An exercise for Greg Parker

[John Corbett]

Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
you can just say so and stop now.

If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
your scenario. Now the list.

Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)

Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.

Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.

The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.

Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.

Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
only have been place with the rifle disassembled.

A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

Oswald's prints were found on the bag.

The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
rifle.

Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.

Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
Oswald was wearing when arrested.

Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
sniper's nest as the source of the shots.

Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.

[Greg Parker]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> you can just say so and stop now.
>
> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> your scenario. Now the list.
>
> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)

And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.

And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.

And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.

> Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.

Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

> Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.

> The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

> Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

> There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.

Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,

And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

> Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.

Are you sure about that?

I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.

I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

> Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> only have been place with the rifle disassembled.

"Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

> A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination. And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

> Oswald's prints were found on the bag.

No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

> The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> rifle.

Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

> Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.

LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> Oswald was wearing when arrested.

More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

> Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> sniper's nest as the source of the shots.

> Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.

What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.

Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence

https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence

It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.

The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police) is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best. Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.

You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes) or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.

The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25. These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor. And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi - it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > you can just say so and stop now.
> >
> > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > your scenario. Now the list.
> >
> > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.

About seeing a shooter during a shooting? How often are witnesses wrong about something like that?

> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>
> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
>
> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
> > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
> Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

Scattered.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49554/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=0.5&lat=1742.5&lon=851.5

> > Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>
> > The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> > Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> > Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> > hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

Who determines whether there are chain of custody issues?

Desperation to dismiss any indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

> > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

> Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,

It is easy to ignore the obvious and entertain the fantastic if you desire to do so.

> And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

Doesn`t mean it was done.

> > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
> Are you sure about that?

"Any evidence found by the people investigating the crime is tainted because it was handled by the people investigating the crime."

> I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.

Just happened to have the same unusual sling as rifle found in the TSBD?

> I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

> > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
> "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

It is quite sinister that people conducting a murder investigation would look for evidence, or take prints of the main suspect.

Explain how fingerprints taken from Oswald could have been placed on the bag.

> > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
> And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.

Has what to do with what?

And who said it was "such a bag"?

> And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

That it was picked up before photos were taken?

> > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
> No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

So did the DPD plant the prints or not?

> > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > rifle.
> Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

This is what worked so well for OJ at his trial, they were able to portray all the evidence against their client as forged or planted. It is really your only option when you have an obviously guilty client with a load of evidence against him.

> > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

The box on the sill can be seen in photos from the outside.

> > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

Same shirt Bledsoe saw him wearing, the brown shirt with the missing buttons. It has little silverlike threads running through it, noted by Whaley.

> > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>
> > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.

Here is a brief synopsis of your alternative. "All the indications of Oswald`s guilt, were faked, forged and planted.

> Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
>
> https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
>
> It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.

What there can be applied to the case against Oswald? Be specific.

The only possible thing I see is begged arguments.

> The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police)

Yes, they can do anything. the can dummy up photos at a moments notice. They can open up PO boxes in Oswald`s name months in advance just in case they need to frame him.

> is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best.

Isn`t the photo of Oswald holding a rifle direct evidence? Isn`t Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy direct evidence?

>Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
>
> You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes)

But not his co-workers, just Oswald`s. Poor guy has no luck.

>or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

Or the evidence indicates Oswald`s guilt because he was guilty.

> Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.
>
> The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.

That isn`t even attributed to him.

> These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor.

Why not?

> And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi -

Why not call it a confession, the word applies just as well.

> it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

"Now that we`ve thrown out all of the evidence let`s start the investigation!"

Much easier to fingerpaint on a blank canvas, isn`t it?

[Steven Galbraith]

Chain of custody, documents misfiled, reports not adequately/properly written. This is what you argue before an appellate court.
He's out to exonerate Oswald. Period. Whatever can be used - technical legal/court standards, whatever - will be adequate.

[Bud]

Parker uses a bunch of bad approaches. One is showing possible police malfeasance in other cases as if it speaks to this case. You could never get the Rodney King video introduced into evidence against a cop accused of police brutality (unless maybe he was one of the cops in the video).

Another problem (and this goes for all conspiracy folk that I`ve seen) is that they have the authorities tampering with evidence almost immediately. They couldn`t know what they would end up as evidence, there are rare cases of cops tampering with evidence, but right away, in the first couple days? The dust haden`t even settled, for all they knew they had a dozen witnesses to the shooter. And why rush to dummy a photo with Oswald holding the rifle? Tampering with evidence is the surest way to get a guilty person exonerated.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > you can just say so and stop now.
> >
> > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > your scenario. Now the list.
> >
> > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
>
> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>
> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
>
> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.

Of course not. Not by itself. You have to put the pieces together.

> > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
> Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

Your memory fails.

> > Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>
> > The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> > Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> > Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> > hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

How do you explain that the bullet in evidence from Parkland was fired by the same rifle that
fired the fragmented bullet found in the limo? Do you think both were planted? If so, why
would you think that? What evidence do you have that the Secret Service provided the FBI
with fragments other than what they found in the limo the night of the assassination?

> > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

Why do you dispute that the paper trail is invalid? Do you have evidence that any part of it
was fabricated? Or is this just an excuse to dismiss a piece of evidence against Oswald that
you don't want to accept.

>
> Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,
>

Any evidence that was done?

> And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

Keep those excuses coming.

> > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
> Are you sure about that?
>

Yes.

> I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.

How do you determine that from the photo.

>
> I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

I have no idea what that means.

> > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
> "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

How do you transfer a black ink palm print to the barrel of the Carcano.

> > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

> And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.

That's a new one? What's your cite for that. The bag was photographed being brought out of
the TSBD. Are you claiming that bag had been taken from the Paine garage.

> And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

You're dismissing all the dots.

> > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
> No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

Now you're just making stuff up.

> > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > rifle.
> Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that the fibers could have come from an identical blanket but
given the fact Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor and the bag was found on the 6th
floor with Oswald's prints on it, what is the likelihood that those fibers came from a blanket
other than the one in the Paine's garage?

> > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

How did they know Oswald's fingerprints would be on them and the direction they were
oriented.

> > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> More contamination.

More baseless excuses to dismiss another damning piece of evidence against Oswald.
Where is the evidence of contamination for this one. What is the likelihood those fibers
on the butt plate came from any shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.

> And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

Oswald was recognized by his former landlady on McWatters bus. She noticed a hole in the
elbow of one of the sleeves. The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had a hole in the
elbow of his sleeve. Just another coincidence I suppose.

> > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>
> > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
>
> https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
>
> It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police) is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best. Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.

What you call circumstantial evidence is forensic evidence which can be analyzed through
rigorous testing. It is the strongest type of evidence there is. It is far more compelling than
eyewitness testimony which is notoriously unreliable.

>
> You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes) or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

Who said the sniper's nest was created. Oswald could have just as easily taken advantage of
what was already there. It matters not whether Oswlad moved any boxes at all, other than the
two he stacked to form the rifle rest.

>
> Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.

IOW, you can't construct a plausible scenario.

>
> The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.

So you can conceive that so many law enforcement officers, from different agencies conspired,
to fabricate a wealth of evidencee to frame Oswald but you can't conceive that the prime
suspect in the murder might lie about where he was when the shots were fired. You think
Oswald's claimed but unsupported alibi outweighs all the forensic evidence that indicates he
was in the sniper's nest firing the shots that killed JFK.

> These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor. And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi - it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Bud has often observed that conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at weighing evidence. Nothing
illustrates that better than the above paragraph. Oswald's unconfirmed story outweighs all the
evidence of his guilt in your mind.

I asked you to layout a scenario explaining the available evidence and instead you resorted to
dismissing all the evidence and typically did so by attacking each piece of evidence in isolation
with the others. You try to argue for Oswald's innocence by pointing out how none of these items
by themselves prove he was the assassin. But none of these items stand by themselves.
Collectively they establish Oswald's guilt. For just about every item, you could offer a plausible
alternative explanation but when you are forced to argue for a less likely alternative for every
item, it becomes an exercise in absurdity. That's why I asked you for a plausible scenario that
incorporates all of this evidence. You were unable to do so but that's not an indictment of you.
In 59 years, nobody else has been able to do so either.

The Warren Commission laid out the evidence and presented us with a complete scenario that
fits with ALL of the evidence. It is the only scenario ever presented that has ever been able to
do that. It demonstrates what I have long said. The Warren Commission explained the evidence.
Its critics are forced to explain away the evidence.

If you ever want to make a convincing argument for Oswald's innocence, you are going to have to
offer and alternative explanation that fits with the known evidence or find evidence that
exonerates him. So far, you and the rest of the conspiracy hobby have failed to do either.

Thanks for playing.

[Greg Parker]

No. Thank you. Guilt by inference from a shaky circumstantial case is the True Texan Way.

"We never could put Oswald in that Sniper's nest", Jesse Cury's frank and very UnTexan-like admission.

[John Corbett]

Shaky circumstantial case? <chuckle>

>
> "We never could put Oswald in that Sniper's nest", Jesse Cury's frank and very UnTexan-like admission.

