Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one, Hank Sienzant: Question # 2
97 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Oct 23, 2023, 6:56:57 AM10/23/23
to
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
John Corbett
Oct 23, 2023, 7:59:19 AM10/23/23
to
Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 23, 2023, 8:11:54 AM10/23/23
to
Gil Jesus
Oct 23, 2023, 8:58:18 AM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
> Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
The wrong things ?
> Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
chain of custody ?
ROFLMAO
This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:24 AM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 04:59:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:56:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
>>
>> 1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
>> lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>>
>> None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
>>
>> Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt refused to answer...
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:56:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
>>
>> 1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>
>> The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
>> lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>>
>> None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
>>
>> Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:14:25 AM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 05:58:17 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
The burden to answer these questions was on the WC. As they did not,
it then falls to the people defending the WC.
Unfortunately, none of the errors & problems we point out can be
answered or dealt with by believers.
And that fact tells the tale.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
it then falls to the people defending the WC.
Unfortunately, none of the errors & problems we point out can be
answered or dealt with by believers.
And that fact tells the tale.
John Corbett
Oct 23, 2023, 9:15:40 AM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:58:18 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
> > Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> > you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
> The wrong things ?
>
> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
> chain of custody ?
Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial. There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
> > Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> > you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
> The wrong things ?
>
> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
> chain of custody ?
no chain of custody issue. Keep pretending this hasn't been explained to you numerous times.
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
You invoked my name, asshole. That's an invitation for me to respond, not that I need one.
> ROFLMAO
>
> This series isn't geared to you, but since you can't resist sticking your silly comments in, answer the questions John:
>
> If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
Who gives a fuck?
> If these shells are legitimate, whose initials are these ?
> Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ?
> Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
Since you seem to be the only one who gives a fuck, why don't you find out the answers to
these inane questions?
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 9:22:06 AM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:58:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Gil just made ... AT ALL.
>Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
You asserted that the documentation ALREADY EXISTED to prove chain of
custody.
Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support
that claim.
Why is that, liar?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:58:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
>>> Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
>>> you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
>>
>> The wrong things ?
>>
>> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
>> chain of custody ?
Watch carefully folks, Corbutt isn't going to address the point that
>>> Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
>>> Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
>>> you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
>>
>> The wrong things ?
>>
>> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
>> chain of custody ?
Gil just made ... AT ALL.
>Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
custody.
Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support
that claim.
Why is that, liar?
Gil Jesus
Oct 23, 2023, 11:15:05 AM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:15:40 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
> There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
Who told you that, Einstein ?
> Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
> There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
No, you're the fucking dumbass.
Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence.
The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
How do you know their names ?
How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
The chain of possession is not established at trial.
It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
Fucking lump.
Gil Jesus
Oct 23, 2023, 11:19:46 AM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:22:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> You asserted that the documentation ALREADY EXISTED to prove chain of
> custody.
>
> Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support that claim.
>
> Why is that, liar?
First he said the documentation existed, now he's making excuses for why it doesn't.
> You asserted that the documentation ALREADY EXISTED to prove chain of
> custody.
>
> Yet you continue to refuse to admit you claimed that - or to support that claim.
>
> Why is that, liar?
He's in "damage control" mode and he's not doing too well in that.
ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 11:28:59 AM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
proven lie.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
That makes it a lie.
Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
proven lie.
Gil Jesus
Oct 23, 2023, 11:33:56 AM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
>
> That makes it a lie.
>
> Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
> proven lie.
His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
> He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
>
> That makes it a lie.
>
> Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
> proven lie.
What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 12:19:17 PM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:15:01 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Notice folks - that only Gil is supplying citations that support what
he says.
Believers like Corbutt & Chickenshit are only speculating without any
evidence...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
he says.
Believers like Corbutt & Chickenshit are only speculating without any
evidence...
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 12:25:44 PM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Like *all* believers in this forum, he's evaded or run from ALL
questions we critics raise.
And that fact tells the tale...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
questions we critics raise.
And that fact tells the tale...
John Corbett
Oct 23, 2023, 1:15:19 PM10/23/23
to
There is no chain of custody issue because that is something that must be produced at trial.
