On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 7:43:11?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual nonsense >
Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion.
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 10:25:08?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null
hypothesis.
And you've never posted a scenario. Ever.
From Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew:
Who?
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts
about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard
to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed...
The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah.
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what?
Stop shifting the burden
and produce something before the lights go out here.
But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits.
Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report.
Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you...
Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post
their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case?
(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.
despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario.
Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How?
You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html
So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.
- this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
conspiracy:
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not -
and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light
on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot
of treachery."
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd.
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 11:03:20?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:48:20 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 7:43:11?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual nonsense >
Oh good, just what the world needs, another paranoid schizo with an opinion. >> Hopefully, Chickenshit's too cheap to pay for access to the forum...
It`s not worth what I`m paying now. You guys refuse to up your game.
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 11:25:08?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
You apparently think...
On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:03:20?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:37:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 10:25:08?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null
hypothesis.
Yet you run away from your OWN scenario daily.
You demand we support what we say, THEN REPEATEDLY REFUSE TO SUPPORT
WHAT *YOU* SAY.
And you've never posted a scenario. Ever.
Yet I say I have.
Because you enjoy lying.
**YOU** admit you've never posted a scenario. Why
not?
Because I don't have one...
<logical fallacy deleted>
From Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew:
Who?
Are you too stupid to be able to find out?
"From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy.
What conspiracy?
The one that took JFK's life.
Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including
the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts >>>> about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report.
They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy
told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no
longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard >>>> to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he
commissioned.
They all believed...
Logical fallacy deleted.
The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not
closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.
Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.
Will you acknowledge your lie if I do?
Sure.
And those were the
people who had supposedly found the truth.
By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be
considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence.
Nah.
Not a refutation.
Indeed.
I don't need to refute what you assert without evidence. You're
shifting the burden for the 1,221,001,158,990 time since you've been
posting here.
And indeed, polling shows that it *IS* factually a minority opinion.
Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers."
Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical
record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore.
From what?
The facts and evidence.
The facts and evidence that prove to you that on 11/22/63, some people did something?
Stop shifting the burden
Stop running from your burden.
and produce something before the lights go out here.
They only "go out" for cheapskates.
That would be me.
Facts are not "nits."But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything
other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and
time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the
Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those
Commissioners as more information came to light.)
Keep picking nits.
Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report.
"Spitballs" you can't refute???
Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you...
Au contraire... it's *YOUR* hobby that ends when you can't afford to
continue.
Yeah, I'll be gone.
Asserting that you're stupid is hardly an argument.Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post >>>> their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would
ever *DARE* do so.
If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
You're lying again, of course.And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has
ever been posted by a critic.
No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
And it's simple provable FACT that you've never posted a scenario.
Indeed. You ran the first time I posted this series, you'll end upHe'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren
Commission's case and present my scenario...
Dismantle the Warren Commission's case?
running again.
<logical fallacy deleted>
In yours as well - your abject refusal to post a scenario proving it.(And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without*
demolishing the Warren Commission's.)
This **IS** a scenario
...in your opinion.
Not a refutation.despite any whining from believers who can't
post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain
the evidence better than the Warren Commission did.
...in your opinion.
Provably a lie.This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of
"scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny
that I've posted a scenario... watch for it!
You'll never post a scenario.
Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.Carry your burden.
Hello???The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the
assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in
Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA
attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was
documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a
fact that they cannot explain.
And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How?
Can you name the same identical person being targeted?
You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.Not to a moron's satisfaction, no.
Cowardice from your own fear.http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html >>>> So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the
weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to
believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner
Argument from personal incredulity.
You beg the question by assuming that Oswald is the only person who- this
is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential
patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense
conspiracy:
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison
It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly
acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them
in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not - >>>> and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have
missed.
You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
targeted JFK.
The hobby of free trolling, I presume.Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for
anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light >>>> on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that
real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the
husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up
by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine
how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc.
As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically
stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his
life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot >>>> of treachery."
