"Common Sense" From Hank Seinzant, aka Joe Zircon, aka Moronic Fucktard

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

From the archives of David von Penis, in which he quotes various wacky luminaries interspaced with his own humble blather, he quotes Nuthouse Favorite, Hank Seinzant offering up his "common sense" about a two-foot bag holding a three-foot rifle:

"Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle. These are unreasonable options: Curtain rods; camping equipment; no bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of Oswald's actions."

-- Hank Sienzant (aka Joe Zircon); July 17, 2000

In the world of Hank Logic Oswald could only be lying about a particular rifle, one that could not possibly fit in the bag seen by Frazier and Linnie Mae. This is common sense in the Nutter Universe. But Oswald, as a guilty party to a conspiracy, might have been lying about another weapon, ine which could actually fit into a two-foot bag, a Remington XP-100, which was available in 14 and 18-inch versions. But, if the Nutters even feel up to confronting the idea, they will blabber on about no such gun being found in Dealey Plaza, as if it is impossible that somebody could have taken it away unseen. They will ignore the fact that Marvin Faye Chism fled the scene with a two-foot long handbag after having rub up to the pergola from which "Shadow Man" can be seen walking in a Bothun photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RED2FBQX0HE

To the Nutters, what makes the most sense is impossible. They would prefer to think that Oswald could squeeze a 41-inch rifle into a two-foot bag. This is their "common sense." Oswald would have lied about a Remington XP-100, too, and it would have fit into his bag.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 4:10:50 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> From the archives of David von Penis, in which he quotes various wacky luminaries interspaced with his own humble blather, he quotes Nuthouse Favorite, Hank Seinzant offering up his "common sense" about a two-foot bag holding a three-foot rifle:
>
> "Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle. These are unreasonable options: Curtain rods; camping equipment; no bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of Oswald's actions."
>
> -- Hank Sienzant (aka Joe Zircon); July 17, 2000

> To the Nutters, what makes the most sense is impossible. They would prefer to think that Oswald could squeeze a 41-inch rifle into a two-foot bag. This is their "common sense."

Oswald didn't lie about the bag, the cops did.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

Evidence Oswald DID bring curtain rods to work that day
https://gil-jesus.com/the-curtain-rod-debacle/

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yes, I think the cops lied, too, and made a bag of their own and said that's what they found.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:56:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Damn, you'll believe just about anything except the truth of the JFK assassination.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 7:33:47 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Damn, you'll believe just about anything except the truth of the JFK assassination.

Merely par for the course for Internet CTers.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 6:17:12 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> Yes, I think the cops lied, too, and made a bag of their own and said that's what they found.

That's exactly what the evidence says. The only paper and tape that matched the paper and tape on the bag
was the paper and tape that was in the shipping room on the afternoon of November 22nd.

That bag was never on the sixth floor because it wasn't in any of the crime scene photos.
It was a concoction of Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker. Any other officer on the sixth floor testified that they had never seen it.

When the FBI examined it, they could find no evidence that the rifle was ever in that bag.

That bag was made by police on the afternoon of the 22nd.
They made it 38" for what they thought was a 36" rifle.

They made it after Oswald was under arrest in order to connect the rifle to the building,
but what they didn't know was that they were connecting it to the building on the 22nd.
The paper and tape was like a fingerprint because no other roll of paper and tape matched it.
But they had no way of knowing that. They thought all the paper and tape was the same.

After they made the bag, they took samples from the same roll of paper and tape they made it from.

That's why the tape had marks from the TSBD's only tape dispenser. It's proof the bag was made in the shipping room.

The FBI found this out when they returned to the TSBD and took samples of paper and tape. They
examined them and found out they were different. They then knew that the bag was made in the shipping room
on the 22nd and hid that fact.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:27:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> That bag [CE142] was never on the sixth floor because it wasn't in any of the crime scene photos.

