Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nutters: where are the DPD chain of custody forms ?
194 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Oct 13, 2023, 8:18:42 AM10/13/23
to
For the CE 139 rifle ?
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
For the .38 handgun ?
For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
For Oswald's jacket ?
For CE 399 ?
For the Walker bullet ?
For the "backyard photographs" ?
I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Message has been deleted
Chuck Schuyler
Oct 13, 2023, 9:39:10 AM10/13/23
to
You've received explanations; some thoughtful and detailed, some snarky and sarcastic. None of the answers have satisfied you, and YOU KEEP BRINGING THIS UP. This is what is known as a fringe reset. You attempt to reset the entire evidence debate at the beginning as if none of this has been discussed. Why? Do you think you're going to get fresh, new answers? This is nearly sixty years old and has been all talked out, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
You know what would be fresh and new and liven up the board?
YOUR version of what YOU think happened that day. You are constantly asking others to stand in as proxy Warren Commission members or staff attorneys to answer your hobby point nit picks. LAY OUT WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED. Be open to fair criticism of your ideas, invite your critics to challenge your assumptions, provide tests (or link to the tests from other people) which you feel supports your theories about what occurred, and on and on.
This is a board to discuss the assassination of JFK and the so-called conspiracy that took his life, but oddly, Team Oswald has no interest in discussing the conspiracy. Why?
Why do you fantasize about a trial that will never happen where you are acting as his Johnny Cochrane? Oswald is HISTORICALLY guilty, regardless of your obsession over what would or wouldn't be allowed in court with your crackerjack box attorney credentials. Oswald as the murderer of JFK and JDT will not change unless Team Oswald can come up with a counternarrative that has less holes in it than the case you criticize.
Get busy, old-timer, and stop the odd obsession with what would or wouldn't be allowed in court for a trial that was never going to happen after 11/24/63 and Ruby's lucky shot.
As Trump would say, "Sad!"
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 10:37:11 AM10/13/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 10:40:04 AM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
your burden to prove that claim. That documentation would have been presented at trial. Since,
there was no trial, there was no need for the police or prosecutors to produce those
documents. Why would you expect there to be a record of something that was never needed?
Oh, that's right. You're an idiot. Never mind.
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 10:44:08 AM10/13/23
to
figured out is you can't replace something with nothing. I have no idea what his end game is,
if he has even figured that out himself. Does he expect people to accept that Oswald didn't do
it and that we will never know who did? Not going to happen. Even among those who believe
there was a conspiracy, most of those folks accept that Oswald was an active member of it.
Chuck Schuyler
Oct 13, 2023, 10:52:23 AM10/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:27:40 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 06:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Who the hell are you?
This is a basic logical fallacy. Can you name it?
Do you have enough courage to admit that there's simply no evidence
for any chain of custody on much of the evidence in this case?
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a basic logical fallacy. Can you name it?
Do you have enough courage to admit that there's simply no evidence
for any chain of custody on much of the evidence in this case?
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:27:59 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 06:39:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>> For the .38 handgun ?
>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>> For CE 399 ?
>> For the Walker bullet ?
>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>
>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Logical fallacy deleted.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>> For the .38 handgun ?
>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>> For CE 399 ?
>> For the Walker bullet ?
>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>
>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:29:06 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
When will believers learn that you can't support the truth with
logical fallacies?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>> For CE 399 ?
>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>
>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Logical fallacies deleted.
>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>> For CE 399 ?
>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>
>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
When will believers learn that you can't support the truth with
logical fallacies?
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:30:02 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:44:08?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:44:08?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:39:10?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>>> For CE 399 ?
>>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Logical fallacies deleted.
>>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>>> For CE 399 ?
>>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:30:43 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:37:09 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Here we see Corbutt actually gives the only answer he can...)
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 11:31:32 AM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:40:02 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>> For the .38 handgun ?
>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>> For CE 399 ?
>> For the Walker bullet ?
>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>
>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
>
>If you are going to claim there was a problem with the chain of custody documentation, it is
>your burden to prove that claim.
