Gil Jesus - Spanking The Morons Again!

[Ben Holmes]

The first time this was posted, not a **SINGLE** believer dared to
reply to it... Here's a Golden Oldie post from Gil Jesus - spanking
the morons in this forum:

******************************************************************
From the 26 volumes:

ON THE SHIRT FIBERS FOUND ON THE RIFLE:

MR. STROMBAUGH We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt
to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )


ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )


ON PROCESSING THE RIFLE, THE AMMO CLIP, THE BOLT AND THE CARTRIDGE
CASES FOR FINGERPRINTS:

Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
else. And no latent prints of value were developed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?

Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it
included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?

Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no
prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
was that you could not produce an identifiable print?

Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

( 4 H 23 )


Hmmmmm.......they couldn't positively identify the shirt fibers as
coming from Oswald's shirt.....they couldn't even FORM AN OPINION if
the fibers in the bag came from the blanket.....and they couldn't find
any identifiable fingerprints on the rifle, the bolt, the ammo clip or
the cartridges.

And yet, Oswald is guilty.

ROFLMAO

[Bud]

Oswald`s print was lifted off the rifle.

> ROFLMAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:46:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Is that what you thinki?

Amusing that you ran from every other point Gil made...


>> ROFLMAO

[Bud]

Historical fact.

> Amusing that you ran from every other point Gil made...

The point that if the fibers can`t be identified then Oswald is innocent?

> >> ROFLMAO

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> The first time this was posted, not a **SINGLE** believer dared to
> reply to it... Here's a Golden Oldie post from Gil Jesus - spanking
> the morons in this forum:
>
> ******************************************************************
> From the 26 volumes:
>
> ON THE SHIRT FIBERS FOUND ON THE RIFLE:
>

> MR. STROMBAUGH [sic] We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt

> to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from *another identical shirt*. [emphasis added]

Another *identical* shirt. Gil didn’t mention that, did he?

How’s this work for your beloved conspiracy, exactly?

Here’s what I came up with. PSo the conspirators, in framing Oswald, duplicated his wardrobe by following him around and purchasing off the rack a copy of each item of clothing he purchased, including items purchased in Russia! Now, Oswald was not a rich man, and was in fact rather frugal. He may well have shopped at times in places like Goodwill or at the Salvation Army stores, buying used clothing. This shirt may have been one such purchase. Certainly the jacket found abandoned in the parking lot bore such an indication of being a used item purchased from a second-hand source (the dry-cleaning tag that couldn’t be traced, when Marina testified Oswald never used a dry cleaners, and she laundered his clothes). .How did the conspirators get an exact duplicate of Oswald’s shirt to plant fibers on them that could be traced to Oswald’s shirt, or it’s identical twin?

>
>
> ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
>
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
> opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )

But Stombaugh also testified that the fibers he did find he did match to fibers in the blanket, in all observable microscopic respects.
— quote —
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the color, was the color a match between the fiber found in 140---in 142--and the fiber which is in the composition of 140, the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; the color matched some of the viscose fibers, the brown viscose fibers in the blanket. Of course, these colors also varied slightly but not to any great extent, not like the diameter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any other common characteristics between the viscose fibers found in the blanket and the viscose fibers found in the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter, the diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the green cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony mentioned?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers.
Mr. EISENBERG. How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which are contained in the composition of the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. These matched in all observable microscopic characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. And those were what?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The color and the amount of twist of the cotton fibers were the same as the color and twist found in these. Mainly the color is what we go by on cotton.
— unquote —

Gil didn’t mention of that, either in his one sentence quote wrenched out of context.

>
>
> ON PROCESSING THE RIFLE, THE AMMO CLIP, THE BOLT AND THE CARTRIDGE
> CASES FOR FINGERPRINTS:
>
> Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
> the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
> weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
> else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
>
> Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it
> included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
>
> Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no
> prints.
>
> Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
> was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
>
> Mr. LATONA. That's correct.