On October 22, 2019, Patrick Jackson (in a post at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum), noticed something in one of the original DPD photographs taken on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63 that apparently nobody else had ever noticed prior to that time in 2019. Jackson noticed that the empty paper bag (which became Commission Exhibit No. 142, as well as CE626) was actually visible in the picture seen below, which shows the boxes around the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest. The paper bag, with its creases and folds plainly visible, is sitting on top of some of the Sniper's Nest boxes. I've drawn a blue box around the paper bag, which has been, quite literally, hiding in plain sight for over 50 years:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl8iPL7ojnxj8ptjV04o3d-VFb3XLscQZAiTUcnY2Q_JxWlfJiXDztY0WFEwos7WzLr7ZVYP7BB51f0u8bZ-ltYBmXmUQxEdRBERSIyYnFQVEn7fwP3_UBDAopDkfeLGdGJXT-XP18dwyouz8i9YWRgqQVAXLKiZH3lO6ectWjMc_FE6W-HxJMbuN_/s892/TSBD-Sixth-Floor-Southeast-Corner-Highlighting-Paper-Bag.jpg

And here's an extra-large zoomed-in version of the photo, produced in 2019 by Patrick Jackson, highlighting the paper bag on top of the boxes (click to enlarge):

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz-p32m6Mamx1fX3t-yW9owb0VtjAbWfTRAsenk-gKw25AMB_zGPhyDCH51NZiOLCbV4Hn9j15QmIpOkMp4Cbe0oonqxwPTjO5xCwZNo9JpD406bj7TOZ9CfzGm-F8KIjVdgMA26Dmc2PSrTLR8-PC2rgCnDbAZsvK6VIBsfVzD1Z24pVQep_mozbd/s1500/CE508-Zoomed-Showing-Paper-Bag.jpg

The Warren Commission utilized the above photograph showing the outside of the Sniper's Nest as Commission Exhibit No. 508. And the back side of the original photograph taken by the Dallas Police Department [below] indicates that that photo was taken on "11-22-63" on "6th floor, 411 Elm, SE Corner where shots fired from window".

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339412/m1/2/

And here's another high-quality version of the very same photo (from the Dallas Municipal Archives). Click for a bigger view:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj26as7IqUEFEleKbI7YUdPLnMzaJvDJ_EO7Kw_l75N1z8NSgeunKczUN9NdXUdMdKHNVON0w6OmFkAvRGcoCzZd1hH3qoIdTpictUX1tsP01FEoBR5xHyIvOQTZFlAXhjkeI21qEhlXw2VdfLQIJSfH8oCHuQsyV6aD0l7BRSyo207JY087o5trhZa/s3000-h/TSBD-Sixth-Floor.jpg

So, the above 11/22/63 photo showing an empty paper bag sitting atop boxes which are bordering the Sniper's Nest (which is a location just a few feet from where the police originally discovered the folded-up paper sack) is providing pretty good evidence for CE142 being a legitimate and valid piece of evidence in the JFK murder case.

Because if there was never any paper bag found near the Sniper's Nest at all on November 22nd, as many CTers claim, then how can they explain the presence of what certainly looks like the CE142 bag sitting on top of those SN boxes on November 22?

After looking at the above picture, will conspiracists now contend that the evil DPD cops decided to haul their "fake" paper bag back up to the sixth floor and place it atop the Sniper's Nest boxes?

But if the evil Dallas cops did something like that, why in the world wouldn't they have wanted to take a photograph of the fake bag in the place where they say it was originally discovered (the far southeast corner, on the floor)?

In my opinion, the above photo of the bag creates quite a problem for the many conspiracy theorists who currently reside in the "There Was Never Any Paper Bag Found On The Sixth Floor On November 22nd" club.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1360.html#The-Paper-Bag

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:27:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> It [the CE142 bag] was a concoction of Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker. Any other officer on the sixth floor testified that they had never seen it.

Dead wrong. At least two other officers (besides Day and Studebaker) testified they saw the long paper bag/sack:

L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97].
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103].

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think the cops did find a bag on the scene. That's the one that homicide officers displayed to the media when coming out of the TSBD. But in one FBI document it is stressed that Lt. Day found the bag in evidence, that he immediately took possession of it and locked it up and that it was NOT displayed to anybody. I believe this is a denial that the bag displayed to the media by the homicide officers is the bag in evidence. What it means, I believe, is that the somebody wanted a different bag than the one which was actually found and made up a new one to fit the desired size.