See my new thread which indicates all the things that would have to be true for Oswald to not
have been the shooter in the sniper's nest.

[Bud]

He didn`t run the investigation.

[Greg Parker]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:56:53 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > > you can just say so and stop now.
> > >
> > > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > > your scenario. Now the list.
> > >
> > > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> > And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
> About seeing a shooter during a shooting? How often are witnesses wrong about something like that?
> > And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
> >
> > Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> > Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
> >
> > And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
> > > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
> > Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.
> Scattered.

Yes. My bad.

> > Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

> Who determines whether there are chain of custody issues?

Anyone examining the records with some understanding of what the term means.

> Desperation to dismiss any indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

> > > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> > Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

> Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

> > Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,

> It is easy to ignore the obvious and entertain the fantastic if you desire to do so.

The suspect never admitted ordering the rifle or using the alias it was ordered in. Witout that admission, it is incumbent upon the authorities to prove he did. They tried the obvious. Witnesses at the Post Office and came up empty. So... they used questioned document experts.

Here is what your own government scientists say about such experts:

"The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods expressed concerns regarding the validity and reliability of conclusions made by forensic examiners, and called for empirical testing:"

You might be happy to accept the word of such experts. I have a bihg question mark over the validity of such examinations. Especially where trhere is a total lack of corroborating evidence from people who would have witnessed such transactions at the PO..

> > And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.
> Doesn`t mean it was done.

No, it doesn't. It does add to reasonable doubt. You want to take each item separately to make it easier to dismiss. The very thing you guyts accuse me of.

Your case is full to the brim with REASONABLE doubt - which adds to the liklihood that his alibi was valid.

> > > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.

> > Are you sure about that?

> "Any evidence found by the people investigating the crime is tainted because it was handled by the people investigating the crime."

All I asked is if you were sure about where they were found? Among his possessions may well be right.

> > I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.

> Just happened to have the same unusual sling as rifle found in the TSBD?

You think? Looks like a piece of rope to me.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49536/m1/1/high_res/

> > I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

> Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

> > > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.

> > "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

> It is quite sinister that people conducting a murder investigation would look for evidence, or take prints of the main suspect.

His prints had already been taken when they ordered the palm print - to be obtained in Fritz's office and followed by a paraffin test. These tests, taken in an office without handwashing faccities, had a dual purpose.

1. The iron solution used in the palmprint would cause a positive to nitrates in the following paraffin test.
2. The palmprint immediately preceded the discovery of a previously missed palmprint in the location you note.

> Explain how fingerprints taken from Oswald could have been placed on the bag.

I never said they were placed by anyone one the bag. Do try and follow the bouncing ball.

> > > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

> > And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.

> Has what to do with what?

Again, try and follow the bouncing ball.

1. The Paines had no longer needede curtain rods in brown paper wrapping. The curtain rods were in two pieces. Separately, they each measured 27.5 inches. When joined up together, the now single rod measured 36 inches.

Ruth Paine testified in Februray 64 that these rods were still in her garage wrapped up in that brown paper... so her next deposition took place in her garage where various measurements were taken - including of those rods. However --- the rods were no longer wrapped -unlike to sets of blinds which remained separately wrapped in the same type paper.

In short... sometime after the assassination, someone took that bag and said it was the bag that was mysteriously missing from crime scene photos.

The only real alternative is that Oswald allegedly told his interrogators that "you can't always find the right sized bag for your lunch". So there is a chance that Oswald took this bag to put his lunch in that morning. If the rod had been in it in two separate peices, then the bag was approximately 27.5 inches in length. The only two witnesses to Oswald with a bag guestimated it was 27 inches.

Either way, Oswald's prints being on it would not be incriminating. It was in the garage where he stayed.

> And who said it was "such a bag"?

The WC.

> > And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

> That it was picked up before photos were taken?

LOL

> > > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.

> > No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

> So did the DPD plant the prints or not?

Crikey, Buy a clue, or phone a friend.

> > > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > > rifle.
> > Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

> Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.

Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

> This is what worked so well for OJ at his trial, they were able to portray all the evidence against their client as forged or planted. It is really your only option when you have an obviously guilty client with a load of evidence against him.

Why is it okay for you to compare my case with other cases, but when I do it in regard to NUTTER case, you all get sooooooo fucking uptight, you look like you could be stunt doubles for Don Knotts.

> > > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> > LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

> The box on the sill can be seen in photos from the outside.

LOL Photos taken during recreations.

> > > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> > More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

> Same shirt Bledsoe saw him wearing, the brown shirt with the missing buttons. It has little silverlike threads running through it, noted by Whaley.

Missing buttons. LOL. The missing buttons and rips were caiused by the arresting officers. Mary was describing the shirt shown to her by those nice government officials.

How the fuck could Whaley see his shirt? He has him wearing two fucking jaclets over that shirt.

"When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him." Willioam Whaley.

He also dropped him about 7 blocks from the 1026 N Beckley.

All in all, Whaley picked up a drunk who had been sleeping rough while on a spree and who had now come into enough money for a cab and a bed for the night . I am sure that whole area was full of boarding houses.

> > > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> >
> > > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> > What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.

> Here is a brief synopsis of your alternative. "All the indications of Oswald`s guilt, were faked, forged and planted.

Two can play that game. Here is a brief symopsis of your case. "An incometent police force cracked the biggest case in US history within a couple of hours, and despite claiming to have the case cinched, nevertheless spent hours trying to get un-needed admissions from their suspect. Their incompetence also led to the murder of Oswald in their custdody, unfortunately preventing a trial and meaning that the case at that time, still stands."

> > Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
> >
> > https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> > In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
> >
> > It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.

> What there can be applied to the case against Oswald? Be specific.

Sheesh. Can't you read? Framed via a circumstantial case with exculpatory evidence withheld.

> The only possible thing I see is begged arguments.

And the only thing I see is you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about. Forget your lessons from McAdams. He led you astray. So far the only real examples of begged arguments have come from Mr Gailbraith.

> > The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police)

> Yes, they can do anything. the can dummy up photos at a moments notice.

Now you're making shit up I never said they did that.

They can open up PO boxes in Oswald`s name months in advance just in case they need to frame him.

Nor did I say there were no PO boxes opened.

> > is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best.

> Isn`t the photo of Oswald holding a rifle direct evidence? I

Even if real, it is direct eidence of him holding a rifle and nothing more. If you think it is DIRECT evidence of his guilt, we can end this right here because it would mean I am debating a total fuckwit.

sn`t Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy direct evidence?

Yes. But he is not reliable witness, given his initial refusal to ID Oswald and the issue of him describing things he could not have seen eg height.

And I would describe his claim in his book that he was an Eyewitness for God or whatever the fuck he claimed, is evidence of mental instability.

Jesse Curry knew Brennan was not a reliable witness when he wrote in his book that "We never could put Oswald in that sniper's nest."

> >Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
> >
> > You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes)

> But not his co-workers, just Oswald`s. Poor guy has no luck.

From memory, other prints were found. This whole case is riddled with fingerrprints found that are marked as "of no value" or similar terminolgy. No b=value simply because they were not Oswald's.

> >or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

> Or the evidence indicates Oswald`s guilt because he was guilty.

Thank you! Another actal example of begging the question. Well done!

> > Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.
> >
> > The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.

> That isn`t even attributed to him.

Okay Mr Pedantic.

> > These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor.

> Why not?

Well, I suppose he could have, if he had x-ray vision...

> > And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi -

> Why not call it a confession, the word applies just as well.

Applies to what?

> > it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

> "Now that we`ve thrown out all of the evidence let`s start the investigation!"

Nope. Let';s re-examine all of the evidence and all the theories the evidence allegedly supports and throw out the chaff. Oswald as lone nut is just another theory which is based on looking only at the evidence the government presented - anmd refusing point blank to examine that evidence in any sort of critical fashion, while demanding that the case for Oswald's innocene be looked at piece by piece but demanding that the case for his guilt has to be looked at only in total.

> Much easier to fingerpaint on a blank canvas, isn`t it?

You would know,

[David Von Pein]

Flashback from August 2012....

DVP (that's me) said:

"The single biggest thing that has made the JFK murder case seem so endlessly complicated (even though it's really a very simple crime to solve) is the fact that so many conspiracy theorists like Greg Parker, James Fetzer, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and John Armstrong (et al) have spent thousands of hours heaping more and more "suspects" and "connections" and minutiae and unsupportable theories onto the conspiracy table, making it absolutely impossible to make the record "complete".

As Vincent Bugliosi has said many times (and he's right): The JFK case is endless; there is no bottom to the pile.

And the only reason it's endless is because of the conspiracy theorists' never-ending quest to be right about some element of their perpetual conspiracy theories in the John F. Kennedy case.

But when an LNer on the other side takes time to examine some of these theories and "connections" more closely, the theory always turns out to be bogus.

Here are just a few examples:

1.) The postmark on Oswald's envelope (CE773). There's now good reason to conclude that the "12" on that Dallas postmark doesn't have anything to do with any postal zone within the city of Dallas at all.

