On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 02:32:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

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:

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.

Amusingly, when he posted hi "scenario" for me to match in length,
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.

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, 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?

No.

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 way

to compare fingerprints. You don't put partials together. Scalise's method is a scam.

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.

The JFK case was filled with unique oddities like this. Ruby's lie
detector test is another great example. *NOT ONE SINGLE TIME* has any
believer acknowledged the problems that the HSCA pointed out.

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 already on the table.

Still haven't named them. Keep running.

He *can't* name them. For then we'd be able to quote the description,
and compare it to Oswald.

Specifics get believers in trouble.

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

from Parkland was also fired from that weapon, in every case, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

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.

Quite convincingly... Huckster ran.

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 ?

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.

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

You'll never hear Huckster publicly admitting that fact.

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

OUCH!

Huckster will run from this fact.

Did the test bullets that the HSCA fired through that rifle in 1978 match the bullets fired in 1963 ?
Yes or no ?

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

firings in 1963 and 1964 to test the accuracy and speed of the weapon. See pages 4 & 5 here:

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.

One OBVIOUS conclusion we can draw is that Huckster is terrified of
citing for his empty claims.

[When Huckster responded - he snipped **ALL** but the last sentence
above.]

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