to pick up a package at the Post Office, and you used to be able to show the slip and get the package, now they ask for ID when they never did before. I wondered about that, because I would see them laying in the

street sometimes (the mail carriers were sometime lax how they put them in the doors), and anyone could pick them up (or take them right off the door) and get the package. Not so now. But a slip from inside a PO box is proof of access to the box, so they
might not ask for ID in that case.

In every line of work there are regulations and many of them are not strictly adhered to. Low
level employees develop routines that sometimes bend the rules. Conspiracy hobbyists like to
pretend that never happens unless something nefarious is going on but it is just people being
people. Maybe I was supposed to show ID and the clerk at the counter just didn't bother when
I showed the slip indicating a parcel had arrived for me. He or she would have known to get the
slip out of the PO Box, I would have needed the key so maybe they thought that was good enough.

I learned recently how lax USPS regulations can be. My sister passed away early this year and I
am the executor of her estate. I went to her local post office to have her mail redirected to me.
I was amazed that all I had to do was fill out a form. I showed no ID, no letter proving I was the
executor of her estate. No questions asked. I wondered what would have prevented me from
redirecting somebody else's mail to me. I'm sure there would be laws I would break and probably
be felonies when discovered, but in the mean time I could cause quite a bit of havoc.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:31:07 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Thank you for that.
But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.

What magazine is your ad from ?
How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

"1/27" was hand-written on the order coupon. As such, it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.

The April issue of True Adventures was registered copyrighted on Feb 5, 1963, which is the best indicator for when that issue was printed and sent out. The magazine industry's penchant for pre-dating issues has already been discussed here.

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

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

mk5000


yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:31:07 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Thank you for that.
But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.

What magazine is your ad from ?
How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

"1/27" was hand-written on the order coupon. As such, it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.

The April issue of True Adventures was registered copyrighted on Feb 5, 1963, which is the best indicator for when that issue was printed and sent out. The magazine industry's penchant for pre-dating issues has already been discussed here.

It is very common for companies to run the same ad in multiple issues consecutively. What the
April ad shows is the company identified the weapon in question and the order form in the lower
right of the April ad was the same as the one Gil showed stand alone. It would be absurd to
think the company would sell a firearm and not let the buyer know the caliber of the weapon he
was buying.

It is also standard practice in the firearms industry for the caliber to be stamped on the weapon
because it would be very dangerous to put the wrong caliber ammo into a firearm. It would be a
liability issue. I would bet that the new cylinder would have had .38 Special stamped on it. I have
a Glock 32C which originally came in .357 Sig. Glock pistols are modular which means parts can
be swapped out. I replaced the original barrel with one in .40 S&W which is all that I needed to
do to change the caliber. The caliber of both barrels is stamped on the top of both. If I put the
wrong caliber ammo in for the barrel I have installed, it's my fault.

It is preposterous to suggest that Oswald wouldn't have known the correct ammo to put into his
revolver. Obviously he did because he had .38 Special ammo in the gun and his pockets from
two different manufacturers when arrested.

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:46:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 26. Why does the rifle in the CE 133-A "backyard" photograph have a bottom mounted sling mount
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CE_133a.jpg

and the TSBD Carcano does not ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139a.jpg

You are doing it against -making an unproven assertion, one you post no evidence for and apparently have no intention of establishing as true.

Why do you say it has a bottom-mounted sling mount?

Can you cite a photographic expert who determined that, or are all the legitimate experts morons who missed this supposed difference?

Well?

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:49:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:46:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 26. Why does the rifle in the CE 133-A "backyard" photograph have a bottom mounted sling mount
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CE_133a.jpg

and the TSBD Carcano does not ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139a.jpg

You are doing it against -making an unproven assertion, one you post no evidence for and apparently have no intention of establishing as true.

Why do you say it has a bottom-mounted sling mount?

Can you cite a photographic expert who determined that, or are all the legitimate experts morons who missed this supposed difference?

Well?