[Gil Jesus]

OH BOY DOES THIS MEAN I'LL BE FEATURED IN ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR SILLY "ARGUMENTS" ?

You're confusing Bonnie Ray Williams' paper "sack" that held his chicken lunch with with the police-constructed "gunsack" that was made in the shipping room.

Sheriff Deputy Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper’s nest, testified that he saw the 8-12 inch high brown paper “lunchsack” that had been left behind by Bonnie Ray Williams. Mooney was asked if he saw a paper bag at any other window:

Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn’t. ( 3 H 288 )
He was also asked if he saw anything in the corner.
Mr. BALL. …..Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn’t see anything over in the corner. ( 3 H 286 )

Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive, also only saw the lunchsack:

Mr. HILL. The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack, supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository, and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunchsack, and that that was the only sack that I saw, and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun. ( 7 H 65 )

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:

Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don’t remember seeing any. ( 6 H 268 )

Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:

Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found, near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?
Mr. BOYD. I don’t believe I did. ( 7 H 122 )

Incredibly, lacking an actual photograph of the “gunsack” in the sniper’s nest, and with numerous officers who saw the ‘sniper’s nest” testifying that they never saw the “gunsack”, the Warren Commission placed in evidence a photo of the sniper’s nest with the outline of the “gunsack” drawn in!!! ( Studebaker Exhibit F )

Montgomery didn’t recognize it when he saw it, remembered it being “somewhere” and sounded like a man who was covering for his fellow officers:

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Is this the sack right here, now?
Mr. BALL. That’s right–do you remember that?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I don’t remember the sack being right there–I remember it was there somewhere, but exactly–I don’t.
Mr. BALL. Evidently you don’t know?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir. ( 7 H 98 )

I believe there’s a lot of evidence here that points to this “gunsack” as having been constructed on the afternoon of the assassination.

First, crime scene photographs prove that it wasn’t where they said they found it.

Second, two different officers said they found it. One claimed to have a witness and stated no one else saw it.

Third, the prints taken from it are proof that Oswald never carried it.

Fourth, there were not enough fibers to say they came from the blanket in the Paine garage.

Fifth, there was no evidence that the rifle was ever inside it.

Sixth, it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone, Oswald or anyone else, to have constructed this bag without leaving fingerprints. There were prints in that bag, the FBI destroyed them with a chemical.

Seventh, the paper and tape used to construct the bag matched the paper and tape that was on the shipping room table on the afternoon of November 22nd to the exclusion of all others.

The Paper “Gunsack” was made by the Dallas Police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 after Oswald was in custody.

The markings on the tape were the same as the markings from the tape dispenser in the shipping room. If Oswald took the paper to Irving with him on Thursday night, did he take the tape and dispenser as well ? How could he have done that without anyone knowing ?

The paper on the “gunsack” matched the paper that was on the shipping table on the afternoon of the 22nd.

The tape on the “gunsack” matched the tape that was in the tape dispenser in the shipping room on the afternoon of the 22nd.

This tells me that the paper “gunsack” was made by the Dallas Police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 after Oswald was in custody. They made the “gunsack” with the paper and tape that was available, then took samples from the same roll and tape.

By doing that they were trying to match the paper and tape from the “gunsack” to the paper and tape from the TSBD ( so they thought ). What they didn’t know was that the rolls of paper were different from roll to roll and the rolls of tape were different from roll to roll so what they were actually doing was matching the paper and tape on the “gunsack” to the TSBD ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE ASSASSINATION.

[David Von Pein]

Apparently Gil J. Jesus now can't even read simple testimony. If he could, he'd be able to see that both of the DPD officers I cited earlier (Montgomery & Johnson) positively mentioned seeing a larger sack, and not ONLY Bonnie Ray Williams' sack with the chicken bones....

L.D. MONTGOMERY -- We took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0053a.htm

---------------

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?"

MARVIN JOHNSON -- "Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was [sic] wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag."

MR. BELIN -- "Where was this found?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Right in the corner of the building."

MR. BELIN -- "On what floor?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Sixth floor."

