Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission - #6 - Just For Coward Corbutt

[Ben Holmes]

"When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building
it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's
markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the
manufacturer's code number)." (WCR 555)

The statement references the testimony of Captain Fritz (4H 205) and
Lt. Day (4H 258). In neither reference does the clip appear. The WC
has simply lied - using citations that do *not* support their claim.
There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.

(Watch folks, as not a *SINGLE* believer will produce these citations,
or admit that the WCR simply lied.)

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster read this, then simply ran away...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:06:55 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> "When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building
> it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's
> markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the
> manufacturer's code number)." (WCR 555)
>
> The statement references the testimony of Captain Fritz (4H 205) and
> Lt. Day (4H 258). In neither reference does the clip appear. The WC
> has simply lied - using citations that do *not* support their claim.

Chuckle. The correct citation for J.C.Day is 4H260. You pretend an error in citation is a lie.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0134b.htm

Here’s what Day said about the clip:
— quote —
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.'
— unquote—

> There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
> take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
> the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.
>

There are no problems with the clip. Photos taken of J.C.Day taking the clip back to the crime lab show the clip in the rifle.

You can see one such photo here:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm

> (Watch folks, as not a *SINGLE* believer will produce these citations,
> or admit that the WCR simply lied.)

A typo and a lie are two different things.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But is there a clip on the rifle when Day first finds it? https://postimg.cc/crYXJ4gX

[Hank Sienzant]

To answer your question, Yes. Any other answer is not consistent with the evidence.

Photos establish there was a clip in the rifle removed by J. C. Day from the Texas School Book Depository. J. C. Day noted that the rifle he took from the Depository bore the serial number C2766, and that the clip removed he removed from the rifle had notations on it that are consistent with the clip in the archives ('SMI, 9 x 2.').

To argue otherwise is to argue:
1. Someone planted Oswald’s Carcano but overlooked planting a clip in the rifle, thereby making three shots in eight seconds impossible, exposing the conspiracy, AND
2. Someone in the Depository, upon the discovery of Oswald’s Carcano sans clip, realized the problem and called up someone who just happened to have a spare Carcano clip laying around, and they rushed it to the Depository in time for Day to be photographed with the clip in the Carcano when he left the building.

How bizarre is that theory? Not bizarre enough for some people, apparently.

Do you really imagine *that* happened, rather than the more realistic scenario that the clip was in Oswald’s Carcano all along?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But, apparently, the photography of the discovery shows no clip present. Shouldn't you have an explanation for that to support your assertion?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This photo at the time of discovery seems to show an empty hole where your beloved clip is supposed to be.
https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
Surely you feel the need to explain that. Right?

[Hank Sienzant]

No, it shows no clip protruding from the rifle. That’s something entirely different. The normal position of the clip is within the magazine. The photograph doesn’t establish a missing clip, it is entirely consistent with a clip within the weapon. What do the other frames show? The image you post shows the magazine at a right angle to the camera. Funny you would post an image that doesn’t allow a conclusion.

> Shouldn't you have an explanation for that to support your assertion?

See above.

[Hank Sienzant]

Have you established the clip should show within the rifle when inserted properly within the weapon?

Since you haven’t done that, your argument is based on your assumption, not any facts.

[Hank Sienzant]

Again, to answer your question, Yes. Any other answer is not consistent with the evidence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But your own link shows the clip sticking out of the bottom of the gun. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm
So, you yourself depend upon being able to see the clip in a photo when Day is walking out of the building, but that same clip is not present in the photography when Day discovers the weapon. https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz How do you explain that?

[John Corbett]

I read a long time ago that the clip is supposed to eject when the last round is loaded but it is
common for it not to do so. I can't cite a specific source because I don't remember where I had
read that.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

If that's what happened, then wouldn't "Oswald's" clip be by the window with the expended shells? But your explanation is probably good enough for Hank, so, well done!

[Hank Sienzant]

He’s reduced to arguing maybe this, maybe that. Anything to get Oswald off.

The evidence is the clip was in the Carcano when removed from the Depository. That’s fully consistent with the clip being in the Depository when the shots were fired.

When the evidence further indicates:
1. That three shots were fired from that Carcano (three shells at the snipers nest window, two large fragments found in the limo, and one nearly whole bullet found at Parkland Hospital — with all six linked to that Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world),
2. That the shots were fired in fewer than ten seconds,
3. You can’t fire three shots from that Carcano in ten seconds without a clip

Then the only reasonable conclusion is the clip was in the weapon when it was fired during the assassination. And hence, there’s no mystery nor problem here.