2.) The death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy. For years, outer-fringe CTers were saying that Eddy Benavides was murdered as part of some continuing conspiracy plot in the JFK assassination (i.e., to send a message to Domingo prior to his giving his Warren Commission testimony). But recently it's been learned (via Dallas newspaper clippings) that Eddy Benavides didn't die in 1964, he died in 1965, a full year AFTER Domingo gave his WC testimony.

3.) The three tramps, whose arrest records were discovered years later (by a pair of conspiracy theorists, of all people), with the tramps turning out to be nothing but...real tramps.

4.) The "backyard photos are fake" theory, which, amazingly, many CTers still embrace to this day, even though we now know (as of 1977) that Lee Oswald himself personally signed one of the photos and gave it to George DeMohrenschildt.

5.) The people who scream that "The Single-Bullet Theory is physically impossible" should now be hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment here in the 21st century, due to the fine work done by people like Dale Myers, Failure Analysis, and the Discovery Channel -- all of whom have pretty much verified that the SBT is a workable and reasonable conclusion (especially when considering what the silly multi-gun anti-SBT alternatives have got to be if the SBT is untrue).

Give me a few more minutes and I could come up with lots more theories that have deservedly been flushed down the toilet since 1963.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1141.html

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> Oswald was wearing when arrested.

But your own "star witness, Howard Brennan', gave a description of the clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing,
testifying that the man with the rifle wasn't only wearing clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn't even clothing that Oswald owned.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WC_Vol3_161-not-dressed-the-same.gif

I notice that you also don't mention that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150,
he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )

Unless your suspect changed clothes, if your witness can't identify the suspect's clothing, he can't identify the suspect.
Without a change of clothing, it's impossible to have the clothing wrong and the suspect right.

The Warren Commission Report ( pg. 144 ) cites Brennan for the man's height and weight and age approximation.
This is its defintition of "fairly closely".

But the Report omits the fact that Brennan testified that the man in the window with the rifle was wearing "khaki" ( tan )
colored clothing or that Brennan failed to identify CE 150 as the shirt the rifleman was wearing. ( 3 H 161 )
The Warren Commission concluded that the shirt Oswald was arrested in was the same shirt he fired the rifle in.

But Brennan testified that Oswald was wearing different clothes at the lineup than at the time he saw him doing the shooting ( ibid. ).
So if you believe Brennan, then either:
a. ) Oswald changed his shirt and the shirt fibers from the arrested shirt were planted on the rifle, or
b. ) the man Brennan saw shooting was NOT Oswald.

So which one is it ?

> Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> sniper's nest as the source of the shots.

Like all lone nutters who don't know the testimony and rely solely on the Report for information,
you overlook a lot and fail to tell the whole story.

But that's what prosecutors do when they're framing an innocent man.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

That bag was made by police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22
and then they took a sample from the same roll of paper and tape they used to make the bag.

The FBI knew this when they went back 4 days later and found that none of the tape matched
each other or that on the bag and neither did the paper match. They checked all locations
where Oswald worked and could find no match for either.

The paper and tape used to make that bag was matched ONLY to the paper and tape that was on the
shipping room table on the afternoon of the 22nd.

The cops were trying to connect the rifle with the building but what they didn't know was that all of
the paper was not the same. Neither was all of the tape. So what they unknowingly accomplished
was connecting the bag with the TSBD on the afternoon of the 22nd.

They made the bag 38 inches to fit the 36 inch rifle, not realizing the rifle they had was 40.2 inches long.

Then there is a problem with the discovery. Two different Dallas officers claimed to have found it.

If the bag was found near the sniper's nest, why didn't they photograph it in situ ?
They had the presence of mind to photograph the three shells.
They had the presence of mind to photograph the rifle between the boxes.
Why didn't they photograph the bag as found ?

Because it wasn't there.

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

[Bud]

Wrong. Chain of custody is not determined by hobbyists on the internet.

> > Desperation to dismiss any indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

You handwave away all the evidence against Oswald. You say "I choose not to believe that" and you think this nullifies the evidence.

> > > > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > > > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > > > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> > > Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.
>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

You`re handwaving away the evidence, is all.

> > > Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,
>
> > It is easy to ignore the obvious and entertain the fantastic if you desire to do so.
> The suspect never admitted ordering the rifle or using the alias it was ordered in. Witout that admission, it is incumbent upon the authorities to prove he did.

He had phony ID with the alias in his possession when arrested. Let me guess, you don`t believe that.

>They tried the obvious. Witnesses at the Post Office and came up empty. So... they used questioned document experts.
>
> Here is what your own government scientists say about such experts:
>
> "The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods expressed concerns regarding the validity and reliability of conclusions made by forensic examiners, and called for empirical testing:"

Throw out the evidence. Throw out the testing. That`s progress.

> You might be happy to accept the word of such experts. I have a bihg question mark over the validity of such examinations. Especially where trhere is a total lack of corroborating evidence from people who would have witnessed such transactions at the PO..
> > > And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.
> > Doesn`t mean it was done.
> No, it doesn't. It does add to reasonable doubt.

It adds nothing.

>You want to take each item separately to make it easier to dismiss. The very thing you guyts accuse me of.
>
> Your case is full to the brim with REASONABLE doubt - which adds to the liklihood that his alibi was valid.

He had no alibi. Look up the word.

> > > > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
>
> > > Are you sure about that?
>
> > "Any evidence found by the people investigating the crime is tainted because it was handled by the people investigating the crime."
> All I asked is if you were sure about where they were found? Among his possessions may well be right.

Did I characterize your approach accurately?

> > > I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.
>
> > Just happened to have the same unusual sling as rifle found in the TSBD?
> You think? Looks like a piece of rope to me.
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49536/m1/1/high_res/

It isn`t.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338543/m1/3/zoom/?resolution=0.5&lat=1754&lon=653

Look at where the pad is...

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/3aa1052e6e3cd5c89d60b9abfb26a0bb5b42bc03/0_39_3629_2178/master/3629.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=22d78c05a3996d2df4570d0dc06f50a4

> > > I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.
>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

You`re handwaving away the evidence, is all.

> > > > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > > > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
>
> > > "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.
>
> > It is quite sinister that people conducting a murder investigation would look for evidence, or take prints of the main suspect.
> His prints had already been taken when they ordered the palm print - to be obtained in Fritz's office and followed by a paraffin test. These tests, taken in an office without handwashing faccities, had a dual purpose.
>
> 1. The iron solution used in the palmprint would cause a positive to nitrates in the following paraffin test.
> 2. The palmprint immediately preceded the discovery of a previously missed palmprint in the location you note.
> > Explain how fingerprints taken from Oswald could have been placed on the bag.
> I never said they were placed by anyone one the bag. Do try and follow the bouncing ball.

How are fingerprints taken from Oswald put on anything?

> > > > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > > > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
>
> > > And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.
>
> > Has what to do with what?
> Again, try and follow the bouncing ball.
>
> 1. The Paines had no longer needede curtain rods in brown paper wrapping. The curtain rods were in two pieces. Separately, they each measured 27.5 inches. When joined up together, the now single rod measured 36 inches.

Why not break them down to bag them?

> Ruth Paine testified in Februray 64 that these rods were still in her garage wrapped up in that brown paper... so her next deposition took place in her garage where various measurements were taken - including of those rods. However --- the rods were no longer wrapped -unlike to sets of blinds which remained separately wrapped in the same type paper.

Did Ruth say the other rods were ever wrapped?

> In short... sometime after the assassination,

Why after? Why couldn`t Oswald have taken them out of the bag and used it to put his rifle parts in?

>someone took that bag and said it was the bag that was mysteriously missing from crime scene photos.
>
> The only real alternative is that Oswald allegedly told his interrogators that "you can't always find the right sized bag for your lunch". So there is a chance that Oswald took this bag to put his lunch in that morning. If the rod had been in it in two separate peices, then the bag was approximately 27.5 inches in length. The only two witnesses to Oswald with a bag guestimated it was 27 inches.
>
> Either way, Oswald's prints being on it would not be incriminating. It was in the garage where he stayed.

He stayed in the garage? Went around touching stuff?

> > And who said it was "such a bag"?
> The WC.

They said this bag was the same as the bag found in the TSBD? Or something different?

> > > And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?
>
> > That it was picked up before photos were taken?
> LOL

Yes, too fantastic to contemplate. Must have been cops grabbing bags from on place (just happened to find one the right size with the added bonus of having Oswald`s prints on it), and inserting them into the evidential record. Your "LOL" made it all clear.

> > > > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
>
> > > No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.
>
> > So did the DPD plant the prints or not?
> Crikey, Buy a clue, or phone a friend.

Provide a better map through all the twists and turns of your mind.

> > > > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > > > rifle.
> > > Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.
>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

You`re handwaving away the evidence, is all.

> > This is what worked so well for OJ at his trial, they were able to portray all the evidence against their client as forged or planted. It is really your only option when you have an obviously guilty client with a load of evidence against him.
> Why is it okay for you to compare my case with other cases,

Because you are using the same defense approach they did.