MR. BELIN -- "Which corner?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "Southeast corner."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know who found it?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "I know that the first I saw of it, L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor*, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it."

MR. BELIN -- "When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?"

MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package."

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0056a.htm

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1360.html#The-Paper-Bag

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:27:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 6:17:12 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > Yes, I think the cops lied, too, and made a bag of their own and said that's what they found.
> That's exactly what the evidence says. The only paper and tape that matched the paper and tape on the bag
> was the paper and tape that was in the shipping room on the afternoon of November 22nd.
>
> That bag was never on the sixth floor because it wasn't in any of the crime scene photos.
> It was a concoction of Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker. Any other officer on the sixth floor testified that they had never seen it.
>
> When the FBI examined it, they could find no evidence that the rifle was ever in that bag.
>
> That bag was made by police on the afternoon of the 22nd.
> They made it 38" for what they thought was a 36" rifle.
>

I don't suppose it occurred to a sleuth like you that Oswald made the bag 38 inches because he
thought he had a 36" rifle. That's what he ordered but Klein's shipped him the 40 inch rifle instead.
Oswald wouldn't have discovered it until he took the paper bag back to the Paine's house and tried
to put his rifle in it. I would have loved to have seen his reaction when he saw two inches of the
barrel sticking out of the top. I imagine he would have used several of the seven words you
weren't allowed to say on television back then.

[Gil Jesus]

Again his "fairly small package" isn't the 38 inch gunsack. It's the lunch sack from the chicken.
He keeps referring to this as the "sack".

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0055b.htm

No physical evidence exists that supports the finding of the "gunsack" on the sixth floor.

They were told to secure the crime scene ( 7 H 103 ) and Montgomery picked up the "gunsack" ?
What kind of police officer touches evidence at a crime scene without using gloves ?

And you've resorted once again to deception. Those crime scene photos you posted links to,
you've taken someone else's interpretation of the pictures and presented them as fact.

You don't know if that 38 inch bag is in those pictures anymore than I do.
You provide no evidence that the bag is depicted in those pics and no evidence to corroborate it.

And yet you present it as fact.

The reason why people don't want to engage you in debate over this case is because you never tell the whole story.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1360.html#The-Paper-Bag

https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:03:44 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#The-Paper-Bag

[David Von Pein]

You're nuts. You think the LUNCH sack was "folded and refolded"? That was Johnson's description.
He was obviously describing the GUN SACK, not any small lunch sack.

Plus:

Mr. BELIN. Where would the sack have been found with reference to those vertical pipes? These vertical pipes, I believe, on the south side of the sixth floor near the east corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. That sack would be over near the corner of the building here [pointing].
Mr. BELIN. Would all the sack be east of the pipes, or would part of the sack be sticking out west of the pipes?
Mr. JOHNSON. The way it was folded, it would all have to be over here.
Mr. BELIN. Your testimony then is that all the sack would have been east of the pipes. Is that correct?
Mr. JOHNSON. I would say that the sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.

-------------------

Again, Johnson is describing a sack/package that has been "FOLDED UP". That's not Bonnie Ray's Lunch Bag. No way.

> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0055b.htm
>
> No physical evidence exists that supports the finding of the "gunsack" on the sixth floor.
>
> They were told to secure the crime scene ( 7 H 103 ) and Montgomery picked up the "gunsack" ?
> What kind of police officer touches evidence at a crime scene without using gloves ?
>
> And you've resorted once again to deception. Those crime scene photos you posted links to,
> you've taken someone else's interpretation of the pictures and presented them as fact.
>
> You don't know if that 38 inch bag is in those pictures anymore than I do.
> You provide no evidence that the bag is depicted in those pics and no evidence to corroborate it.
>
> And yet you present it as fact.
>
> The reason why people don't want to engage you in debate over this case is because you never tell the whole story.

