You deleted the proof, then supply part of it back, then complain the proof is not complete.
Instead of playing games with the evidence, respond to what I posted.
Ben deletes the proof I produced, then asks me to produce it. Typical nonsense.
Here it is again, so Ben can ignore it for a second time:
That's what the Kleins business records show, that Oswald was shipped a 6.5 MC bearing the serial number C2766.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
Coincidentally, the same serial number that was on the weapon recovered from the Depository by J.C.Day and marked into evidence by Day.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any record of that with you or not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.
Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----
Mr. BELIN. Could you just read into the record what you dictated.
Mr. DAY. To my secretary. She wrote on the typewriter: "4 x 18, coated, Ordinance Optics, Inc., Hollywood, California, 010 Japan. OSC inside a cloverleaf design."
Mr. BELIN. What did that have reference to?
Mr. DAY. That was stamped on the scopic sight on top of the gun. On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C-2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun. I dictated certain other stuff, other information, for her to type for me.
Mr. BELIN. Well, you might just as well dictate the rest there.
Mr. DAY. "When bolt opened one live round was in the barrel. No prints are on the live round. Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day opened the barrel. Captain Fritz has the live round. Three spent hulls were found under the window. They were picked up by Detective Sims and witnessed by Lieutenant Day and Studebaker. The clip is stamped 'SMI, 9 x 2.'"
Oswald was shipped the C2766 rifle, that's the serial number of the rifle found in the Depository.
Separate from that evidence, that weapon bore Oswald's prints.
Separate from that, Oswald was photographed with that weapon.
>
> Indeed, the complete lack of any cleaning equipment, rounds, ANYTHING
> related to owning a rifle is completely missing from the inventory of
> what he owned.
Sorry, Gil's point concerned a rifle: "Oswald didn't own a 7.65 Mauser ? Well, it was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano."
You're trying to argue by inference.
>
> Huckster's well aware of the evidence he's lying by omission about...
You want to change the subject because the evidence doesn't support you.
> >>>> Oh, Oswald didn't own a .38 automatic ? Well, it was really a revolver.
> >>>
> >>>Exactly as described...
> >>
> >> There you go, lying again.
There you go, deleting the evidence provided by the witnesses who saw Oswald unloading and reloading a revolver.
Exactly as described by numerous witnesses at the scene who saw the gunman leaving the scene. For example, the Davis sisters (or sisters in law) and Benavides:
Virginia Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up."
Barbara Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
"...I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."
Domingo Benavides:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember in which hand he was holding his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I sure don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if he was trying to put anything in the gun also?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. As he turned the corner he was putting another shell in his gun.
> >
> >Ben deletes the evidence...
>
>
> You are flat lying.
You've deleted the statements of the cited witnesses three times now:
Exactly as described by numerous witnesses at the scene who saw the gunman leaving the scene. For example, the Davis sisters (or sisters in law) and Benavides:
Virginia Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up."
Barbara Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
"...I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."
Domingo Benavides:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember in which hand he was holding his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I sure don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if he was trying to put anything in the gun also?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. As he turned the corner he was putting another shell in his gun.
> You know full well the evidence for an automatic
> being used in this case, and you then pretend that eyewitnesses
> DESCRIBED the revolver.
I quoted what the witnesses who came forward on the first day said. None of them gave testimony consistent with an automatic. They described the gunman manually reloading the weapon. You can't rebut that evidence, so you delete it.
Here it is again:
Exactly as described by numerous witnesses at the scene who saw the gunman leaving the scene. For example, the Davis sisters (or sisters in law) and Benavides:
Virginia Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm
"The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up."
Barbara Davis:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm
"...I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."
Domingo Benavides:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember in which hand he was holding his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I sure don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember if he was trying to put anything in the gun also?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. As he turned the corner he was putting another shell in his gun.
>
> This is both a lie of omission, and a logical fallacy.
You make claims the evidence doesn't support.
> >> And unlike Corbutt, Chuckles, or Chickenshit, you *DO* know the
> >> evidence well enough to understand that you're not being truthful.