He just did.
Run coward... as cowards do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>> For the .38 handgun ?
>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>> For CE 399 ?
>> For the Walker bullet ?
>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>
>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
>
>If you are going to claim there was a problem with the chain of custody documentation, it is
>your burden to prove that claim.
Run coward... as cowards do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 12:31:55 PM10/13/23
to
Where and when should they have been filed? These are forms that would have been presented
to the trial court as a matter of routine. With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there
have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 12:51:42 PM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 09:31:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He asks us where are the chain-of-customer forms.
And you aren't honest enough to publicly acknowledge that there's no
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He asks us where are the chain-of-customer forms.
evidence of any.
> Where would he expect them to be?
of the DPD.
>Where and when should they have been filed?
out, Corbutt?
>These are forms that would have been presented
>to the trial court as a matter of routine.
>With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there
>have been to file any of these forms?
standard procedures...
Rather moronic of you, isn't it?
(Logical fallacy deleted)
Gil Jesus
Oct 13, 2023, 1:28:34 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
Because you HAVE no sense.
> With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
You could not tell me.
I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
You could not tell me.
I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
You could not produce them.
Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
Where TF is that documentation, John ?
You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
GAME OVER
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 1:57:10 PM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
>
>Because you HAVE no sense.
>Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
>That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
>And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
>
>I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
>You could not tell me.
>I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
>You could not tell me.
>I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
>You could not produce them.
>
>Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
>
for, yet demand citations from critics for even well-known and
previously established facts.
Corbutt has a burden he cannot meet.
Corbutt lost.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
>
>Because you HAVE no sense.
>Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
>That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
>And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
>
>I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
>You could not tell me.
>I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
>You could not tell me.
>I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
>You could not produce them.
>
>Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
>
>On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
>Where TF is that documentation, John ?
>You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>
>So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
>Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
>
>GAME OVER
Well stated. Believers often make assertions that they CANNOT cite
>> There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>> Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
>Where TF is that documentation, John ?
>You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>
>So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
>Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
>
>GAME OVER
for, yet demand citations from critics for even well-known and
previously established facts.
Corbutt has a burden he cannot meet.
Corbutt lost.
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 3:12:58 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 3:13:33 PM10/13/23
to
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 3:18:30 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:28:34 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
> Because you HAVE no sense.
> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
You keep making these empty claims but refuse to back them up.
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
> Because you HAVE no sense.
> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
> I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
Where did you get "chain of custody forms" from?
> You could not produce them.
>
> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
You haven`t shown that it is relevant who found them.
>
> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence.
You refuse to show this is true.
>Who found it.
You refuse to show this is true.
>Whom they gave it to.
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
When does the chain of custody start?
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> Where TF is that documentation, John ?
> You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>
> So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
Bud
Oct 13, 2023, 3:19:24 PM10/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:01:39 PM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 12:13:31 -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.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:01:54 PM10/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:02:11 PM10/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:02:28 PM10/13/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 4:11:38 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:28:34 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
> Because you HAVE no sense.
> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
You make two assumptions. You assume the forms are always filled out as soon as the
>
> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
> Because you HAVE no sense.
> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
evidence is found. You then assume it wasn't done. How do you know it wasn't done. Where
do you think those forms should have been made part of the public record. Tell us where you
think they should be and then tell us how you know they aren't there.
>
> I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
> You could not produce them.
You're such an idiot you think by raising question you don't know the answer to, you have proven
> I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
> You could not tell me.
> I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
> You could not produce them.
something. You have. You have proved you are an idiot who obsesses over all the wrong things.
>
> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
I am saying there would have been no problem with producing the documentation if need be.
> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
The DPD and the prosecutor knew full well what the requirements were for documenting
evidence for a criminal trial. Do you honestly think that in the most important criminal case
they ever investigated, they would have jeopardized the evidence by failing to take the required
steps.
>
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> Where TF is that documentation, John ?