> but when I do it in regard to NUTTER case, you all get sooooooo fucking uptight, you look like you could be stunt doubles for Don Knotts.
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > > > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > > > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> > > LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.
>
> > The box on the sill can be seen in photos from the outside.
> LOL Photos taken during recreations.

No, taken from outside right after the assassination.

> > > > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > > > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> > > More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?
>
> > Same shirt Bledsoe saw him wearing, the brown shirt with the missing buttons. It has little silverlike threads running through it, noted by Whaley.
> Missing buttons. LOL. The missing buttons and rips were caiused by the arresting officers.

Because that is what your ideas require, right?

>Mary was describing the shirt shown to her by those nice government officials.
>
> How the fuck could Whaley see his shirt? He has him wearing two fucking jaclets over that shirt.

Were they zippered up?

> "When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him." Willioam Whaley.
>
> He also dropped him about 7 blocks from the 1026 N Beckley.

Oswald wouldn`t know how soon he would become a person of interest.

> All in all, Whaley picked up a drunk who had been sleeping rough while on a spree and who had now come into enough money for a cab and a bed for the night . I am sure that whole area was full of boarding houses.

Yes, lots of men wear silver bracelets.

> > > > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > > > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > > > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> > >
> > > > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > > > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > > > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > > > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > > > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > > > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> > > What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> > Here is a brief synopsis of your alternative. "All the indications of Oswald`s guilt, were faked, forged and planted.
> Two can play that game. Here is a brief symopsis of your case. "An incometent police force cracked the biggest case in US history within a couple of hours, and despite claiming to have the case cinched, nevertheless spent hours trying to get un-needed admissions from their suspect.

Why do you assume these two things cannot coexist? Would you still be able to p[lay the silly games you are now had he confessed. You probably could, just dismiss the confession as coercion.

> Their incompetence also led to the murder of Oswald in their custdody, unfortunately preventing a trial and meaning that the case at that time, still stands."
> > > Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
> > >
> > > https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> > > In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
> > >
> > > It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> > What there can be applied to the case against Oswald? Be specific.
> Sheesh. Can't you read? Framed via a circumstantial case with exculpatory evidence withheld.

That isn`t specific. I`ll pick this up here after work.

[John Corbett]

Chain of custody is establish by person A testifying he gave an item to person B. Person B
testifying he gave an item to person C. Person C testifying he gave the item to person D.....
....and so on. We have that in this case.

> > Desperation to dismiss any indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.
> > > > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > > > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > > > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> > > Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

There is ample evidence that proves Oswald was lying. In addition to the forensic evidence,
his own wife took the cops to the Paine garage where Oswald had kept his rifle and was
horrified when she saw it was not in the blanket where he had stored it.

>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.
> > > Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,
>
> > It is easy to ignore the obvious and entertain the fantastic if you desire to do so.
> The suspect never admitted ordering the rifle or using the alias it was ordered in. Witout that admission, it is incumbent upon the authorities to prove he did. They tried the obvious. Witnesses at the Post Office and came up empty. So... they used questioned document experts.
>
> Here is what your own government scientists say about such experts:
>
> "The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods expressed concerns regarding the validity and reliability of conclusions made by forensic examiners, and called for empirical testing:"
>
> You might be happy to accept the word of such experts. I have a bihg question mark over the validity of such examinations. Especially where trhere is a total lack of corroborating evidence from people who would have witnessed such transactions at the PO..

You have the cart before the horse. Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all forms of
evidence and it needs to be corroborated by other forms of evidence. The lack of an eyewitness
who remembers Oswald is hardly significant except to people who desperately want to believe
he was innocent.

> > > And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.
> > Doesn`t mean it was done.
> No, it doesn't. It does add to reasonable doubt.

If you are desperate to believe there was reasonable doubt. It's easy to create reasonable
doubt by dreaming up an excuse to dismiss a single piece of evidence but when you have to
dream up so many excuses for each and every piece of evidence as you have done here,
reasonable doubt disappears.

> You want to take each item separately to make it easier to dismiss. The very thing you guyts accuse me of.

You are the one who refuses to look at the body of evidence as a whole. The pieces of the
puzzle only go together one way but the conspiracy hobbyists refuse to put the pieces together
because when that is done, the only picture that can be created is that Oswald is guilty.

>
> Your case is full to the brim with REASONABLE doubt - which adds to the liklihood that his alibi was valid.

Wrong. Each piece of evidence indicating Oswald's guilt doesn not add to reasonable doubt. It
subtracts from reasonable doubt until there is no reasonable doubt left.

> > > > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
>
> > > Are you sure about that?
>
> > "Any evidence found by the people investigating the crime is tainted because it was handled by the people investigating the crime."
> All I asked is if you were sure about where they were found? Among his possessions may well be right.

What reason do you have for questioning that other than your desperation to deny Oswald's
guilt?

> > > I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.
>
> > Just happened to have the same unusual sling as rifle found in the TSBD?
> You think? Looks like a piece of rope to me.
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49536/m1/1/high_res/
> > > I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.
>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.
> > > > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > > > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
>
> > > "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.
>
> > It is quite sinister that people conducting a murder investigation would look for evidence, or take prints of the main suspect.
> His prints had already been taken when they ordered the palm print - to be obtained in Fritz's office and followed by a paraffin test. These tests, taken in an office without handwashing faccities, had a dual purpose.

It is normal procedure to take fingerprints only. After Lt. Day discovered the palm print on the
rifle, that needed a palm print from Oswald to compare it to. Why would you find that suspicious?
Still waiting for you to explain how they could have transferred a black ink palm print on to the
barrel of the rifle.

>
> 1. The iron solution used in the palmprint would cause a positive to nitrates in the following paraffin test.
> 2. The palmprint immediately preceded the discovery of a previously missed palmprint in the location you note.

A paraffin test was not used to lift the palm print off the barrel of the rifle.

> > Explain how fingerprints taken from Oswald could have been placed on the bag.
> I never said they were placed by anyone one the bag. Do try and follow the bouncing ball.
> > > > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > > > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
>
> > > And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.
>
> > Has what to do with what?
> Again, try and follow the bouncing ball.
>
> 1. The Paines had no longer needede curtain rods in brown paper wrapping. The curtain rods were in two pieces. Separately, they each measured 27.5 inches. When joined up together, the now single rod measured 36 inches.
>
> Ruth Paine testified in Februray 64 that these rods were still in her garage wrapped up in that brown paper... so her next deposition took place in her garage where various measurements were taken - including of those rods. However --- the rods were no longer wrapped -unlike to sets of blinds which remained separately wrapped in the same type paper.
>
> In short... sometime after the assassination, someone took that bag and said it was the bag that was mysteriously missing from crime scene photos.

The bag found in the TSBD was photographed being taken out of the TSBD on the afternoon of
11/22/63. Are you claiming that is the bag that had been in the Paine garage or are you just
trying to come up with a lame excuse to dismiss another damning piece of evidence of Oswald's
guilt?

>
> The only real alternative is that Oswald allegedly told his interrogators that "you can't always find the right sized bag for your lunch". So there is a chance that Oswald took this bag to put his lunch in that morning. If the rod had been in it in two separate peices, then the bag was approximately 27.5 inches in length. The only two witnesses to Oswald with a bag guestimated it was 27 inches.
>
> Either way, Oswald's prints being on it would not be incriminating. It was in the garage where he stayed.

Not to someone who refuses to accept any indication of Oswald's guilt. Time after time, you are
forced to reach for the most improbable explanation for a piece of evidence because the most
likely explanation indicates Oswald's guilt.

And this seems more plausible to you than that is the shirt Oswald was wearing when he shot
JFK. One more example of you being forced to reach for the least likely explanation because
the most obvious one once again indicates Oswald was guilty. That might work if you only
had one or two pieces of evidence but in this case there are dozens and you have to argue for
the least likely explanation for each an every one of them. If jurors were to act like that in
every criminal case, nobody could every be convicted of a crime. You can always find and
excuse to dismiss any piece of evidence, no matter how improbable that excuse is. Judges
instruct jurors to make reasonable judgements regarding the validity of evidence. Conspiracy
hobbyists are under no such mandate.

>
> How the fuck could Whaley see his shirt? He has him wearing two fucking jaclets over that shirt.

He didn't get a jacket until after Whaley took him to his rooming house.

>
> "When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him." Willioam Whaley.
>
> He also dropped him about 7 blocks from the 1026 N Beckley.

Where Oswald asked him to drop him.

>
> All in all, Whaley picked up a drunk who had been sleeping rough while on a spree and who had now come into enough money for a cab and a bed for the night . I am sure that whole area was full of boarding houses.

Funny how you think witnesses are a compelling form of evidence until a witness gives
testimony that challenges your desired belief that Oswald was innocent.

> > > > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > > > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > > > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> > >
> > > > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > > > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > > > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > > > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > > > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > > > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> > > What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> > Here is a brief synopsis of your alternative. "All the indications of Oswald`s guilt, were faked, forged and planted.
> Two can play that game. Here is a brief symopsis of your case. "An incometent police force cracked the biggest case in US history within a couple of hours, and despite claiming to have the case cinched, nevertheless spent hours trying to get un-needed admissions from their suspect. Their incompetence also led to the murder of Oswald in their custdody, unfortunately preventing a trial and meaning that the case at that time, still stands."

The only part of that explanation is the incompetence that led to Oswald being murdered. There
is nothing that indicates their initial gathering of evidence was either incompetent or sinister.

> > > Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
> > >
> > > https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> > > In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
> > >
> > > It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> > What there can be applied to the case against Oswald? Be specific.
> Sheesh. Can't you read? Framed via a circumstantial case with exculpatory evidence withheld.
> > The only possible thing I see is begged arguments.
> And the only thing I see is you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about. Forget your lessons from McAdams. He led you astray. So far the only real examples of begged arguments have come from Mr Gailbraith.
> > > The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police)
>
> > Yes, they can do anything. the can dummy up photos at a moments notice.
> Now you're making shit up I never said they did that.
> They can open up PO boxes in Oswald`s name months in advance just in case they need to frame him.
> Nor did I say there were no PO boxes opened.

You clearly implied Oswald had not opened the PO Box. It was one of your excuses for denying
the paper trail had been established.

> > > is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best.
>
> > Isn`t the photo of Oswald holding a rifle direct evidence? I
> Even if real, it is direct eidence of him holding a rifle and nothing more. If you think it is DIRECT evidence of his guilt, we can end this right here because it would mean I am debating a total fuckwit.

It is just one piece of the puzzle. Once again you have to put the pieces together. We have the
photos of Oswald with the rifle. We have the paper trail showing his purchase of the rifle.
We have his prints on a bag he brought into the TSBD which was long enough to hold the
disassembled rifle and had fibers matching the blanket he stored his rifle in. The rifle he ordered
from Klein's was found on 6th floor of the TSBD and it had his palm print on the barrel where it
could only have been placed if the rifle was disassembled. Fibers matching his shirt were
found on the butt plate of the rifle. You don't want to put the pieces together because the only
reasonable explanation when you do that is that Oswald is guilty. Instead you take each piece
and invent an excuse to discard it.

> sn`t Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy direct evidence?
> Yes. But he is not reliable witness, given his initial refusal to ID Oswald and the issue of him describing things he could not have seen eg height.
>

I agree that Brennan's testimony by itself is not compelling but it does not stand by itself. The
person Brennan eventually IDed was the owner of the rifle and there is forensic evidence he
was the one who fired it. Brennan doesn't corroborate the forensic evidence. The forensic
evidence corroborates Brennan.

> And I would describe his claim in his book that he was an Eyewitness for God or whatever the fuck he claimed, is evidence of mental instability.
>
> Jesse Curry knew Brennan was not a reliable witness when he wrote in his book that "We never could put Oswald in that sniper's nest."

Curry did not do the investigating. His subordinates did the initial evidence gathering and had
enough incriminating evidence during the first 12 hours to charge him with a double murder.
Subsequent investigation by the FBI and the WC only added to that initial evidence.

> > >Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
> > >
> > > You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes)
>
> > But not his co-workers, just Oswald`s. Poor guy has no luck.
> From memory, other prints were found. This whole case is riddled with fingerrprints found that are marked as "of no value" or similar terminolgy. No b=value simply because they were not Oswald's.

It is very common to find partial prints that have no value. The FBI has stringent rules for
fingerprint matching and if a print doesn't have enough points to make a positive match, they
have no value.

> > >or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

You have never explained how the palmprint taken at the DPD could have been transferred to
the rifle.

>
> > Or the evidence indicates Oswald`s guilt because he was guilty.
> Thank you! Another actal example of begging the question. Well done!
> > > Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.
> > >
> > > The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.
>
> > That isn`t even attributed to him.
> Okay Mr Pedantic.
> > > These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor.
>
> > Why not?
> Well, I suppose he could have, if he had x-ray vision...
> > > And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi -
>
> > Why not call it a confession, the word applies just as well.
> Applies to what?
> > > it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
>
> > "Now that we`ve thrown out all of the evidence let`s start the investigation!"
> Nope. Let';s re-examine all of the evidence and all the theories the evidence allegedly supports and throw out the chaff. Oswald as lone nut is just another theory which is based on looking only at the evidence the government presented - anmd refusing point blank to examine that evidence in any sort of critical fashion, while demanding that the case for Oswald's innocene be looked at piece by piece but demanding that the case for his guilt has to be looked at only in total.

You've been invited to present a plausible scenario for the evidence or to add your own yet you
have steadfastly refused to do so as have most conspiracy hobbyists over the last six decades.
I think deep down they know the only plausible explanation for the available evidence is that
Oswald is guilty but they don't want to admit that, so instead they resort to inventing excuses to
dismiss the evidence until there is no evidence left to explain.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:04:09 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> But your own "star witness, Howard Brennan', gave a description of the clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing,
> testifying that the man with the rifle wasn't only wearing clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn't even clothing that Oswald owned.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WC_Vol3_161-not-dressed-the-same.gif
>
> I notice that you also don't mention that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150,
> he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )

These are the kinds of details witnesses often get wrong. If you saw a rifleman pointing a gun
out the window and firing it at the President of the United States, do you really think you would
note the exact shade of the shirt he was wearing? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously
unreliable yet you guys treat everything a witness says as if it is an established fact, unless of
course what a witness says implicates Oswald's guilt.

>
> Unless your suspect changed clothes, if your witness can't identify the suspect's clothing, he can't identify the suspect.

The case against Oswald is airtight without Brennan's testimony.

> Without a change of clothing, it's impossible to have the clothing wrong and the suspect right.

That is completely illogical. A witness can get somethings wrong and somethings right. In fact,
that is normally the case. To determine what a witness has gotten right or wrong, you look to
other evidence that either corroborates or refutes what a witness has said. In this case the
forensic evidence corroborates who Brennan says he saw and refutes what Brennan remembered
the color of the shirt as being.

>
> The Warren Commission Report ( pg. 144 ) cites Brennan for the man's height and weight and age approximation.
> This is its defintition of "fairly closely".

I was fairly close but just an educated guess since it would be impossible to accurately judge the
height and weight of a man kneeling on a floor six floors above.

>
> But the Report omits the fact that Brennan testified that the man in the window with the rifle was wearing "khaki" ( tan )
> colored clothing or that Brennan failed to identify CE 150 as the shirt the rifleman was wearing. ( 3 H 161 )
> The Warren Commission concluded that the shirt Oswald was arrested in was the same shirt he fired the rifle in.

Because it was. The fibers on the butt plate confirm that.

>
> But Brennan testified that Oswald was wearing different clothes at the lineup than at the time he saw him doing the shooting ( ibid. ).

So Brennan was wrong about that. That doesn't make the case against Oswald collape,
especially since the case doesn't rely on Brennan's testimony.

> So if you believe Brennan, then either:
> a. ) Oswald changed his shirt and the shirt fibers from the arrested shirt were planted on the rifle, or
> b. ) the man Brennan saw shooting was NOT Oswald.

How about we believe the things Brennan said that are corroborated and dismiss the things he
said that are refuted?

>
> So which one is it ?

Those aren't the only choices.

> > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> Like all lone nutters who don't know the testimony and rely solely on the Report for information,
> you overlook a lot and fail to tell the whole story.

Such as?

>
> But that's what prosecutors do when they're framing an innocent man.

Oswald was never prosecuted. He was never framed.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:21:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
> That bag was made by police in the shipping room of the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22
> and then they took a sample from the same roll of paper and tape they used to make the bag.
>

WOW, they really moved quickly to create the bag even before they had testimony that Oswald
had even brought a bag to work that day.

> The FBI knew this when they went back 4 days later and found that none of the tape matched
> each other or that on the bag and neither did the paper match. They checked all locations
> where Oswald worked and could find no match for either.
>
> The paper and tape used to make that bag was matched ONLY to the paper and tape that was on the
> shipping room table on the afternoon of the 22nd.

You don't think that was the same paper and tape that had been on the shipping room table the
day before?

>
> The cops were trying to connect the rifle with the building but what they didn't know was that all of
> the paper was not the same. Neither was all of the tape. So what they unknowingly accomplished
> was connecting the bag with the TSBD on the afternoon of the 22nd.

Finding the rifle on the floor where the witnesses placed the shooter connected the rifle to
the building. Your claim that the cops immediately constructed the bag following the shooting
is one and hadn't heard before and is preposterous.

>
> They made the bag 38 inches to fit the 36 inch rifle, not realizing the rifle they had was 40.2 inches long.

Gee, they were so clever but nobody bothered to measure the rifle before making the bag.

>
> Then there is a problem with the discovery. Two different Dallas officers claimed to have found it.
>
> If the bag was found near the sniper's nest, why didn't they photograph it in situ ?