You can see the long paper package on top of the boxes in CE508. And the various creases and folds pretty much match CE142. But keep denying this gun sack ever existed:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz-p32m6Mamx1fX3t-yW9owb0VtjAbWfTRAsenk-gKw25AMB_zGPhyDCH51NZiOLCbV4Hn9j15QmIpOkMp4Cbe0oonqxwPTjO5xCwZNo9JpD406bj7TOZ9CfzGm-F8KIjVdgMA26Dmc2PSrTLR8-PC2rgCnDbAZsvK6VIBsfVzD1Z24pVQep_mozbd/s1500/CE508-Zoomed-Showing-Paper-Bag.jpg

What happened was this: The police picked up the gun sack before it ever got photographed (and yes, that was a mistake; it should have been photographed, but unfortunately it wasn't; but that doesn't mean it never existed). Then, after picking up the gun sack (whether it be Montgomery or Studebaker who actually picked it up), it was put on top of the Sniper's Nest boxes, just a few feet from where it was picked up. It then inadvertently got photographed lying on top of the boxes in what became CE508.

[David Von Pein]

Addendum regarding Marvin Johnson's WC testimony.....

It couldn't be more obvious that the DPD's Marvin Johnson is talking about TWO different "sacks" during his WC session (at 7 H 102-103), because he says the lunch sack was found much further WEST than the larger gun sack, which he said was in the far southeast corner, near the pipes.

Plus, just look at the question that was posed by the WC's David Belin BEFORE Marvin Johnson ever said anything at all about the larger "folded" package. Belin prefaces his question by listing the various things that Johnson has already testified about---including the "lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows"....

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.

Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?

Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building. .... Sixth floor. .... Southeast corner.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/johnso_m.htm

----------------------------

Still think Marvin Johnson was talking ONLY about Bonnie Ray's lunch sack, Gil?

[Bud]

I don`t think that is the paper sack in CE508.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0123b.htm

Blow-up of the corresponding photo in the Dallas History collection...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49641/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=0.5&lat=1915&lon=608.5

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> I don`t think that is the paper sack in CE508.

Oh, sure it is. If it's not, it would be an incredible coincidence that a paper-like object (with a lot of folds and creases in it, just like the Oswald/CE142 bag) just happened to be photographed on the SN boxes on 11/22, a mere few feet from where CE142 was found.

What are the odds?

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz-p32m6Mamx1fX3t-yW9owb0VtjAbWfTRAsenk-gKw25AMB_zGPhyDCH51NZiOLCbV4Hn9j15QmIpOkMp4Cbe0oonqxwPTjO5xCwZNo9JpD406bj7TOZ9CfzGm-F8KIjVdgMA26Dmc2PSrTLR8-PC2rgCnDbAZsvK6VIBsfVzD1Z24pVQep_mozbd/s2000/CE508-Zoomed-Showing-Paper-Bag.jpg

[Gil Jesus]

They shipped books. They used paper inside the cartons to protect the books from damage.
That paper could be anything.
You're presenting your opinion as fact without any proof that that's what it is.
Typical.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> What happened was this: The police picked up the gun sack before it ever got photographed (and yes, that was a mistake; it should have been photographed, but unfortunately it wasn't; but that doesn't mean it never > existed). Then, after picking up the gun sack (whether it be Montgomery or Studebaker who actually picked it up), it was put on top of the Sniper's Nest boxes, just a few feet from where it was picked up. It then
> inadvertently got photographed lying on top of the boxes in what became CE508.

Bullshit. The cops lied. Neither Studebaker nor Montgomery ever picked up any "gunsack" on the sixth floor.
How do I know that ?
Because their fingerprints were never identified on it.
Like I said, there's no physical evidence to corroborate these officers' claims.
And there's no evidence that what your seeing in CE508 is THE gunsack.
That's YOUR OPINION.
No go put that in your fucking blog, asshole.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:11:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:51:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > I don`t think that is the paper sack in CE508.
> > Oh, sure it is. If it's not, it would be an incredible coincidence that a paper-like object (with a lot of folds and creases in it, just like the Oswald/CE142 bag) just happened to be photographed on the SN boxes on 11/22, a mere few feet from where CE142 was found.
> >
> > What are the odds?
> >
> > https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz-p32m6Mamx1fX3t-yW9owb0VtjAbWfTRAsenk-gKw25AMB_zGPhyDCH51NZiOLCbV4Hn9j15QmIpOkMp4Cbe0oonqxwPTjO5xCwZNo9JpD406bj7TOZ9CfzGm-F8KIjVdgMA26Dmc2PSrTLR8-PC2rgCnDbAZsvK6VIBsfVzD1Z24pVQep_mozbd/s2000/CE508-Zoomed-Showing-Paper-Bag.jpg
> They shipped books.