Once it was known there would be no trial, it became totally unnecessary to document the
chain of custody. How far along they had gotten in creating that documentation is anybody's
guess, but it's unlikely that after just 48 hours, they would have gotten very far along on that
paperwork. So we not only don't know what if any documenting they had done with the
evidence, we don't know what the filing requirements would have been nor the retention
requirements for said documentation. You are the one who keeps insisting that there should
be a record of that documenation. For that to be true, you would have to show that the standard
procedure would be to complete the chain of custody documentation even though it would
no longer be needed at trial, that after it was clear there would be no trial, the documentation
would be filed, and that said documentation would be kept in perpetuity. If you could do all that,
you would then need to determine where in 2023 such documentation should be and that it is
not there.
Seems like you have a lot that needs to get done. The sooner you get on it, the better.
John Corbett
Oct 23, 2023, 1:21:43 PM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:33:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
> >
> > That makes it a lie.
> >
> > Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
> > proven lie.
> His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
More of your piss poor reading comprehension. I said it would be REQUIRED at trial. Such a
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
> >
> > That makes it a lie.
> >
> > Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
> > proven lie.
> His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
requirement would mean it would have to be produced before the trial.
> What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
> How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
> That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
documentation would have to be created.
>
> ( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
And I never will because I don't know and I don't give shit. Since you seem to be they one who
> ( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
thinks that is important, why aren't you trying to find out what those initials indicate?
Bud
Oct 23, 2023, 2:45:50 PM10/23/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:58:18 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
> > Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> > you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
> The wrong things ?
>
> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
> chain of custody ?
Have you ever seen these initials?
> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Keep focusing on all the wrong things, Gil, while ignoring the evidence that proves conclusively
> > Oswald was the assassin. That way you can remain clueless for another 60 years. Of course,
> > you'll be dead long before that but it won't have any effect on your ability to process information.
> The wrong things ?
>
> Initials on the evidence from persons not known to have handled it and that's not a problem with the
> chain of custody ?
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 3:23:22 PM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:33:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
would have been created contemporaneously, not at trial.
>> What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
>
>They would have 18 months to complete it.
Nope.
>> How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
>
>> That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
>
>So tell us how it's done.
Why don't YOU start citing for your claims?
>> ( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
>
>And I never will...
Of course not.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:33:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:28:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
>> >
>> > That makes it a lie.
>> >
>> > Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
>> > proven lie.
>> His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
>
>More of your piss poor reading comprehension. I said it would be REQUIRED at trial. Such a
>requirement would mean it would have to be produced before the trial.
More of your poor reasoning comprehension... Gil has pointed that it
>> > He isn't honest enough to admit a mistake.
>> >
>> > That makes it a lie.
>> >
>> > Nor is any other believer honest enough to call out Corbutt on his
>> > proven lie.
>> His whole theory of establishing a chain of custody at trial makes no sense.
>
>More of your piss poor reading comprehension. I said it would be REQUIRED at trial. Such a
>requirement would mean it would have to be produced before the trial.
would have been created contemporaneously, not at trial.
>> What if the case doesn't go to trial for a year or 18 months ?
>
>They would have 18 months to complete it.
>> How can any one person know who handled the evidence ?
>
>> That's just not the way it's done. It's ridiculous. It's stupid. Just like him.
>
>So tell us how it's done.
>> ( and he still hasn't answered the question of whose initials were on those shells, has he ? )
>
Of course not.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 3:24:22 PM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:15:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Your wacky lies aren't the topic.
Your cowardice and inability to cite for your wacky claims is.
Own it.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 11:15:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 9:15:40?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
>> > There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
>> Who told you that, Einstein ?
>>
>> No, you're the fucking dumbass.
>> Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence.
>> The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
>> Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
>>
>> If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
>> How do you know their names ?
>> How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
>> How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
>> How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
>>
>> https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
>>
>> NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
>> YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
>>
>> The chain of possession is not established at trial.
>> It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
>>
>> Fucking lump.
>
>This is where your poor reading comprehension and lacking of reasoning skills betray you...
>> > Chain of custody is only needed to be established at trial.
>> > There was no trial, dumbass. Ergo no chain of custody issue.
>> Who told you that, Einstein ?
>>
>> No, you're the fucking dumbass.
>> Chain of custody is established by the first person who handles the evidence.
>> The chain of custody record is established and the documentation stays with the evidence.
>> Each person that handles the evidence is required to fill out the record.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/COC-bag.jpg
>>
>> If 25 people handle the evidence, how are you going to establish that at trial ?
