Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 20
44 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 4:43:49 AM10/26/23
to
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 ?
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 ?
John Corbett
Oct 26, 2023, 7:47:26 AM10/26/23
to
FBI. He sent them the lifted print. Someone as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the
assassination should know that.
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 9:18:34 AM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:47:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@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...
<geowri...@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.
>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.
that's a lie, don't you?
You couldn't just stop with an honest answer, you needed to toss in a
lie...
John Corbett
Oct 26, 2023, 11:19:07 AM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
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.
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 1:24:14 PM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:19:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@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.
<geowri...@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 ?
>
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.
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 2:56:25 PM10/26/23
to
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.
> 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.
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.
John Corbett
Oct 26, 2023, 4:36:24 PM10/26/23
to
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
> 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.
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...?
> 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.
That contradicts what Latona testified to before the WC. Latona's testimony was much more
> 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.
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. )
>
> 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
> 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.
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
> And the two different stories the Dallas Police told regarding the palm print indicates that they were lying to somebody.
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.
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 5:11:09 PM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 13:36:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:56:25?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
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.
<geowri...@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
>> > 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?
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...?
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.
>> 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.
>> 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.
contradictions.
>Why is it you are always trying to find excuses...
I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
Bud
Oct 26, 2023, 5:56:00 PM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:43:49 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 9:18:25 AM10/27/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@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.
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.
0 new messages