This is the same sort of chicanery that produced the Badgeman photo. Gil takes a small section of a photo that was low resolution to begin with, blows it up until it is nothing more than a blur,
than tells us what he sees in that blurry image. Even the conspiracy hobbyists seem to have
given up on Badgeman. I haven't seen anyone promoting that theory in many years. I wonder
how long Gil is going to milk this one.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:09:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:51:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Oswald was placed in lineups that included "fillers" who were blonds, mid 30s, wearing jackets, sweaters and vests, teenagers and even a Mexican.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png

QUESTION # 29 : How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as any of these ?

Apparently, you won’t be happy unless the Dallas police rounded up all the Oswalds doubles that were roaming Dallas according to the critics, and put all of them in the lineup with Oswald.

Tell us, Gil, how closely do the others in a lineup have to match the suspect, according to Supreme Court rulings?

How closely do the others resemble the suspect, Ted Bundy, in this lineup photo, for example?
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/film-and-tv-story-behind-chilling-photo-taken-of-ted-bundy-in-police-line-up-20190125

PS: All except Bundy are actual police officers. Bundy only pretended to be a police officer when kidnapping Carol DaRonch.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:12:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 33: Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor, called before the Warren Commission ?

Why should he have been? The police who found the rifle was called, and the policeman who photographed the rifle in situ, then picked up the rifle, examined it, and took it back to the DPD Crime Lab was called. His photos of the rifle made in at the
scene and in the crime lab were entered into evidence.

Can you cite a court case where a news photographer who arrived at the scene after the commission of a crime and photographed the scene was called, when his photographs weren’t entered into evidence?

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:48:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

QUESTION # 27: How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?

None. But why would you expect them to? The entire shooting sequence happened in nine seconds or less, and involved two shooting victims in a moving car traveling over ten miles an hour. I remind you that some witnesses thought only two shots were fired,
others named three, four, five or more. The witnesses were all over the map on not only the number of shots, but the timing and spacing of the shots as well as the source of the shots.

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

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?

You mean this or something else? https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/receipt-verifying-delivery-of-revolver-that-lee-harvey-news-photo/576878028

Was it shipped free of charge ?

Do shipping receipts normally show the shipping charges? Can you cite an example from 1963 from the same company showing the shipping charges, or are you simply assuming they should?

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

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Uh, maybe when he tried the wrong size ammo and realized it didn’t fit?

And are you sure you have your facts right?

I recall that the bullets Oswald was using in the revolver weren’t the appropriate size, but were slightly too small, causing an erratic passage down the barrel, which is why the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body couldn’t be matched to the
weapon.

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to
mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines
that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the
conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
== unquote ==

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 9:49:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:46:50 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

QUESTION # 26. Why does the rifle in the CE 133-A "backyard" photograph have a bottom mounted sling mount
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CE_133a.jpg

and the TSBD Carcano does not ? https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CE_139a.jpg

You are doing it against -making an unproven assertion, one you post no evidence for and apparently have no intention of establishing as true.

Why do you say it has a bottom-mounted sling mount?

Can you cite a photographic expert who determined that, or are all the legitimate experts morons who missed this supposed difference?

Well?

Nutters always appeal to authorities, preferring that people do not think for themselves.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:02:31 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:51:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Oswald was placed in lineups that included "fillers" who were blonds, mid 30s, wearing jackets, sweaters and vests, teenagers and even a Mexican.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png

QUESTION # 29 : How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as any of these ?

Apparently, you won’t be happy unless the Dallas police rounded up all the Oswalds doubles that were roaming Dallas according to the critics, and put all of them in the lineup with Oswald.

Tell us, Gil, how closely do the others in a lineup have to match the suspect, according to Supreme Court rulings?

How closely do the others resemble the suspect, Ted Bundy, in this lineup photo, for example?
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/film-and-tv-story-behind-chilling-photo-taken-of-ted-bundy-in-police-line-up-20190125

PS: All except Bundy are actual police officers. Bundy only pretended to be a police officer when kidnapping Carol DaRonch.

Hank has to use a lineup from another case because he knows that the Oswald lineups don't stand to scrutiny.

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

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:34:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

Question # 9 : How did a "Defector" to the Soviet Union get employed during the Cuban Missile Crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?