>> How do you know their names ?
>> How do you know what dates they handled the evidence ?
>> How do you know how long the evidence was in their possession ?
>> How do you know the reason it was in their possession ?
>>
>> https://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/module03/pro_m03_t17.htm
>>
>> NO, A RECORD HAS TO BE KEPT, ASSHOLE.
>> YOU DON'T GUESS AT IT AT TRIAL.
>>
>> The chain of possession is not established at trial.
>> It's established by the first person who handled it and AUTHENTICATED at trial by the testimony of those same witnesses who handled it.
>>
>> Fucking lump.
>
Your wacky lies aren't the topic.
Your cowardice and inability to cite for your wacky claims is.
Own it.
Ben Holmes
Oct 23, 2023, 3:25:14 PM10/23/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:45:48 -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.
recip...@gmail.com
Oct 23, 2023, 6:47:43 PM10/23/23
to
distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
John Corbett
Oct 23, 2023, 7:46:28 PM10/23/23
to
indication of something nefarious rather than considering other possibilities, most of which are
rather mundane.
It is not necessary to answer every last question in order to figure out who killed JFK. We have
all the evidence we need to conclude without a doubt Oswald was the assassin as well as a cop
killer. If it was necessary to resolve every last unknown answer, I doubt we would be able to
convict anyone of any crime. There are always going to be things that are unknown.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 24, 2023, 12:04:17 AM10/24/23
to
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:47:43 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
Ben Holmes
Oct 24, 2023, 8:41:00 AM10/24/23
to
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 16:46:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:47:43?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
explanations.
You merely assert that they exist.
>It is not necessary to answer every last question
There you go, lying again. You answer virtually NO questions. Yet
here you are, pretending and implying that you frequently answer
questions.
> in order to figure out who killed JFK.
Of course not. That's done with evidence.
> We have
>all the evidence we need to conclude without a doubt Oswald was the assassin as well as a cop
>killer.
You're lying again. CITE THIS ALLEGED EVIDENCE!!!
But you won't.
>If it was necessary to resolve every last unknown answer,
Your claim... not anything a critic ever said.
Can you name that logical fallacy?
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:47:43?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:56:57?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
>>>
>>> 1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>>
>>> The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
>>> lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>>>
>>> None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
>>>
>>> Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
>> The "initials" don't actually have to be someone's actual initials, they just have to be a
>> distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
>> IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
>> as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
>
>This is why I don't fret over things like this. Like most CTs, Gil takes every unknown to be and
>indication of something nefarious rather than considering other possibilities, most of which are
>rather mundane.
You're lying again, Corbutt. You virtually NEVER give these "mundane"
>>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
>>> one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering ALL of the questions in this series:
>>>
>>> 1. It has been said ( by John Corbett ) that there was no problem with the chain of custody with ANY of the evidence in the case against Oswald.
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
>>>
>>> The receipt signed by FBI agent Vincent Drain on 11/28/63 when he received the four shells from the Tippit murder from the Dallas Police
>>> lists the two Remington-Peters shells as containing the intials "RD" and one Western shell containing the intials either "DC" or "DO".
>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DPD-Box-7-pg.-478.png
>>>
>>> None of these are the initials of anyone known to have handled the shells.
>>>
>>> Question # 2: Whose initials are these ? Where do they fit in in the chain of custody ? Why aren't they mentioned in that chain ?
>> The "initials" don't actually have to be someone's actual initials, they just have to be a
>> distinctive identifier. For instance, the FBI's Courtland Cunningham marked items with,
>> IIRC, "JH" rather than his own "CC" since it was decided that "CC" could be misinterpreted
>> as an abbreviation for "carbon copy"
>
>This is why I don't fret over things like this. Like most CTs, Gil takes every unknown to be and
>indication of something nefarious rather than considering other possibilities, most of which are
>rather mundane.
explanations.
You merely assert that they exist.
>It is not necessary to answer every last question
here you are, pretending and implying that you frequently answer
questions.
> in order to figure out who killed JFK.
> We have
>all the evidence we need to conclude without a doubt Oswald was the assassin as well as a cop
>killer.
But you won't.
>If it was necessary to resolve every last unknown answer,
Can you name that logical fallacy?
0 new messages