They shipped books out. Are saying they wrapped books on the first floor and took them to the sixth? Why?

> They used paper inside the cartons to protect the books from damage.

Show this.

> That paper could be anything.

Then it could be the bag police said was found near the shooting location.

> You're presenting your opinion as fact without any proof that that's what it is.

Where would your stupid hobby be without that?

DVP presented an idea and supported it. You don`t like the idea because it is in conflict with your silly ideas.

> Typical.

Yes, but not in the way you mean.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:18:40 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > What happened was this: The police picked up the gun sack before it ever got photographed (and yes, that was a mistake; it should have been photographed, but unfortunately it wasn't; but that doesn't mean it never > existed). Then, after picking up the gun sack (whether it be Montgomery or Studebaker who actually picked it up), it was put on top of the Sniper's Nest boxes, just a few feet from where it was picked up. It then
> > inadvertently got photographed lying on top of the boxes in what became CE508.
> Bullshit. The cops lied.

You wrote this...

"It [the CE142 bag] was a concoction of Lt. Day and Detective Studebaker. Any other officer on the sixth floor testified that they had never seen it."

Now that that is shown to be untrue it becomes irrelevant how many cops saw it, because they are all liars.

>Neither Studebaker nor Montgomery ever picked up any "gunsack" on the sixth floor.
> How do I know that ?
> Because their fingerprints were never identified on it.

You don`t leave fingerprints on every item you touch.

And perhaps they were careful in how they picked it up to not leave their own fingerprints.

> Like I said, there's no physical evidence to corroborate these officers' claims.

Except the photo he produiced.

> And there's no evidence that what your seeing in CE508 is THE gunsack.
> That's YOUR OPINION.

Supported opinion.

[Bud]

Sorry about that, I didn`t follow the discussion closely, I didn`t see where this was produced earlier. I thought you were talking about the item to the left in the photo. Yes, that appears to be the bag.

[John Corbett]

There is also a photo of the bag being taken out of the TSBD.

https://i0.wp.com/www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/65/Pict_essay_ProofFBI_PaperBag.jpg

Note is being held upright by some sort of rod so as not to contaminate it with fingerprints. Are
we supposed to believe the cops just manufactured this bag one the spot. If so, how did they get
Oswald's finger and palm prints on it since he had left the premises.

These assclowns never think things through.

[John Corbett]

One other thought, if the cops had just manufactured this bag, how could they have done it
without putting their fingerprints on it?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:23:48 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> One other thought, if the cops had just manufactured this bag, how could they have done it
> without putting their fingerprints on it?

The same way Oswald made the bag using only one print of his left index finger and one print of the heel of his right palm.

[John Corbett]

So why were the only prints on the bag Oswald's?

[Bud]

Conspiracy hobbyists are poor thinkers as a rule, but it is thinking like this that puts Gil head and shoulders above the rest. He ignores the prints that are on the bag but finds prints not on the bag to be significant.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:18:40 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There's no evidence that what your [sic] seeing in CE508 is THE gunsack. That's YOUR OPINION.

I'm making the *reasonable* inference that the paper object I see sitting on top of those boxes in CE508 is, indeed, the very same paper bag that we see in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 142.

This reasonable inference is strengthened significantly by my knowledge that a 38-inch paper bag (with various folds and creases in it) WAS definitely found by the police within just a few feet of where we see a long-ish paper object (which *also* has some folds and creases in it) resting on top of the Sniper's Nest boxes in Commission Exhibit 508.

My reasonable inference is also buttressed by the additional fact that the photo in CE508 was taken *on the exact same day* that the police found the 38-inch paper bag in the far southeast corner on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas, Texas, USA. That day being: Friday, November 22, 1963 AD.

But keep denying the "reasonable" nature of my above inference, Mr. Jesus. After all, that's what conspiracy theorists do best.

BTW / FWIW....