I don't know where that such documentation is filed nor do I need to know. I know it wasn't
> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>
> Where TF is that documentation, John ?
needed for trial that was never going to take place. Can you tell us where the documentation
should have been filed? Of course you don't. Do you know that it was never filed? Of course you
don't. You just assume because you don't know where it is, it must have never been produced
and couldn't have been produced had it been needed.
> You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>
> So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
> Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
>
know when you have done that.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 4:22:22 PM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:11:37 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:28:34?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
You can't answer what Gil says, so you whine about what he never said.
Typical for cowards like you...
>> I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
>> You could not tell me.
>> I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
>> You could not tell me.
>> I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
>> You could not produce them.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
>
>I am saying there would have been no problem with producing the documentation if need be.
Sheer speculation with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
Sorry stupid, but speculation isn't evidence.
>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> Where TF is that documentation, John ?
>
>I don't know
If you'd been honest enough to simply say this from the beginning,
instead of repeated lies, no-one would have laughed at you.
> Can you tell us where the documentation should have been filed? Of
> course you don't. Do you know that it was never filed?
Same place all the rest of the documentation was filed.
Are you stupid?
>> You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>>
>> So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
>> Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
>>
>I have no obligation...
YOU HAVE A BASIC OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT WHAT **YOU** CLAIM.
Only cowards & liars run from that obligation...
As you do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:28:34?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:31:55?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>
>> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
>> Because you HAVE no sense.
>> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
>> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
>> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
>
>You make two assumptions...
>>
>> > With no trial to be conducted, what reason would there have been to file any of these forms? Like all of Gil's silly arguments, this one makes no sense.
>> Because you HAVE no sense.
>> Every piece of evidence was discovered BEFORE Oswald was dead.
>> That means that at the time the evidence was discovered, as far as they knew, Oswald WAS going to trial.
>> And these forms would have been filled out when the person found the evidence, not after Oswald was dead.
>
You can't answer what Gil says, so you whine about what he never said.
Typical for cowards like you...
>> I asked you who found the jacket under the car in the parking lot.
>> You could not tell me.
>> I asked you who with the intitals "RD" handled the two Remington-Peters shells found at the Tippit murder scene.
>> You could not tell me.
>> I asked you to produce the chain of custody forms for the evidence I listed.
>> You could not produce them.
>> Yet you stated AS FACT that there is no problem with the chain of custody of the evidence and that there is documentation for everyone who handled them, including who found them.
>
>I am saying there would have been no problem with producing the documentation if need be.
Sorry stupid, but speculation isn't evidence.
>> On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > There is no chain-of-custody issue with any of the forensic evidence. There is documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence. Who found it. Whom they gave it to.
>> > Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> Where TF is that documentation, John ?
>
>I don't know
instead of repeated lies, no-one would have laughed at you.
> Can you tell us where the documentation should have been filed? Of
> course you don't. Do you know that it was never filed?
Are you stupid?
>> You said it existed, so it's your burden to prove it.
>>
>> So either you're purposely lying or you're talking out of your ass and you're just full of shit.
>> Either way, your failure to provide the evidence I requested means you lose..........
>>
YOU HAVE A BASIC OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT WHAT **YOU** CLAIM.
Only cowards & liars run from that obligation...
As you do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!
recip...@gmail.com
Oct 13, 2023, 7:18:25 PM10/13/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> For the CE 139 rifle ?
> For the .38 handgun ?
> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> For Oswald's jacket ?
> For CE 399 ?
> For the Walker bullet ?
> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>
> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
> For the CE 139 rifle ?
> For the .38 handgun ?
> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> For Oswald's jacket ?
> For CE 399 ?
> For the Walker bullet ?
> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>
> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Bud
Oct 14, 2023, 6:26:26 AM10/14/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 14, 2023, 7:13:19 AM10/14/23
to
creation and storage of these documents and what his proof is that the normal routine was not
followed in what you accurately pointed out was the most important criminal case in the history
of Dallas. Gil posted one response in which he announced his retreat and claimed it was his last
word on the subject. It will be until he wants to bring up this same red herring in another thread.