Feel free to reach for any unreasonable conclusion you wish.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

So, you have no explanation for the clip not being on the rifle when Lt. Day first examined it. Okay. Just asking.

[Hank Sienzant]

Asked and answered dozens of times. My toaster is supposed to pop up the toast when done. And it works just fine when new. But if it doesn’t function properly after 20 years, is there a mystery worthy of thousands or millions of words wringing my hands about?

No. Ditto with the clip. It didn’t drop down and out at the sniper’s nest window because it was a 20-year-old war-surplus weapon with a 20-year-old war-surplus clip. The evidence indicates it was stuck in the weapon, and started to drop out at some point, but was still partially stuck in the weapon when photographed.

What exactly are you arguing for? There was no clip, and someone brought one to the TSBD after the assassination, or what?

[Hank Sienzant]

Not what I said. I pointed out this
- Have you established the clip should show within the rifle when inserted properly within the weapon?

- Since you haven’t done that, your argument is based on your assumption, not any facts.

You’re still assuming what you need to prove. We’ll await your effort to take this argument someplace. Like I said, “ Feel free to reach for any unreasonable conclusion you wish.”

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'm not arguing for anything, just asking you why the clip is not present when Lt. Day examines the gun. But if you'd rather not talk about that, then fine. I certainly can see why you don't.

[Hank Sienzant]

You are arguing for the "clip is not present when Lt. Day examines the gun."
But if true, how does it get in the gun to be photographed a short time later?
I offered the best explanation I could come up with.
You ignored it and have not offered one of your own.

> just asking you why the clip is not present when Lt. Day examines the gun.

Begged Question Logical Fallacy:
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle.

You're assuming in your point above the clip is not present in the weapon, when that's exactly what you have to prove.

You haven't established the clip was not present. You've assumed it. As I point out now for the third time:
-- Have you established the clip should show within the rifle when inserted properly within the weapon?
-- Since you haven’t done that, your argument is based on your assumption, not any facts.

> But if you'd rather not talk about that, then fine. I certainly can see why you don't.

Straw man argument. Where did I say I'd rather not talk about it?

I've pointed out the problems with your argument above in multiple posts, including that you offer no explanation for how the clip got into the weapon when photographed, if not in the weapon when fired. I've pointed out the evidence that leads a reasonable person to conclude the reasonable answer is the clip was in the weapon at the time of firing, at the time of discovery, and when removed from the building. Ergo, as I said before, there’s no mystery nor problem here.

If you want to pretend you still can't figure it out, fine. That works for me.

[John Corbett]

I guess you didn't understand the part about the clip not always ejecting as it is supposed to.
If it only happens sometimes, it would have been perfectly plausible for the clip to remain in
the rifle or ejected onto the floor.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

What explanation did you offer?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Are you saying that the clip was there when this photograph was taken? https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz

[Hank Sienzant]

I am saying you are making the argument it wasn’t there, and you have yet to establish it would show prior to the final round being ejected.

Go ahead, we’ll wait, support your argument.

[Hank Sienzant]

See the below. Don’t like my theory?
Offer a better one.
I’ve asked for yours, you refuse to go there.

== quote ==

Photos establish there was a clip in the rifle removed by J. C. Day from the Texas School Book Depository. J. C. Day noted that the rifle he took from the Depository bore the serial number C2766, and that the clip removed he removed from the rifle had notations on it that are consistent with the clip in the archives ('SMI, 9 x 2.').

To argue otherwise is to argue:
1. Someone planted Oswald’s Carcano but overlooked planting a clip in the rifle, thereby making three shots in eight seconds impossible, exposing the conspiracy, AND
2. Someone in the Depository, upon the discovery of Oswald’s Carcano sans clip, realized the problem and called up someone who just happened to have a spare Carcano clip laying around, and they rushed it to the Depository in time for Day to be photographed with the clip in the Carcano when he left the building.

How bizarre is that theory? Not bizarre enough for some people, apparently.

Do you really imagine *that* happened, rather than the more realistic scenario that the clip was in Oswald’s Carcano all along?

== unquote ==

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You said you offered an explanation. What was it?