Here again is the original 2019 online forum discussion concerning the "Paper Bag In CE508" discovery:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2004.msg64638.html#msg64638

Interestingly enough, the fellow who first noticed the paper bag in the CE508 photograph (Patrick Jackson) seems to be a conspiracy believer, based on some of his other comments in the above-linked forum thread.

Lots more "Paper Bag" discussion:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#The-Paper-Bag

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 04:33:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:56:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 4:10:50?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>> From the archives of David von Penis, in which he quotes various wacky luminaries interspaced with his own humble blather, he quotes Nuthouse Favorite, Hank Seinzant offering up his "common sense" about a two-foot bag holding a three-foot rifle:
>>>
>>> "Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle. These are unreasonable options: Curtain rods; camping equipment; no bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of Oswald's actions."
>>>
>>> -- Hank Sienzant (aka Joe Zircon); July 17, 2000
>>> To the Nutters, what makes the most sense is impossible. They would prefer to think that Oswald could squeeze a 41-inch rifle into a two-foot bag. This is their "common sense."
>> Oswald didn't lie about the bag, the cops did.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>>
>> Evidence Oswald DID bring curtain rods to work that day
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-curtain-rod-debacle/
>
>Damn, you'll believe just about anything except the truth of the JFK assassination.

I *know* you won't state publicly which logical fallacy this is. Prove
me right...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:56:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 7:33:47?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> Damn, you'll believe just about anything except the truth of the JFK assassination.
>

>Merely par for the course for Internet CTers.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 03:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 6:17:12?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> Yes, I think the cops lied, too, and made a bag of their own and said that's what they found.
>

>That's exactly what the evidence says. The only paper and tape that matched the paper and tape on the bag
>was the paper and tape that was in the shipping room on the afternoon of November 22nd.

Did it?

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:03:44?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/#T

If you can't defend your lies in open forum, why do you cite them?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 19:14:23 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:18:40?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> And there's no evidence that what your [sic] seeing in CE508 is THE gunsack. That's YOUR OPINION. No go put that in your fucking blog, asshole.
>
> I'm making a reasonable inference concerning the paper object I see
> sitting on top of those boxes in CE508. This reasonable inference is
> coupled with my knowledge that a 38-inch paper bag (with various folds
> and creases in it)...

It's good that a believer has finally admitted to seeing folds in the
paper.

Too bad Von Penis can't take the next step...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 21:35:47 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 5:18:40?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There's no evidence that what your [sic] seeing in CE508 is THE gunsack. That's YOUR OPINION.
>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:38:36?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:23:48?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> One other thought, if the cops had just manufactured this bag, how could they have done it
>>> without putting their fingerprints on it?
>> The same way Oswald made the bag using only one print of his left index finger and one print of the heel of his right palm.

Logical fallacy deleted. It's amusing that believers can't live
without logical fallacies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 05:56:56 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.c

If you can't defend it here, why bother posting it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 03:20:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>There is also a photo of the bag being taken out of the TSBD.
>
>https://i0.wp.com/www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/65/Pict_essay_ProofFBI_PaperBag.jpg
>
>Note is being held upright by some sort of rod so as not to contaminate it with fingerprints. Are
>we supposed to believe the cops just manufactured this bag one the spot. If so, how did they get
>Oswald's finger and palm prints on it since he had left the premises.

I can't FORCE a believer to tell us what is plainly seen in that
photo, and what it means.

No believer has ever dared to admit that this "bag" clearly was used
to wrap a book.

This fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 04:01:53 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 6:27:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> That bag [CE142] was never on the sixth floor because it wasn't in any of the crime scene photos.
>
>On October 22, 2019...

If you can't defend it, why do you post it?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 4:10:50 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> From the archives of David von Penis, in which he quotes various wacky luminaries interspaced with his own humble blather, he quotes Nuthouse Favorite, Hank Seinzant offering up his "common sense" about a two-foot bag holding a three-foot rifle:
>
> "Oswald lied about the bag because the bag contained the rifle. These are unreasonable options: Curtain rods; camping equipment; no bag; an empty bag; and a bag containing anything except a rifle. Any alternative except the rifle can be eliminated on the basis of Oswald's actions."
>
> -- Hank Sienzant (aka Joe Zircon); July 17, 2000
>

> In the world of Hank Logic Oswald could only be lying about a particular rifle, one that could not possibly fit in the bag seen by Frazier and Linnie Mae. This is common sense in the Nutter Universe.