Ben Holmes
Oct 16, 2023, 11:32:06 AM10/16/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 16, 2023, 11:32:06 AM10/16/23
to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 04:13:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I started another thread asking Gil a series of critical questions ...
And unlike the questions WE asked, they all got answered.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I started another thread asking Gil a series of critical questions ...
And unlike the questions WE asked, they all got answered.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 16, 2023, 9:24:08 PM10/16/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> For the CE 139 rifle ?
> For the .38 handgun ?
> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> For Oswald's jacket ?
> For CE 399 ?
> For the Walker bullet ?
> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>
> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
> For the CE 139 rifle ?
> For the .38 handgun ?
> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> For Oswald's jacket ?
> For CE 399 ?
> For the Walker bullet ?
> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>
> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
Chuck Schuyler
Oct 16, 2023, 11:32:44 PM10/16/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 17, 2023, 10:27:28 AM10/17/23
to
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > For the CE 139 rifle ?
> > For the .38 handgun ?
> > For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> > For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> > For Oswald's jacket ?
> > For CE 399 ?
> > For the Walker bullet ?
> > For the "backyard photographs" ?
> >
> > I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
> Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
> The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
I've been telling Gil these things for weeks but you have done it much more succinctly so maybe
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > For the CE 139 rifle ?
> > For the .38 handgun ?
> > For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> > For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> > For Oswald's jacket ?
> > For CE 399 ?
> > For the Walker bullet ?
> > For the "backyard photographs" ?
> >
> > I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
> Begged question logical fallacy. You need to first establish a “form” of any sort is necessary.
> The chain of custody can be established by testimony, no “form” need be supplied. And as I’ve established in the past, even where the chain of custody is questionable, the evidence would still be admissible in a trial, and it would be up to the jury to determine to their own satisfaction how much weight to put on it.
it will sink in, not that I'd bet on it.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
>
> See this quote on the second page here:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
>
> “The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
Gil went to a correspondence law school. He learned all kinds of things they don't teach at the
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/d3gUWFUJCAAJ
>
> See this quote on the second page here:
> https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
>
> “The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].
>
> What you are doing is putting forward your unproven claim as a given (forms are needed), then asking us to supply these forms to satisfy your unproven claim. That’s the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. Please cite the law that says forms are needed for the admissibility of evidence or to establish chain of custody.
more prestigious law schools. He graduated in just six weeks.
recip...@gmail.com
Oct 17, 2023, 10:55:22 PM10/17/23
to
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29748-does-anyone-have-copies-of-the-dpd-chain-of-custody-forms/
John Corbett
Oct 18, 2023, 7:49:09 AM10/18/23
to
trial that was never going to take place. Now Gil wants to conduct a virtual trial, with him acting
as both judge and defense counsel, and he needs and excuse to dismiss all of the evidence
against his client. I wonder what he would do if someone actually produced those forms.
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:24 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, if some sort of chain of custody "forms" were found in a dusty old previously mislabeled box in Dallas police archives, Gil would claim the forms were forged.
Can you name this logical fallacy? Or would you prefer to prove your
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Of course, if some sort of chain of custody "forms" were found in a dusty old previously mislabeled box in Dallas police archives, Gil would claim the forms were forged.
cowardice... again?
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 18:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:28 AM10/18/23
to
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>> For CE 399 ?
>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>
>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
>
>I've been telling Gil these things ...
You've been lying, yes we know. Gil has been spanking you...
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 8:18:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> For the CE 139 rifle ?
>>> For the .38 handgun ?
>>> For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
>>> For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
>>> For Oswald's jacket ?
>>> For CE 399 ?
>>> For the Walker bullet ?
>>> For the "backyard photographs" ?
>>>
>>> I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
>
You've been lying, yes we know. Gil has been spanking you...
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:59:49 AM10/18/23
to
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 04:49:06 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He seems to be under the delusion...
Yet another logical fallacy that Huckster can't "see."
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>He seems to be under the delusion...