Photographs of the trigger guard taken by J.C. Day on the afternoon of the assassination were examined by Vincent Scalise and found to be Oswald’s. The print Day lifted from the rifle was Oswald’s as well.

There’s a point for some people where the *coincidences* or *frame-up* just boggles the mind. I reached that point after reading all the testimony and reviewing all the evidence decades ago. Some others, apparently, have an infinite capacity to accept all this as just either coincidence or part of the frame-up of Oswald.

A comparison to the Ted Bundy case is appropriate here, although it will be lost on the CTs here, no doubt. Initially, all the police had was *nothing* to indicate who the killer was. But on on a warm summer day, at Lake Sammamish in Washington State, Bundy approached multiple young women, asking for help with his sailboat off his car. He introduced himself as “Ted” and several witnesses came forward after the disappearances of Janice Ott and Denise Naslund from the lake shore that July 14th, 1974 to recall that Ted drove a Volkswagen.

That wasn’t sufficient to narrow the field to Bundy, but after Ted moved to Utah to enroll in law school, the disappearances of young women in Washington State ceased, and young women in Utah started to disappear.

One woman, Carol DaRonch escaped from Bundy and later, picked him out of a lineup after police stopped him for erratic driving with his lights off one night. He had what appeared to be burglary tools in his car.

Theorizing he might be the Utah killer, they looked into Bundy’s whereabouts when the women in the Utah area went missing. It turns out that Bundy could be linked to multiple disappearances through the purchase of gas receipts and other items (one young woman vanished from the parking lot of a high school the evening of a high school play, and among Bundy’s possessions was the playbill for that play).

As the *coincidences* started to pile up, it became evident that Bundy *had to be the culprit*, and eventually the police in the northwest started to find similar evidence linking Bundy to some disappearances of young women in that area as well.

Through it all, like Oswald, Bundy maintained his innocence. But in his last days, as his date for his electrocution neared, Bundy started to confess, trying to extend his life and postpone his execution in exchange for bringing closure to the families of the missing girls. He confessed to over 30 murders, although some suspect Bundy’s victims number in the hundreds.

So how many coincidences do Ben and Gil accept as still not indicative of Oswald’s guilt? The shirt fibers on the rifle came from Oswald’s shirt *or its identical twin*, and the fibers found in the bag matched to the blanket Oswald’s rifle was wrapped in *all observable microscopic respects*, and Oswald’s fingerprints were photographed on the trigger guard.

But none of that is sufficient to convince Ben or Gil of Oswald’s guilt.

And if Bundy was killed by some vigilante prior to confessing, as Oswald was by Ruby, they might doubt Bundy’s guilt as well.

It boggles the mind.

But that’s the CT mindset - no amount of evidence or coincidences is sufficient to change their mind.

>
> ( 4 H 23 )
>
>
> Hmmmmm.......they couldn't positively identify the shirt fibers as
> coming from Oswald's shirt.....they couldn't even FORM AN OPINION if
> the fibers in the bag came from the blanket.....and they couldn't find
> any identifiable fingerprints on the rifle, the bolt, the ammo clip or
> the cartridges.
>
> And yet, Oswald is guilty.

Yes, you’ve figured it out! Gil’s quotes out of context are insufficient to adequately summarize the evidence he mentions.


>
> ROFLMAO

We’re laughing at your inability to solve simple problems.

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster's back to do his famous "hit & run"... he likes to find just
one or two posts that he thinks he can snow people on, post... then
run away for days, weeks, or even months...

Yet time and time again, he refuses to support his OWN POSTS that I've
proven are lies.

He's a *proven* coward.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 17:35:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> The first time this was posted, not a **SINGLE** believer dared to
>> reply to it... Here's a Golden Oldie post from Gil Jesus - spanking
>> the morons in this forum:
>>
>> ******************************************************************
>> From the 26 volumes:
>>
>> ON THE SHIRT FIBERS FOUND ON THE RIFLE:
>>
>> MR. STROMBAUGH [sic] We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt
>> to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )
>
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could
> have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the
> possibility of the fibers having come from *another identical shirt*.
> [emphasis added]
>
>Another *identical* shirt. Gil didn’t mention that, did he?