[Hank Sienzant]

It is above, starting with the words, “To argue otherwise is to argue…”. Third time explaining this. How many more times will you ask? If you don’t like my alternate explanation for the clip photographed within the Carcano when Day exits the building, purpose a better one.

It’s either someone brought a clip to the building so they could frame Oswald or the clip was in the building (and hence, within the rifle) all along. A pity six decades of CTs dealing with the evidence couldn’t figure that out.

Also, you started a separate thread on the same subject of the supposed missing clip here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/WC7tk2tYuAE

And you apparently concede the point here: “Well, that's all Hank had to do. Pity he's not as clever as you. Yes, at least from that angle, the clip cannot be seen until it falls out. And it falls out when the last cartridge is chambered, before it is fired.”

But of course, you wouldn’t be a CT if you didn’t still didn’t believe that Oswald did not shoot JFK from the Depository, so you immediately change the subject to the condition of the weapon and Oswald’s shooting ability (a red herring logical fallacy) from the clip issue Ben initially raised:
“… So, if it was working properly, then it should have fallen out by the window. But the gun is an old piece of crap, so maybe it stayed put...until Day carried it out of the building and then it peaked out a bit. That must be Hank's explanation, I imagine. Amazing such a shitty old gun in the hands of a mediocre marksman could accomplish what trained experts with the thing fixed up couldn't.“

And you don’t have to imagine that is my explanation. I told you that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/82GQmZaxAQAJ
“Asked and answered dozens of times. My toaster is supposed to pop up the toast when done. And it works just fine when new. But if it doesn’t function properly after 20 years, is there a mystery worthy of thousands or millions of words wringing my hands about?

No. Ditto with the clip. It didn’t drop down and out at the sniper’s nest window because it was a 20-year-old war-surplus weapon with a 20-year-old war-surplus clip. The evidence indicates it was stuck in the weapon, and started to drop out at some point, but was still partially stuck in the weapon when photographed.

What exactly are you arguing for? There was no clip, and someone brought one to the TSBD after the assassination, or what?”

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I was not arguing for anything. You linked to a photo which showed the clip. I saw photos of Day first examining the rifle, and your clip was not visible. I pointed that out. I had no theory. It's just the evidence. And then Gil was able to explain to me what you could not, that the clip is not normally visible until it ejects from the rifle. I don't think you ever said that. But you say so much, that maybe it got lost in all your bullshit. And now you're upset that Gil can easily explain stuff which you cannot.

[Hank Sienzant]

You ask three times for the explanation, and three times you ignore it and fail to offer a better one. The evidence showed the clip was visible in the rifle when Day emerged from the building holding that rifle. Ergo, it was in the rifle when the rifle was in the building. Not exactly sure why it took six decades to resolve that issue, but I’m glad we finally buried one CT talking point.

Or did we? The Vegas Over/Under line is six weeks before some CT re-introduces this subject.

I’m taking the Under.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just upset because I'm not the one you've been arguing with about this for 60 years. I gave the matter no thought until I saw your link which showed the clip. And then I noticed the clip wasn't visible in the photography with Day. "Huh!" thought I. Why is the clip not visible there? So I asked...the wrong person. I should have asked Gil. He knows lots more stuff than you, but don't let that upset you again! It's no sin that you're dumb as a box of rocks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>> This photo at the time of discovery seems to show an empty hole where your beloved clip is supposed to be.
>> https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
>> Surely you feel the need to explain that. Right?
>

>Have you established...

No moron, it's **YOU** that needs to "establish."

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 03:35:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> But is there a clip on the rifle when Day first finds it? https://postimg.cc/crYXJ4gX
>
>To answer your question, Yes. Any other answer is not consistent with the evidence.

Begging the question... and HUCKSTER of all people couldn't recognize
it.


>Photos establish...


No they don't.

>To argue otherwise is to argue:

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:08:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>> But, apparently, the photography of the discovery shows no clip present.
>
>No, it shows no clip protruding from the rifle.

ROTFLMAO!!!

IT SHOWS NO CLIP... PERIOD!!! Anything else is simply a fallacy on
your part.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 19:35:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 11:06:55?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> "When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building
>> it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's
>> markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the
>> manufacturer's code number)." (WCR 555)
>>
>> The statement references the testimony of Captain Fritz (4H 205) and
>> Lt. Day (4H 258). In neither reference does the clip appear. The WC
>> has simply lied - using citations that do *not* support their claim.
>
>Chuckle.