You'd have to ask them that.

> They had the presence of mind to photograph the three shells.
> They had the presence of mind to photograph the rifle between the boxes.
> Why didn't they photograph the bag as found ?

Don't know. That doesn't make the bag go away.

>
> Because it wasn't there.

That's the only possibility you can come up with?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 1 May 2023 05:10:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Anyone examining the records with some understanding of what the term means.
>
>Chain of custody is establish by person A testifying he gave an item to person B. Person B
>testifying he gave an item to person C. Person C testifying he gave the item to person D.....
>....and so on. We have that in this case.

Take CE399.

Do it. CITE EACH LINK IN THE CHAIN.

But you won't. You can't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:27:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>you can just say so and stop now.
>
>If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>your scenario. Now the list.

A complete scenario has already been published by Douglas Horne and
Larry Hancock, to name just two.

You've lost. Scurry away to your safe place, because evidence will
continue to be posted that you MUST run from...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 1 May 2023 05:26:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:04:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>
>>> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
>>> Oswald was wearing when arrested.
>> But your own "star witness, Howard Brennan', gave a description of the clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing,
>> testifying that the man with the rifle wasn't only wearing clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn't even clothing that Oswald owned.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WC_Vol3_161-not-dressed-the-same.gif
>>
>> I notice that you also don't mention that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150,
>> he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )
>
>These are the kinds of details witnesses often get wrong.

The COLOR of clothing is not. And watch folks, as Corbutt is
COMPLETELY unable to cite for his claim.

He was simply lying...

Of course, he can't handle the fact that EVERY SINGLE WITNESS
described the color of the clothing the same...

But this is what liars do, they lie.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[John Corbett]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:39:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:27:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> >not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> >you can just say so and stop now.
> >
> >If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> >you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> >you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> >don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> >your scenario. Now the list.
> A complete scenario has already been published by Douglas Horne and
> Larry Hancock, to name just two.
>

I hope they were both more compelling than the cockamamie one you came
up with.

> You've lost. Scurry away to your safe place, because evidence will
> continue to be posted that you MUST run from...

You don't post evidence. You post excuses for dismissing evidence the WC
presented.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:39:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 05:26:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:04:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> >>> Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> >> But your own "star witness, Howard Brennan', gave a description of the clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing,
> >> testifying that the man with the rifle wasn't only wearing clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn't even clothing that Oswald owned.
> >>
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WC_Vol3_161-not-dressed-the-same.gif
> >>
> >> I notice that you also don't mention that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150,
> >> he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )
> >
> >These are the kinds of details witnesses often get wrong.
> The COLOR of clothing is not. And watch folks, as Corbutt is
> COMPLETELY unable to cite for his claim.
>

Colors of pertinent objects are exactly the kind of details witnesses often get wrong.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-forensic-view/202008/eyewitness-testimony-eyewitness-mistakes-what-we-get-wrong

"Anyway, using this realistic scene, we find that the most common eyewitness error is hardly surprising at all. The average witness most commonly makes errors of suspect appearance, clothing, and physique. Blonds become brunettes, the tall become short, grey t-shirts become blue sweatshirts, and so on. Not surprising—but reflect on the fact that these results are obtained under ideal conditions of comfort and lighting, and with plenty of time to observe the scene. Under these ideal conditions, the average witness still manages to make approximately two errors of perpetrator or suspect appearance. That’s a lot of mistakes."

Elsewhere the article states that memories are even less reliable in states
of high arousal. The assassination of a President would qualify as a state
of high arousal. This is why only a fool accepts anything a witness says as
fact unless there is corroborating evidence.

> He was simply lying...

You are lying when you accuse me of lying.

>
> Of course, he can't handle the fact that EVERY SINGLE WITNESS
> described the color of the clothing the same...

Witnesses get colors wrong. See the above cite.

>
> But this is what liars do, they lie.
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!

Yes you do.

[Bud]

How would they know a 36" bag was long enough? The rifle is much longer than that.

> The only real alternative is that Oswald allegedly told his interrogators that "you can't always find the right sized bag for your lunch". So there is a chance that Oswald took this bag to put his lunch in that morning. If the rod had been in it in two separate peices, then the bag was approximately 27.5 inches in length. The only two witnesses to Oswald with a bag guestimated it was 27 inches.
>
> Either way, Oswald's prints being on it would not be incriminating. It was in the garage where he stayed.
> > And who said it was "such a bag"?
> The WC.
> > > And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?
>
> > That it was picked up before photos were taken?
> LOL
> > > > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
>
> > > No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.
>
> > So did the DPD plant the prints or not?
> Crikey, Buy a clue, or phone a friend.
> > > > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > > > rifle.
> > > Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.
>
> > Desperation to dismiss indications of Oswald`s guilt noted.
> Desperation to avoid the guts of arguments, when waving your hands is all you are used to doing.

You are handwaving away the evidence.

> > This is what worked so well for OJ at his trial, they were able to portray all the evidence against their client as forged or planted. It is really your only option when you have an obviously guilty client with a load of evidence against him.
> Why is it okay for you to compare my case with other cases, but when I do it in regard to NUTTER case, you all get sooooooo fucking uptight, you look like you could be stunt doubles for Don Knotts.
> > > > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > > > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > > > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> > > LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.
>
> > The box on the sill can be seen in photos from the outside.
> LOL Photos taken during recreations.

Right after the shooting.

https://postlmg.cc/RqHB69Yr

> > > > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > > > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> > > More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?
>
> > Same shirt Bledsoe saw him wearing, the brown shirt with the missing buttons. It has little silverlike threads running through it, noted by Whaley.
> Missing buttons. LOL. The missing buttons and rips were caiused by the arresting officers. Mary was describing the shirt shown to her by those nice government officials.
>
> How the fuck could Whaley see his shirt? He has him wearing two fucking jaclets over that shirt.
>
> "When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him." Willioam Whaley.
>
> He also dropped him about 7 blocks from the 1026 N Beckley.
>
> All in all, Whaley picked up a drunk who had been sleeping rough while on a spree and who had now come into enough money for a cab and a bed for the night . I am sure that whole area was full of boarding houses.
> > > > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > > > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > > > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> > >
> > > > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > > > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > > > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > > > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > > > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > > > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> > > What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> > Here is a brief synopsis of your alternative. "All the indications of Oswald`s guilt, were faked, forged and planted.
> Two can play that game. Here is a brief symopsis of your case. "An incometent police force cracked the biggest case in US history within a couple of hours,

I could have, it isn`t a hard case.

If you would have given me one page on every employee, background and history and whatnot, I could have told you who the prime suspect should be. Oswald knew what you can`t come to grips with, his guilt would become apparent quite early.

>and despite claiming to have the case cinched, nevertheless spent hours trying to get un-needed admissions from their suspect.

Do you think they stopped doing everything as far as developing evidence after they felt they had the case cinched? I expect they continued even after Oswald was dead.

> Their incompetence also led to the murder of Oswald in their custdody,

The only thing that stopped Kennedy from being killed when he waded into the crowds along the motorcade route was that nobody stepped forward and did it.

Do you remember this case....

https://youtu.be/dSCwLf9rIoY

>unfortunately preventing a trial and meaning that the case at that time, still stands."
> > > Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
> > >
> > > https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> > > In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
> > >
> > > It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> > What there can be applied to the case against Oswald? Be specific.
> Sheesh. Can't you read? Framed via a circumstantial case with exculpatory evidence withheld.
> > The only possible thing I see is begged arguments.

And that is what you delivered.

> And the only thing I see is you not knowing what the fuck you are talking about. Forget your lessons from McAdams. He led you astray. So far the only real examples of begged arguments have come from Mr Gailbraith.
> > > The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police)
>
> > Yes, they can do anything. the can dummy up photos at a moments notice.
> Now you're making shit up I never said they did that.
> They can open up PO boxes in Oswald`s name months in advance just in case they need to frame him.
> Nor did I say there were no PO boxes opened.
> > > is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best.
>
> > Isn`t the photo of Oswald holding a rifle direct evidence? I
> Even if real, it is direct eidence of him holding a rifle and nothing more.

He told the authorities he didn`t own one.

> If you think it is DIRECT evidence of his guilt, we can end this right here because it would mean I am debating a total fuckwit.

I think everything needed to understand this case is right there in those photos. A person ready to take violent action to advance political ideology.

> sn`t Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy direct evidence?
> Yes. But he is not reliable witness, given his initial refusal to ID Oswald and the issue of him describing things he could not have seen eg height.

This is just the meaningless litany of reasons conspiracy folk have come up with to discount the information he provided because they don`t like the information he provided.

If you accept his reasons for not being forthcoming at the lineups than it isn`t a problem. And what did he describe that he couldn`t have seen?

> And I would describe his claim in his book that he was an Eyewitness for God or whatever the fuck he claimed, is evidence of mental instability.

I`d say Oswald`s behavior is evidence of mental instability. People would attempt to exchange pleasantries with him and he would ghost them.