There you go again, lying about the testimony. Stombaugh did **NOT**
say that the fibers must have come from that shirt OR AN IDENTICAL
SHIRT.

Gil told the truth, and your obfuscations can't change the truth.

This reminds me of Chickenshit trying to argue that Whaley's testimony
showed that Oswald wore just one jacket. It's the same sort of poor
reasoning skills and outright lying that Huckster is famous for.

>How’s this work for your beloved conspiracy, exactly?

Tell us Huckster, what's the name of this logical fallacy?

(I predict Huckster won't say...)

> Here’s what I came up with. PSo the conspirators, in framing Oswald,
> duplicated his wardrobe by following him around and purchasing off the
> rack a copy of each item of clothing he purchased, including items
> purchased in Russia! Now, Oswald was not a rich man, and was in fact
> rather frugal. He may well have shopped at times in places like
> Goodwill or at the Salvation Army stores, buying used clothing. This
> shirt may have been one such purchase. Certainly the jacket found
> abandoned in the parking lot bore such an indication of being a used
> item purchased from a second-hand source (the dry-cleaning tag that
> couldn’t be traced, when Marina testified Oswald never used a dry
> cleaners, and she laundered his clothes). .How did the conspirators
> get an exact duplicate of Oswald’s shirt to plant fibers on them that
> could be traced to Oswald’s shirt, or it’s identical twin?

A good combination of logical fallacies, unfounded speculation, ending
in an outright lie. There you go again, FLAT LYING... Stombaugh did
*NOT* testify that the fibers had to have come from Oswald's shirt, or
an identical one.

YOU'RE A LIAR!

And amusingly, you quoted the testimony proving you a liar.

>> ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
>>
>> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
>> opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
>
> But Stombaugh also testified that the fibers he did find he did
> match to fibers in the blanket, in all observable microscopic
> respects.

...

>Gil didn’t mention of that, either in his one sentence quote wrenched out of context.

Your "refutation".... isn't.

Doesn't change the fact Gil pointed out... AT ALL.

>> ON PROCESSING THE RIFLE, THE AMMO CLIP, THE BOLT AND THE CARTRIDGE
>> CASES FOR FINGERPRINTS:
>>
>> Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
>> the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
>> weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
>> else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
>>
>> Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
>>
>> Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it
>> included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
>>
>> Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
>>
>> Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no
>> prints.
>>
>> Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
>> was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
>>
>> Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
>

>Photographs of the trigger guard taken by J.C. Day on the afternoon of the assassination...


Another example of poor reasoning skills. This has already been
pointed out to you - but you can't seem to learn.

And you CERTAINLY can't explain Latona's observations. Nor can you
explain Day's actions.

You won't even try.

>> ( 4 H 23 )
>>
>>
>> Hmmmmm.......they couldn't positively identify the shirt fibers as
>> coming from Oswald's shirt.....they couldn't even FORM AN OPINION if
>> the fibers in the bag came from the blanket.....and they couldn't find
>> any identifiable fingerprints on the rifle, the bolt, the ammo clip or
>> the cartridges.
>>
>> And yet, Oswald is guilty.
>
> Yes, you’ve figured it out! Gil’s quotes out of context are
> insufficient to adequately summarize the evidence he mentions.

You're lying again, Huckster... nothing you added *CHANGED* any of the
statements or summaries that Gil posted.

>> ROFLMAO
>
>We’re laughing at your inability to solve simple problems.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:29:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Is that what you think?

>> Amusing that you ran from every other point Gil made...
>

> The point...


No. You cannot use the singular, unless you're referring to the ONE
point you responded to...


>>>> ROFLMAO