Yes, because the evidence links Oswald via photographs, fingerprints, shirt fibers, and business records to one rifle -- the one recovered from the Depository.


> But Oswald, as a guilty party to a conspiracy, might have been lying about another weapon, ine which could actually fit into a two-foot bag, a Remington XP-100, which was available in 14 and 18-inch versions.

Why don't you list the evidence for Oswald having access to the weapon you conjecture?
Take as much space as you need.


> But, if the Nutters even feel up to confronting the idea, they will blabber on about no such gun being found in Dealey Plaza, as if it is impossible that somebody could have taken it away unseen.

Sorry, maybe time travelers on vacation shot Kennedy. You hopefully won't reject that, because as time travelers do, they can zap into a specific date and time, and then zap right out again. Or maybe it was pink unicorns that did it. There is as much evidence for my two suggestion as there is for yours. If we stick to the evidence, the weapon found in the TSBD is linked to Oswald.


> They will ignore the fact that Marvin Faye Chism fled the scene with a two-foot long handbag after having rub up to the pergola from which "Shadow Man" can be seen walking in a Bothun photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RED2FBQX0HE

ABO -- Anybody But Oswald appears to be the coin of the realm among CTS.

>
> To the Nutters, what makes the most sense is impossible. They would prefer to think that Oswald could squeeze a 41-inch rifle into a two-foot bag.

The found bag was *measured* at over three feet long. The *estimates* of the witnesses varied from two feet to three feet.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
“RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.“

> This is their "common sense."

Yes, the found rifle, traceable to Oswald, could fit inside the found bag, bearing his print.

> Oswald would have lied about a Remington XP-100, too, and it would have fit into his bag.

He denied owning a rifle. The evidence indicates otherwise. Oswald was lying when he said he didn't own the C2766 MC. There is no evidence linking him to any other rifle.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You cherry pick your estimate of 3 feet 6 inches from what Randle said months later. The day one estimates are 2 feet, you lying coward retard.

[Hank Sienzant]

This “lying coward retard” would like to point out the link he provided is for the 11/22/63 interview of Randle by Agent Bookhout (typed up the following day).

And it's not three feet six inches in length -- it's three feet in length by six inches across.

Again:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm
“RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.“

And amusingly, you still do not offer any evidence of Oswald having access to the Remington model you speculate. Because you have none.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'm sorry, Fuckface. I didn't notice that. So, you are just a coward retard in this comment. Congratulations. But Buell saw more of the package and he saw it up close and he saw Oswald carry it cupped in his hand and under his armpit, all of which exclude the 3 and half foot length written in the FBI report which you prefer. Yes, I speculate that Oswald carried a Remington xp-100 because he never said so, and the DPD never said so, and the FBI never said so, and the CIA never said so. But the photography suggests that Marvin Faye Chism carried away some 2-foot item from the pergola inside her 2-foot long handbag, so my speculation is that she carried away a short gun that had been used behind the picket fence where witnesses thought a shot had come from. That is speculation, Fucktard.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

And because my speculation is based upon photography, I am forced to provide links to my videos dealing with this issue of the Remington XP-100 which was used, probably by Oswald himself, behind the picket fence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RED2FBQX0HE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfrB7pck3Lg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74AVw10YNLk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7dZo2d7Og

[John Corbett]

Do you have any idea how laughable your theories are?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Do you have any idea how stupid you are? Of course you don't. But everybody else knows. And ti think, it took you nearly 7 years to get tired of the taste of Donald Trump's butt hole! That's some kinda stupid!

[John Corbett]

Articulate as ever.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 03:06:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Do you have any idea how laughable your theories are?

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 Sat, 10 Jun 2023 18:56:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Yes, because the evidence links Oswald via photographs, fingerprints, shirt fibers, and business records to one rifle -- the one recovered from the Depository.

Is that what you think?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 08:45:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Articulate as ever.