John Graef of Jaguars-Chiles-Stovall testified to the process. Oswald was unemployed, and the Texas Unemployment Commission referred Oswald to them as possible candidate. Oswald lied to unemployment, saying he was recently discharged from the Marines. He
was interviewed by Graef, made a good impression, and hired as a trainee.

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

Bob Stovall testified to the type of work they did for the Dept of Defense, and added that Oswald had no access to that area:
== quote ==
Mr. JENNER. What does your company do?
Mr. STOVALL. We are in the typographic services. We serve advertising agencies, advertising departments, and the graphic arts industry as a middle supplier for type services. We also produce newspaper mats for duplication throughout the United States.
Mr. JENNER. Do you do any work for any federal agency?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. Is it secret or confidential work or classified work of any kind? Mr. STOVALL. On occasion we do. Most of it is not, but we do on occasion. We are cleared through the Navy Bureau Materiel here, although I believe it now has been incorporated under the Department of Defense as a single unit.
Mr. JENNER. Without disclosing any secrets in that connection or classifications, what is the nature of that work?
Mr. STOVALL Generally speaking, the nature of the work is charting and mapping, and actually all we do is set words, letters, and figures. We have no correlation of what they refer to.
Mr. JENNER. It's charting of coastal areas, sea bottoms, and some land areas or what?
Mr. STOVALL Yes; and some foreign areas, too.
Mr. JENNER. That is, other than continental United States?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes; right.
Mr. JENNER. Was any of this work done in the department or area to which Lee Oswald had access while he was employed by your company?
Mr. STOVALL. Not in the department at all. Whatever secret work we might have been performing, we do it with the persons who had been cleared by the regular procedures and they are the only eyes who view this.
Mr. JENNER. So, anything that is classified is done only by employees of yours who have been cleared by an appropriate Federal agency?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. And then, I gather that as far as Lee Harvey Oswald is concerned, he had no part in it nor access to any of this work?
Mr. STOVALL. This is correct.
Mr. JENNER. And that your company is at pains to see that no one other than those who are cleared have access to it?
Mr. STOVALL. That is correct.
Mr. JENNER. And that was true while he was working for you?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes. In fact, at such times as we have any secret work going, even at the point of being rude, we see that no one has access to any of this material. I won't say--rude but we strictly enforce it.
Mr. JENNER. Well, you make it pretty firm, which is right?
Mr. STOVALL Right.
== unquote ==

Neither Stovall nor Graef ever said JCS worked on the U-2 project in any fashion. It’s merely a supposition by conspiracy theorists.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:08:51 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:09:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

Here Hank pretends to be an expert on poetry.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Uh, maybe when he tried the wrong size ammo and realized it didn’t fit?

And are you sure you have your facts right?

I recall that the bullets Oswald was using in the revolver weren’t the appropriate size, but were slightly too small, causing an erratic passage down the barrel, which is why the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body couldn’t be matched to the

weapon.

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to

mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines
that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the
conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.

== unquote ==

Here Hank admits that the bullets fired into Tippit could not be matched to Oswald's gun.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:08:51 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:09:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

Here Hank pretends to be an expert on poetry.

That was poetry in your view?

It appeared to be from a random word generator.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:48:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my

questions.

The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

QUESTION # 27: How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?

None. But why would you expect them to? The entire shooting sequence happened in nine seconds or less, and involved two shooting victims in a moving car traveling over ten miles an hour. I remind you that some witnesses thought only two shots were

fired, others named three, four, five or more. The witnesses were all over the map on not only the number of shots, but the timing and spacing of the shots as well as the source of the shots.
Some witnesses even thought that the car stopped. Those wacky humans!

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:44:28 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:08:51 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:09:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

Here Hank pretends to be an expert on poetry.

That was poetry in your view?

It appeared to be from a random word generator.

Here Hank shows that he knows nothing about poetry even though he pretends to be an expert.

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

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:49:21 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:44:28 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:41:15 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:08:51 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 6:09:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-4, M Kfivethousand wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

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?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

I bet he quits.

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

mk5000

yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

Here Hank pretends to be an expert on poetry.

That was poetry in your view?

It appeared to be from a random word generator.

Here Hank shows that he knows nothing about poetry even though he pretends to be an expert.

Never said I was an expert - that’s what you said about me above.

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