> Jesse Curry knew Brennan was not a reliable witness when he wrote in his book that "We never could put Oswald in that sniper's nest."

His opinion isn`t knowledge.

> > >Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
> > >
> > > You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes)
>
> > But not his co-workers, just Oswald`s. Poor guy has no luck.
> From memory, other prints were found. This whole case is riddled with fingerrprints found that are marked as "of no value" or similar terminolgy. No b=value simply because they were not Oswald's.

At the time the only real way to check fingerprints was to have someone to check them against. There was no computer database to process them.

> > >or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.
>
> > Or the evidence indicates Oswald`s guilt because he was guilty.
> Thank you! Another actal example of begging the question. Well done!

Can`t be begging the question, it was the finding of two major investigations.

And it is the obvious mundane solution to contrast against your never ending collection of fantastic things. I bet if I gave you fifty "passes", where your claims that someone lied, or someone was coerced, or some evidence was tampered with, or some evidence was planted, ect you still wouldn`t have enough "passes" to get you through what your contentions require.

> > > Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.
> > >
> > > The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.
>
> > That isn`t even attributed to him.
> Okay Mr Pedantic.

You are always knocking the edges off the square peg. Your characterization of what you have is not what you have.

> > > These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor.
>
> > Why not?
> Well, I suppose he could have, if he had x-ray vision...

There are no windows on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

> > > And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi -
>
> > Why not call it a confession, the word applies just as well.
> Applies to what?

To what you are offering as an alibi. Can you produce a definition for "alibi" that fits what you are offering?

> > > it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
>
> > "Now that we`ve thrown out all of the evidence let`s start the investigation!"
> Nope. Let';s re-examine all of the evidence and all the theories the evidence allegedly supports and throw out the chaff.

The "chaff" seems to be anything that indicates Oswald`s guilt.

>Oswald as lone nut is just another theory which is based on looking only at the evidence the government presented - anmd refusing point blank to examine that evidence in any sort of critical fashion, while demanding that the case for Oswald's innocene be looked at piece by piece but demanding that the case for his guilt has to be looked at only in total.

"I say this nullifies that evidence" and "And I say this nullifies that evidence" is nothing but a hobbyist past time. If you say some evidence was planted, say the paper bag, you aren`t actually showing anything. Am I supposed to argue against the idea you haven`t shown?

> > Much easier to fingerpaint on a blank canvas, isn`t it?
> You would know,

My canvas isn`t blank. It was filled in by professional criminal investigators decades ago. Your attempt to white out their work only impresses you.

[BT George]

Did he say "The state of the evidence doesn't support Oswald's having been there"? Quite a different notion in context than *directly* (via witness testimony or admission or--now--video) putting him there.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:29:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:39:28?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 05:27:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>>>not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>>>you can just say so and stop now.
>>>
>>>If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>>>you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>>>you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>>>don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>>>your scenario. Now the list.
>> A complete scenario has already been published by Douglas Horne and
>> Larry Hancock, to name just two.
>>
>I hope they were both more compelling than the cockamamie one you came
>up with.

Mine was so compelling that you were unable to answer it.

>> You've lost. Scurry away to your safe place, because evidence will
>> continue to be posted that you MUST run from...
>
>You don't post evidence. You post excuses for dismissing evidence the WC
>presented.

You're lying again, Corbutt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:38:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 9:39:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 05:26:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:04:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
>>>>> Oswald was wearing when arrested.
>>>> But your own "star witness, Howard Brennan', gave a description of the clothing the rifleman in the window was wearing,
>>>> testifying that the man with the rifle wasn't only wearing clothing NOT worn by Oswald that day, it wasn't even clothing that Oswald owned.
>>>>
>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WC_Vol3_161-not-dressed-the-same.gif
>>>>
>>>> I notice that you also don't mention that when Brennan was shown the shirt Oswald was arrested in, Commission Exhibit 150,
>>>> he did not identify that shirt as the one the rifleman was wearing. ( above )
>>>
>>>These are the kinds of details witnesses often get wrong.
>> The COLOR of clothing is not. And watch folks, as Corbutt is
>> COMPLETELY unable to cite for his claim.
>>
>Colors of pertinent objects are exactly the kind of details witnesses often get wrong.
>
>https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-forensic-view/202008/eyewitness-testimony-eyewitness-mistakes-what-we-get-wrong
>
>"Anyway, using this realistic scene, we find that the most common eyewitness error is hardly surprising at all. The average witness most commonly makes errors of suspect appearance, clothing, and physique. Blonds become brunettes, the tall become short, grey t-shirts become blue sweatshirts, and so on. Not surprising—but reflect on the fact that these results are obtained under ideal conditions of comfort and lighting, and with plenty of time to observe the scene. Under these ideal conditions, the average witness still manages to make approximately two errors of perpetrator or suspect appearance. That’s a lot of mistakes."
>
>Elsewhere the article states that memories are even less reliable in states
>of high arousal. The assassination of a President would qualify as a state
>of high arousal. This is why only a fool accepts anything a witness says as
>fact unless there is corroborating evidence.

Nothing in this cite shows eyewitnesses mistaking dark clothing for
white clothing.

Turning "grey" to "blue" is understandable, turning dark to light is
not.

You lied.

>> He was simply lying...
>
>You are lying when you accuse me of lying.

You just PROVED it, by your inability to cite anything that supports
your wacky assertion.

>> Of course, he can't handle the fact that EVERY SINGLE WITNESS
>> described the color of the clothing the same...
>
>Witnesses get colors wrong. See the above cite.

Witnesses don't mistake dark for light - your citation doesn't support
such a wacky theory.

>> But this is what liars do, they lie.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!
>

>Yes I do.

[John Corbett]

Where did you get your information that told you that. Probably from the same
repository you get most of your ideas. You pulled it out of your ass.

i posted a link to a scientific experiment which indicates witnesses frequently
make mistakes on very basic things. Blonds are remembered as brunetts. A
blue shirt is remembered as gray. Benny responds with his usual half-assed,
unsupported opinions. The study shows witnesses make the very mistakes
Benny says they don't make. Who should we believe?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 2 May 2023 08:07:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Where did you get your information...

It's your lie, it's your burden.

Carry your burden coward!!!

[John Corbett]

You made the claim, asswipe. You claimed, without supporting cites, that
"witnesses don't mistake dark for light".

I simply questioned what your basis for that assertion was. I provided you
with a cite to support my assertions but you were unable to do likewise.
Instead, you tried to shift your burden to me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 09:44:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt to claim victory again, even as he
demonstrates his cowardice...

[Charles Schuyler]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26 AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > you can just say so and stop now.
> >
> > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > your scenario. Now the list.
> >

> > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)

> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.

But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?

If you have a problem with witness statements, who in this case observed something consistent with physical evidence that helps tie things together into a consistent narrative of what history records as to what happened (Oswald alone, no known help), then please disregard your own witness statements, which in your case, relay tales largely uncorroborated by other physical evidence.

>
> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>
> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.

You're being too clever by half. Of course Oswald "created" the SN by firing his shots that killed JFK from that location. Oswald as JFK's assassin is confirmed by several investigations.

>
> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.

JFK's own Presidential Library and Museum disagrees with you. It refers interested parties to the WCR to learn more about the assassination, and you are well aware of what the WC concluded. JFK's library refers people to the WCR here:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/november-22-1963-death-of-the-president

> > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
> Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

Buff factoid.

> > Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>
> > The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> > Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> > Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> > hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

> Long time since I have looked at the ballistics,

The ballistics haven't changed.

>but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it >is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

This is another buff talking point. We're not in court, Johnny Cochrane. This isn't a matter if "the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." You are not here to raise "reasonable doubt." If you have proof something nefarious happened by swapping out bullets or something, please stand up and lay out your case and show us how whatever vague thing you're alluding to occurred. Be prepared to defend your ideas.

> > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.

> Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario.

Or paper trails can help us establish the ownership of Oswald's rifle.

>In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping".

Non sequitur. You haven't shown intelligence agencies were involved in a plot to kill JFK or forge documents linking Oswald to the rifle, etc.

>What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so,

If there were, you'd claim the witness lied. Heads you win, tails any investigation you nit-pick apart loses. You cannot be defeated on any point. The JFK conspiracy cult is a religion.

>and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

Didn't he reportedly say to the cops who found an Oswald ID and a Hidell ID on him, "You figure it out?"
>
> Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen, different locations

Everything is "easy." Anything can be done. Ben says it was "easy" to shoot JFK from multiple directions and pin it on a sniper from behind. Altering the Z film at some place called Hawk Eye Works to scrub out evidence of additional bullet strikes on JFK and JBC was "easy" to do. Swapping out a bullet at Parkland was "easy." It goes on and on. Thousands of worker bees dutifully planting evidence, forging documents, firing rifles and poison darts from behind fences and shrubs, etc. was all "easy" to do and shows the vast nature of the conspiracy, which you guys then claim could've been pulled off by just seven or eight people. All of this in addition to a supposed "hit" in Florida and Chicago, all ready to go with its own set of shooters, contingency plans, cooperation of local law enforcement and politicians, and on and on.