Begged question logical fallacy once more. I know what the evidence supports, and I cite for my claims.
> >
> >I understand...
>
>
> No you don't.
You deleted the bulk of my sentence there.
I wrote: I understand you couldn't deal with the evidence I posted, so you deleted it and claimed I was untruthful.
That's exactly what you did, and what you've done repeatedly.
You deleted the bulk of my response here as well.
Nope. We're not examining those person's claims. Gil is talking about the Warren Commission's argument.
Gil said this as a lead-in to his series of straw man claims:
"Just like the Warren Commission they support."
And I made that clear in my response. And I provided exactly what the Commission said about the timing of the shots. You don't get to change the subject to what some other posters said (some of whom are dead and no longer able to clarify or defend their claims).
Here's again the evidence concerning the Commission's conclusions concerning the timing of the shots, establishing Gil's claim is nonsense:
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds? The Commission never did. They said it could have taken over 7.9 seconds or more if the first or third shot missed:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#timespan
"If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased."
In other words, if the time span between the the first and second shot was 2.9 seconds, then the total time span would be 2.9 + 5.6 seconds, or 8.5 seconds.
You change the subject from what the Commission said to what other posters said, and expect me to defend their claims. I've been called a Warren Commission defender numerous times. Nobody has ever called me a Steve Keating or John McAdams defender. But that's what you want to sidetrack the discussion to.
> You asked who said it... implying that no believer has ever said this
> - although this is EXACTLY what Gil pointed out.
I wasn't implying that. I don't track what everyone has claimed in the history of this case. I was pointing out that Gil - who fashions himself a Warren Commission Critic -- apparently doesn't know what the Commission actually said, he only knows what claims the published critics have tried to shove into the Commission's mouth.
>
> I've answered the question, proving you a liar.
> > We're not examining those person's claims.
> Yes moron, that's EXACTLY what we're doing.
You can do that to your heart's content. But Gil doesn't describe himself as a Steve Keating critic. He's a self-described WC critic.
>
> Gil made that clear... and you're desperately trying to change what he
> clearly stated into something else... AFTER you just got spanked again
> by me.
Gil is a self-described WC critic.
> > Gil is talking about the Warren Commission's argument.
> So you believe that that when Gil said: "Everytime they can't deal
> with the evidence, they just revise the evidence." he was referring to
> the WC.
>
> YOU'RE A MORON AND A VERY *STUPID* LIAR!
I believe Gil when he claims he's a Warren Commission critic.
>
> And clearly, you're at the point of molesting your own mother when you
> read what Gil said, and assert that you think that he's talking about
> the WC. It's CRYSTAL CLEAR what he's talking about.
> >Gil said this as a lead-in to his series of straw man claims:
> >"Just like the Warren Commission they support."
> That was an aside, not a lead in.
>
> And provably so.
That's not the way I read it. This self-described WC critic was talking about the Commission there.
>
> As demonstrated by his first sentence, his first, second, third and
> fourth paragraphs, and concluding sentence.
>
> You're simply a liar... desperately trying to get out of the mess
> you've dropped YOURSELF into.
I cited the evidence supporting my claims. Neither you nor Gil did. You guys make unproven claims and complain when they aren't rebutted.
> >And I made that clear in my response.
> You asked the question, I spanked you with answers you thought I
> couldn't give.
>
> This happens ALL the time... believers honestly think that they can
> stump us with questions we won't answer...
>
> Yet I've embarrassed believers time and time again... and asked
> questions no believer has EVER dared answer.
>
> You included.
>
> Do you need an example to run from?
> > And I provided exactly what the Commission said about the timing of
> > the shots. You don't get to change the subject to what some other
> > posters said (some of whom are dead and no longer able to clarify or
> > defend their claims).
> You asked the question - you got a legitimate answer.
You referenced supposed claims by posters not here - some of them deceased, but did not cite for any of them.
I pointed out I'm not a Steve Keating defender nor John McAdams defender. I am not talking about what they said, I'm citing what the Commission said. You suddenly don't want to discuss what the Commission said relative to what Gil said.