Yet another logical fallacy that Huckster can't "see."
Hank Sienzant
Oct 20, 2023, 11:51:56 AM10/20/23
to
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Please show such forms were in use by the DPD in 1963, for starters.
We’ll await your evidence.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:22 AM10/23/23
to
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:51:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 12:07:00 PM10/27/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 12:19:08 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 12:31:09 PM10/27/23
to
Got anything at all to establish what you claim, that these supposed chain of custody forms needed to be filled out?
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 12:50:35 PM10/27/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 5:06:11 PM10/27/23
to
But you never established that. We are awaiting your documenting that such forms were in existence in 1963, that it was standard practice to complete such forms, and that the DPD did so routinely in other criminal cases at that time.
Otherwise, you are asking us to produce something that didn’t exist 60 years ago. Ball in your court.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 5:09:10 PM10/27/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 5:21:26 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:09:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:50:35?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
>Asked and answered ...
Never.
Evasions and denials aren't answers.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:50:35?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
Never.
Evasions and denials aren't answers.
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 5:21:45 PM10/27/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 5:55:15 PM10/27/23
to
You deleted the bulk of my response, and following that, reposted the same false assertions you’ve been attributing to me for a month or more.
How does your failure to respond to the points made move the needle?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 27, 2023, 5:58:05 PM10/27/23
to
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
I support my assertions. For example, here:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSwfPOfM9Fs/m/uhnWXVoUBgAJ
I have no obligation to support the assertions you falsely attribute to me below, and for over a month now.
Never did, never will.
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 7:03:05 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
>> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
>
>I support my assertions.
You claimed Chickenshit spoke for you.
Lied... didn't you?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
>> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
>
>I support my assertions.
Lied... didn't you?
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 7:03:44 PM10/27/23
to
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Hank Sienzant
Oct 29, 2023, 9:12:48 PM10/29/23
to
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 7:03:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
> >> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
> >
> >I support my assertions.
> You claimed Chickenshit spoke for you.
Asked and answered.
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 12:19:08?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Still waiting for Gil to support his assertion.
> >> Still waiting for Huckster to support his assertions:
> >
> >I support my assertions.
> You claimed Chickenshit spoke for you.
>
> Lied... didn't you?
Asked and answered.
> >> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
> >> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
> >>
> >> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
> >> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
> >>
> >> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
> >>
> >> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
> >>
> >> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
> >>
> >> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
> >> and exited the back of his head.
> >>
> >> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
> >>
> >> Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
Oct 29, 2023, 9:14:50 PM10/29/23
to
Thanks in advance.
Ben Holmes
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:46 AM10/30/23
to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
in this thread so I can laugh at you...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
in this thread so I can laugh at you...
Ben Holmes
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:46 AM10/30/23
to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
any previous answer...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
any previous answer...
Hank Sienzant
Oct 30, 2023, 9:23:54 PM10/30/23
to
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
Still begging the question, and you know this. I never said the things you are trying to foist on me.
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
Hank Sienzant
Oct 30, 2023, 9:29:57 PM10/30/23
to
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
> any previous answer...
I’ve pointed out repeatedly that I never made the claims you are insisting I made, including multiple times in this very thread.
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
> any previous answer...
Ben has nothing to discuss about the Kennedy assassination, apparently, so he’d rather talk about things I never said, and get me to respond to that.
Hank Sienzant
Oct 30, 2023, 9:33:53 PM10/30/23
to
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
It has to do with the supposed forms Gil insists should have been in evidence. I pointed out some issues with that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSwfPOfM9Fs/m/uhnWXVoUBgAJ
Gil has yet to establish his assumptions.
Ben Holmes
Oct 31, 2023, 9:36:12 AM10/31/23
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
>> any previous answer...
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
>And let us not forget this thread has nothing to do...
Posted in it's own thread, you simply refuse to answer.
That has been demonstrated multiple times.
Why the fear, Huckster? Are you AFRAID of retracting your claim that
Chickenshit speaks for you?
Are you AFRAID of correcting a fellow believer?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
>> any previous answer...