The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into
these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably
helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission...
This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible
manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally
destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and
*should* have been examined by the Warren Commission.
Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial
explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it.
(And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran
from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them.
But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's
cowardice as well.)
The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd.
Too bad you won't be around to see my continued posting.
Soon enough, you'll be out, too.
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:55:28?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,
But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.
Then why don't you ? Name them.
from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 11:19:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:55:28?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,Then why don't you ?
Hilarious!
I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Yes...
I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.Then why don't you ? Name them.
Try dealing with the evidence ...
from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?
Yes, that FBI. You need to address...
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
It’s already established...
Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?
No...
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 10:31:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:photos). There is more evidence I haven't gotten to yet, but you need to rebut this evidence already on the table first.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 05:55:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 11:25:08?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I *can't*. You refuse to provide a scenario.
My Scenario Part 1
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away.
You won’t, and you haven’t. We’ve watched your song and dance routine before.
My scenario is simple, Oswald killed Kennedy using the C2766 rifle, and I’ve provided evidence from J.C.Day (C2766 rifle discovered in and taken from Depository) and the HSCA photographic panel that Oswald possessed the C2766 rifle (validated backyard
You said you “will match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
I posted that evidence supporting my scenario in April of 2022 — 21 months ago. Still awaiting your citations to the contrary evidence. You never did provide any. You haven't done so here in this thread either.
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”
Waiting for you to do what you said you could do: “match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted…”
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:55:34?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:44:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Ben has strangely decided not to do what he’d said he do: “…match in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.”According to Chuckles, you didn't provide a scenario.
But - of course, you're lying.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ >>
Why don't you click on that link, AND RESPOND TO THE POST YOU SAY
DOESN'T EXIST.
You make a lot of claims...
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:05:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 11:19:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,Then why don't you ?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right way
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.
It's ridiciulous.
Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.Then why don't you ? Name them.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered
The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ?Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
firings in 1963 and 1964 to test the accuracy and speed of the weapon. See pages 4 & 5 here:Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?No, the barrel had corroded in the 15 years while the rifle sat unused, and therefore the HSCA test bullets didn't match the bullet or fragments recovered from Parkland or the limo. They said that. They also attributed it to changes due to repeated
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
It’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think? >>
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
Are you learning anything yet?
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 10:42:21?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
...
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.
I claimed...
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 11:46:40?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 08:30:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
You can't deal with past lies - yet you continue and post new lies
daily...
Ben ignores the cited evidence
(as he always does) and desperately tries to change the subject.
I cite the evidence for my claims.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:10:24?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Are you learning anything yet?That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario.
I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle found
in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.
Ball in your court:
Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the
murder weapon(s).
Go ahead, we'll wait.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:14:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 12:10:24?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ >>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Are you learning anything yet?That you're a coward?
You didn't claim you could call me names. You claimed you could match my scenario.
Matched AND EXCEEDED in length, number of cites, and detail.
You've ran the last time I asked this: HOW MANY WORDS IN YOUR
SCENARIO, AND HOW MANY WORDS ARE IN MY RESPONSE?
I've named Oswald as the shooter and linked him to the rifle foundI've exceeded your scenario's length, number of citations, and detail.
in the TSBD after the shooting via the evidence.
No, you haven't even named the shooter(s) nor provided any link to the murder weapon(s).
I understand why you refuse to publicly acknowledge this - you lied.
Ball in your court:
Give the total number of words in yours vs mine. Or run again...
Nobody cares about the length. I'm challenging you on the *details*.
Name your shooter(s), and show us the evidence linking them to the
murder weapon(s).
Can you name this logical fallacy?
Go ahead, we'll wait.
It's your turn to answer coward.
Nope, calling me names
is still not what you said you'd do. You said you'd match the details.
I'm asking you to do that
by naming the shooter(s)
and provide the evidence to the weapon(s) used.
You put on your track shoes back in this thread.
Your babbling non sequitur doesn`t address what I showed.