Why is that?
>
> You tried to imply a lie... and you got spanked for it.
>
>
> >You change the subject from what the Commission said...
>
>
> Gil was speaking about believers, you asked **WHO** had said that. You
> didn't ask which "investigation" came to that conclusion.
>
> You're twisting in the wind right now... desperate to get away from
> the proof that you're a liar.
>
> Gil spanked you.
Gil didn't cite for any of his claims. You define that as a spanking? Hilarious!
I cited for the my claims. You deleted it. Who exactly is doing the supposed spanking here?
>
> I just supported it with the evidence you implied didn't exist.
What evidence did you cite?
Who said the assassination happened in 5.6 seconds? The Commission never did. They said it could have taken over 7.9 seconds or more if the first or third shot missed:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#timespan
"If either the first or third shots missed, then a minimum of 2.3 seconds (necessary to operate the rifle) must be added to the time span of the shots which hit, giving a minimum time of 7.1 to 7.9 seconds for the three shots. If more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit, then the time span would be correspondingly increased."
In other words, if the time span between the the first and second shot was 2.9 seconds, then the total time span would be 2.9 + 5.6 seconds, or 8.5 seconds.
Gil pretended the Commission concluded 5.6 seconds and WC defenders have changed that to 8.5 seconds:
"Oh, Oswald couldn't fire three shots in 5.6 seconds ? Well, it was really 8.5 seconds."
Except the Commission didn't conclude that, did they? The 5.6 seconds is an argument for the shortest possible time, which many critics have adopted as the only possible time advanced by the Commission.
> >> This is what believers do all the time, they simply move on, and
> >> absolutely REFUSE to retract previously made statements.
> Notice that Huckster's embarrassed that he asked a question so easily
> and correctly answered.
You threw out some names. You didn't document anything, and it's beside the point in any case.
> >>>> Oh, Oswald didn't own a white jacket ? Well, it was really tannish-grey.
> >> Non refutation deleted.
> >
> >I pointed out...
>
>
> What part of "non refutation" didn't you understand?
What part of my explanation didn't you understand? You keep running from it, without addressing any of it.
The jacket in evidence appears darker in photographs taken in artificial light than it does in bright sunlight. This is true because of the nature of film.
> >>>> Oh, the rifle was longer than the bag ? Well, the bag was really 41 inches.
> >> Sheer speculation deleted.
> >
> >No...
>
>
> Yes.
Ben runs from my point once more.
> >>>> Everytime they can't deal with the evidence, they just revise the evidence.
> >>>
> >>>The evidence establishes...
> >>
> >> That Gil is right.
> >
> >No...
>
>
> Yes.
You deleted my point again!
No, I changed Gil's response to the actual one advanced by the Commission, and cited the evidence for the Commission's conclusion. True to form, you deleted it:
No, the rifle was disassembled because Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle, and constructed a 38-inch bag. But he was actually shipped a 40.2-inch rifle.
Rifle Oswald Ordered:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xkdKVRtQe3k/UrKs7tMMUUI/AAAAAAAAxbE/9XTcHWjNbuE/s535/Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg
Rifle Oswald was shipped bore the serial number C2766:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
Rifle recovered from Depository bore the serial number C2766:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm
Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle.
The rifle shipped Oswald bore the serial number C2766.
The rifle found in the Depository bore that same serial number but measured 40.2 inches.
And here's Frazier's testimony on that:
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you explain why someone might call Exhibit 139 a German-made Mauser rifle or a Mauser bolt-action rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - The Mauser was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, and the basic bolt-action rifle, from which many others were copied. And since this uses the same type of bolt system, it may have been referred to as a Mauser for that reason.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you measured the dimensions of this rifle assembled, and disassembled?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you give us that information?
Mr. FRAZIER - The overall length is 40.2 inches. It weighs 8 pounds even.
>
> Take your spanking like a man, and learn from it.
Your ability to convince yourself you are winning the argument here when the only one citing the evidence has been me is simply astounding.