Chuckle away... I'm laughing at your stupidity. You're faced with
FACTS - and you can't admit it.

> The correct citation for J.C.Day is 4H260. You pretend an error in citation is a lie.

No "pretending" necessary...

>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0134b.htm
>
>Here’s what Day said about the clip:
>— quote —
>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.'
>— unquote—

So where is this record?

>> There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
>> take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
>> the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.
>>
>
>There are no problems with the clip. Photos taken of J.C.Day taking the clip back to the crime lab show the clip in the rifle.

Begging the question.

>You can see one such photo here:
>https://www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm

Sorry Huckster... this is hardly definitive unless you already believe
in the clip.

>> (Watch folks, as not a *SINGLE* believer will produce these citations,
>> or admit that the WCR simply lied.)

And Huckster couldn't do it. The best he could offer was a REFERENCE
to the non-existent citation.

>A typo and a lie are two different things.

You don't know the difference. I've produced AND PROVEN many lies by
the WC and HSCA, and you can't admit **ONE** of them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:20:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I read a long time ago that the clip is supposed to eject when the last round is loaded but it is
>common for it not to do so. I can't cite a specific source because I don't remember where I had
>read that.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> So, you have no explanation for the clip not being on the rifle when Lt. Day first examined it. Okay. Just asking.
>
>Not what I said.

Of course not. You have no explanation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:16:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>> This photo at the time of discovery seems to show an empty hole where your beloved clip is supposed to be.
>> https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
>> Surely you feel the need to explain that. Right?
>

>Again, to answer your question, Yes. Any other answer is not consistent with the evidence.

>
> Photos establish there was a clip in the rifle removed by J. C. Day from the Texas School Book Depository.

No, they don't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:28:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>> Do you really imagine *that* happened, rather than the more realistic scenario that the clip was in Oswald’s Carcano all along?
>

>He’s reduced to arguing...

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> I'm not arguing for anything,
>
>You are arguing for the "clip is not present when Lt. Day examines the gun."

The photographs are right there.

>But if true, how does it get in the gun to be photographed a short time later?

Begged.


>I offered the best explanation...


Citation and evidence is what critics want.

>> just asking you why the clip is not present when Lt. Day examines the gun.
>

>Begged Question...


Nope.

If you want to rely on photographs, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADMIT
WHAT PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:37:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> But your own link shows the clip sticking out of the bottom of the gun. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm

Huckster hasn't shown that that isn't simply a shadow...

>> So, you yourself depend upon being able to see the clip in a photo when Day is walking out of the building, but that same clip is not present in the photography when Day discovers the weapon. https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz How do you explain that?
>
>Asked and answered dozens of times.

The original topic remains the same. The WCR claimed several
citations, neither of which mention the clip.

Huckster managed to find one - but is still missing a citation...


Huckster is desperate to turn it around on critics - but *HE* needs to
establish this.

I'm just pointing out his failures...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:45:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>> Are you saying that the clip was there when this photograph was taken? https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
>
>I am saying you are making the argument it wasn’t there

This *is* what the evidence shows.

Let's not forget that you only found *ONE* of the two citations the WC
made... where's the other one?

If you cannot produce it, then **YOU** are a liar for refusing to
publicly acknowledge that the WCR lied.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 02:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>It’s either someone brought a clip to the building...

Begging the question - you've not yet shown this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> You ask three times for the explanation, and three times you ignore
> it and fail to offer a better one. The evidence showed the clip was
> visible in the rifle when Day emerged from the building holding that
> rifle.

This is indeed YOUR SPECULATION.

But speculation isn't evidence. When you can explain what is holding
the clip - you might go somewhere with this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:07:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:27:32?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:30?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>>> I read a long time ago that the clip is supposed to eject when the last round is loaded but it is
>>> common for it not to do so. I can't cite a specific source because I don't remember where I had
>>> read that.
>> If that's what happened, then wouldn't "Oswald's" clip be by the window with the expended shells? But your explanation is probably good enough for Hank, so, well done!
>
>I guess you didn't understand the part about the clip not always ejecting as it is supposed to.
>If it only happens sometimes, it would have been perfectly plausible for the clip to remain in
>the rifle or ejected onto the floor.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 07:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> What explanation did you offer?
>
>See the below. Don’t like my theory?
>Offer a better one.
>I’ve asked for yours, you refuse to go there.
>
>== quote ==
>Photos establish

You see? There you go lying again...