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
Posted in it's own thread, you simply refuse to answer.
That has been demonstrated multiple times.
Why the fear, Huckster? Are you AFRAID of retracting your claim that
Chickenshit speaks for you?
Are you AFRAID of correcting a fellow believer?
Ben Holmes
Oct 31, 2023, 9:36:12 AM10/31/23
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:29:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
>> any previous answer...
Notice folks, no "quoting" of an answer...
>I致e pointed out repeatedly...
Repeatedly lying will not change the facts. I've quoted your exact
words. Now you don't want to stick by them... You want to claim you
were "joking."
Here's what you fear:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Constantly claiming he's already answered, Huckster can't simply quote
>> any previous answer...
>I致e pointed out repeatedly...
Repeatedly lying will not change the facts. I've quoted your exact
words. Now you don't want to stick by them... You want to claim you
were "joking."
Here's what you fear:
Ben Holmes
Oct 31, 2023, 9:36:13 AM10/31/23
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
>> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
>
>Still begging the question...
I simply rewrote *YOUR* statement. Good to see that you admit you
were begging the question.
In the meantime, this still remains:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
>> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
>
I simply rewrote *YOUR* statement. Good to see that you admit you
were begging the question.
In the meantime, this still remains:
Hank Sienzant
Nov 3, 2023, 4:44:26 PM11/3/23
to
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:36:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
> >> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
> >
> >Still begging the question...
>
> I simply rewrote *YOUR* statement.
But not any information I cited and referenced in my follow-up. My question is not begged, as I cited for ithe points I made above.
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:23:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 18:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Huckster, let me know if you don’t intend to support your assertions
> >> in this thread so I can laugh at you...
> >
> >Still begging the question...
>
> I simply rewrote *YOUR* statement.
Right here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LSwfPOfM9Fs/m/uhnWXVoUBgAJ
But it is good to see you’ve introduced a second logical fallacy on top of the original begged questions:that of “two wrongs make a right”. Notice you weren’t denying yours was not a begged question, you were attempting to justify your begged question by falsely asserting I was the first to beg the question.
> Good to see that you admit you
> were begging the question.
This is why you guys don’t understand the humor here. It’s at your expense, so you are blind to it. But it is there nonetheless.
And, of course, there is your ever-present attempt to change the subject to something besides the current topic.
Ben Holmes
Nov 3, 2023, 5:12:12 PM11/3/23
to
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 13:44:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Notice you weren’t denying your cowardice here:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Notice you weren’t denying your cowardice here:
recip...@gmail.com
Nov 4, 2023, 10:06:49 AM11/4/23
to
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> So, Gil is out at the EduForum begging for those, uh, forms....
>
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29748-does-anyone-have-copies-of-the-dpd-chain-of-custody-forms/
So, Gil, did anyone at the EF respond at all about those, uh, "forms?"
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:18:25 PM UTC-5, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 7:18:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > For the CE 139 rifle ?
> > > For the .38 handgun ?
> > > For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> > > For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> > > For Oswald's jacket ?
> > > For CE 399 ?
> > > For the Walker bullet ?
> > > For the "backyard photographs" ?
> > >
> > > I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
> > Did DPD "Chain of custody forms" exist in the first place? If so, to what extent would they have been used?
> > > For the CE 139 rifle ?
> > > For the .38 handgun ?
> > > For the three spent shells found on the sixth floor ?
> > > For the four spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene ?
> > > For Oswald's jacket ?
> > > For CE 399 ?
> > > For the Walker bullet ?
> > > For the "backyard photographs" ?
> > >
> > > I'm giving you the opportunity to prove that there is no problem with the chain of custody with any of the above evidence, by providing the documented chain of custody forms that should have been filled out.
> So, Gil is out at the EduForum begging for those, uh, forms....
>
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29748-does-anyone-have-copies-of-the-dpd-chain-of-custody-forms/
So, Gil, did anyone at the EF respond at all about those, uh, "forms?"
0 new messages