On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 10:42:21?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:05:01?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 11:19:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> I could cite the business records of Klein’s showing Oswald was shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766,
Then why don't you ?Hilarious! So you can ignore that like you excised and ignored the cited testimony of J.C.Day and the cited conclusions of the HSCA’s photo experts panel?
You still haven't cited those business records. Keep running.
detail, and number of cites - HE POSTED NOT A *SINGLE* CITATION!
It would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask why believers
constantly ask us to cite, yet refuse to do so themselves.
Yes, and yet, photographs of those prints on the trigger guard were taken on 11/22/63 and were reprinted in the Commission’s volumes of evidence. So was the FBI wrong about the fingerprints?I could cite the conclusion of expert fingerprint examiner Vincent Scalise that Oswald’s fingerprints are on the trigger guard of the C2766 rifle,But the FBI said on 11/23 that there were no identifiable prints on that rifle.
No.
So ...
way to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.Scalise used a tactic of piecing together partial prints. That's not the way prints are done.
You compare each partial separately to a full print. If there are enough similarities, then it's a match. That's what the FBI did. They couldn't find enough similarities, so they said there were no identifiable prints on the rifle. That's the right
That would be like taking the door of a Dodge, a hood of a Ford and a trunk of a Chevy, putting them all together and calling them a Cadillac.The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this.
It's ridiciulous.
You ...
Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.
He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,Try dealing with the evidence already on the table.I could cite the statements of numerous witnesses describing the man on the sixth floor in terms matching Oswald.Then why don't you ? Name them.
Still haven't named them. Keep running.
and compare it to Oswald.
Gee, try being honest for once.
I named Fischer, Edwards, and Rowland.
Specifics get believers in trouble.
from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.I could cite the conclusions of the FBI experts that the three shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the C2766 rifle, that the two bullet fragments found in the limo were fired from that weapon, and that the nearly whole bullet recovered
Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.The same FBI that couldn't find Oswald's prints on the rifle on 11/23 ? >>>> Yes, that FBI. You need to address the ballistics evidence and the photographic evidence of fingerprints on the trigger guard.
Already did.
He ...
You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.Do we have to get into the problems with the chain-of-custody of that bullet again ?I accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the Commission taking testimony or statements of each person who handled the bullet before it reached Todd.
So you accept the authenticity of that bullet based on the identification of the FIFTH person ( Elmer Todd ) who handled it ?
The first four people who handled that bullet could not idenitfy CE 399 as the bullet they found.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/magic_bullet.jpg
I already admitted it...
OUCH!On what basis do you reject the authenticity of the bullet? Presentism? Judging the past by today’s standards?
The basis that the chain of custody begins at the point of DISCOVERY, not when it gets to Washington and handed to an FBI agent.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/chain-of-custody-dr.-lee.mp4
Huckster will run from this fact.
It's not a fact circa 1963. Nor is it a fact today.
firings in 1963 and 1964 to test the accuracy and speed of the weapon. See pages 4 & 5 here:Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?No, the barrel had corroded in the 15 years while the rifle sat unused, and therefore the HSCA test bullets didn't match the bullet or fragments recovered from Parkland or the limo. They said that. They also attributed it to changes due to repeated
Yes or no ?
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pdf/HSCA_Vol7_F2_Findings.pdf
That rifle was fired a total of 45 times by the FBI ( 27 ) and the US military ( 18 ) in those tests. You expect me to believe that the individual characteristics of a gun barrel can change in just 45 shots ?
If that were the case, any perp avoiding arrest could just go down to his nearest firing range, fire off 45 rounds and...Voila !!!... no more match.
ROFLMAO
You're delusional. And the HSCA was full of shit.
Gee...
One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified ofIt’s curious that you want to tell only part of the story, don't you think?
Why is that, and what conclusions should we draw from your reticence to tell the whole story?
Probably the same conclusions we can draw from your ignorance about investigative procedures and the evidence in this case.
citing for his empty claims.
Except I've cited ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:03:28 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,297 |