An operation on a scale with the logistics and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, when simply planting some stories about him womanizing with whores could've removed him from office much more easily.

>
> And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

> > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
> Are you sure about that?
>

> I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.
>

> I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

Please specifically identify the photos you have a "problem" with and why, and then point to research that has duplicated what you allege with technology from the 50s/early 60s. If you can't do this, you are simply making an empty claim about evidence that is awfully damaging to your hero Oswald.

> > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
> "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

Or accurate and a strong indication of Oswald's guilt.

> > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

> And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination. And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

> > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
> No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

> > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > rifle.
> Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

> > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

> > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > Oswald was wearing when arrested.

> More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?


You're basically claiming none of the evidence is legit.

> > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>
> > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
>
> https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
>
> It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police) is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best. Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
>

> You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes) or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.
>

> Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.

You've probably written a million words on the assassination at various discussion boards, yet you've never detailed a case. Why? Can't you detail a 500 word to 1,500 word summary of what you think happened and link to evidence and tests that supports your claim(s)?

If all of the evidence is suspect, planted, forged, altered, etc. how do you draw any conclusion as to what happened that day different than the historical case, Oswald alone, no known help?
>
> The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25. These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor. And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi - it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26?AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:

>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56?PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>>> you can just say so and stop now.
>>>
>>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>>> your scenario. Now the list.
>>>
>>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
>>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
>
>> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
>
> But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter
> or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?

Other witnesses, indeed a MAJORITY who are documented in those first
few days - pointed to the Grassy Knoll

> If you have a problem with witness statements, who in this case
> observed something consistent with physical evidence that helps tie
> things together into a consistent narrative of what history records as
> to what happened (Oswald alone, no known help), then please disregard
> your own witness statements, which in your case, relay tales largely
> uncorroborated by other physical evidence.

Believers are incapable on naming even *ONE* eyewitness whom they
believe totally in their testimony.

This fact says volumes...

>> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>>
>> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
>> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
>
> You're being too clever by half. Of course Oswald "created" the SN
> by firing his shots that killed JFK from that location. Oswald as
> JFK's assassin is confirmed by several investigations.

This is, of course, simply sheer speculation combined with begging the
question...

>> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
>
>JFK's own Presidential Library and Museum disagrees with you.

Can you cite ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL that relied on what a
Presidential Library said in place of actual evidence?

...

> You've probably written a million words on the assassination at
> various discussion boards, yet you've never detailed a case. Why?
> Can't you detail a 500 word to 1,500 word summary of what you think
> happened and link to evidence and tests that supports your claim(s)?

We know for a FACT that Chuckles can't do this.

And the amusing fact that believers keep demanding what they
themselves refuse to provide tells you all you need to know about
believers.

They're cowards.

[neus]

John Corbett wrote:
> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> you can just say so and stop now.
>
> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> your scenario. Now the list.
>
> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
>

> Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
>

> Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>
> The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>

> There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>

> Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
>

> Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
>

> A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
>

> Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
>

> The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> rifle.
>

> Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
>

> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> Oswald was wearing when arrested.
>

> Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>
> Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
>

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

All those things were easily planted.

Nobody doing a crime like this would allow those signs to exist.

ne

[John Corbett]

The standard CT cop out. Never explain the evidence. Explain it away. Once you get rid of the
evidence, that frees you up to invent any scenario you like, unburdened by having to make it fit
the evidence. When you limit yourself to what the evidence indicates, you have only one choice.
Oswald did it.

The comment that nobody "would allow those signs to exist" is particularly telling. This is where
the CTs go wrong. They think solving this crime requires a different approach then solving any
other murder case. The fact is that the same processes that solve other crimes solve this one.
Look at the evidence and go where it takes you. Why would you think the killer in this crime
would be less prone to leave incriminating evidence than in any other murder case. Criminals
usually leave clues that result in them being identified. That is why forensics is such an
important part of any criminal investigation. It is by far a more reliable form of evidence than
eyewitness testimony. When an innocent person is wrongfully convicted of a crime, it is usually
due to a witness misidentifying them as the perpetrator. Forensics, particularly since the advent
of DNA evidence, is often used to overturn those miscarriages of justice.

[donald willis]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:34:26 AM UTC-7, Greg Parker wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > you can just say so and stop now.
> >
> > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > your scenario. Now the list.
> >
> > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)

> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
>

> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>
> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
>

> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.

> > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.

> Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

> > Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>
> > The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> > Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> > Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> > hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

> Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

> > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.

> Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

>
> Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,
>

> And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

> > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.

> Are you sure about that?
>
> I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.
>
> I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

> > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.

> "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

> > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.

> And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination. And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

> > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.

> No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

> > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > rifle.

> Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

> > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.

> LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

> > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > Oswald was wearing when arrested.

> More contamination. And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

> > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>
> > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.

> What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
>
> Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
>
> https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
>
> It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
>
> The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police) is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best. Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.
>
> You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes) or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.
>
> Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.
>

> The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25. These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor.

I myself made this case many years ago. Now, I think it was just another trap for Oswald, another chance for other witnesses to contradict him, another chance to catch Oswald in a "lie". It was Bookhout and Fritz who concocted this scene, in those unrecorded "interviews".\
\dcw

[John Corbett]

> And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi - it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

There is no support for Oswald's alibi. Nobody saw him anywhere but the sniper's nest at the
time the shots were fired. That is what would be needed to establish an alibi for Oswald.
Alleged and confirmed sightings of Oswald elsewhere in the building before and after the
shooting do not preclude him from being the one in the sniper's nest firing the shot that killed
JFK. That is where a wealth of forensic evidence and an eyewitness place him.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> There is no support for Oswald's alibi. Nobody saw him anywhere but the sniper's nest at the
> time the shots were fired. That is what would be needed to establish an alibi for Oswald.
> Alleged and confirmed sightings of Oswald elsewhere in the building before and after the
> shooting do not preclude him from being the one in the sniper's nest firing the shot that killed
> JFK. That is where a wealth of forensic evidence and an eyewitness place him.

Every time you post, you lie about the facts.

Evidence supporting Oswald's alibi that he was on the first floor before, during and after the shooting.
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Who saw him in the sniper's nest ? Brennan ?
https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/

ROFLMAO. Your silly comments always make you look stupid.
Try looking at ALL the body of evidence, not just the prosecution's side.

www.gil-jesus.com

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > There is no support for Oswald's alibi. Nobody saw him anywhere but the sniper's nest at the
> > time the shots were fired. That is what would be needed to establish an alibi for Oswald.
> > Alleged and confirmed sightings of Oswald elsewhere in the building before and after the
> > shooting do not preclude him from being the one in the sniper's nest firing the shot that killed
> > JFK. That is where a wealth of forensic evidence and an eyewitness place him.
> Every time you post, you lie about the facts.
>
> Evidence supporting Oswald's alibi that he was on the first floor before, during and after the shooting.
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Your own argument contradicts itself, Gil. If Oswald was eating his lunch in the domino room,
how did Carolyn Arnold see him at the main entrance at 12:25. Arnold didn't say she saw Oswald
in the main entrance at 12:25 until 15 years later in an unsworn statement to a guy writing a
book. That's your idea of evidence? Neither of her contemporaneous statements mentioned that.
Her initial statement to the FBI was she MIGHT have seen Oswald at 12:15 but wasn't sure where.
Her signed statement taken a few months later made no mention of seeing Oswald at all. But
we're supposed to believe that 15 years later her mind was filled with clarity about the precise
time and location she saw Oswald. Three witnesses who remembered seeing Oswald at or just
before noon in the domino room don't even come close to establishing an alibi for him at 12:30.
None of this trumps the forensic evidence that tells us Oswald was the shooter in the sniper's
nest at `12:30. The fact Oswald always ate his lunch in the domino room would have told him
who else normally ate their lunch there so his claim to seeing the two black guys there doesn't
carry much weight as it could easily have been an educated guess. What is significant is that
neither Norman nor Jarman remember seeing Oswald. Probably the weakest part of your
argument is Jarman's statement that he heard from Billy Lovelady that the encounter with
Oswald, Baker, and Truly occurred on the first floor, a statement given 14 years later. You
think this trumps the sworn testimony by both Baker and Truly that the encounter took place
in the second floor lunchroom. Of course you do. You're a conspiracy hobbyist and that requires
you to be very bad at weighing evidence.

>
> Who saw him in the sniper's nest ? Brennan ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/

Why would you bring up Brennan in response to my comment about the FORENSIC evidence?
Brennan's identification of Oswald is one of the least compelling pieces of evidence against
Oswald. The case against Oswald is made just by the forensic evidence. Brennan's belated
ID of Oswald, while somewhat probative, would not be compelling by itself. It is made so by
the corroborating forensic evidence that all points to Oswald as the shooter.

>
> ROFLMAO. Your silly comments always make you look stupid.

Anyone as bad at weighing evidence as you are shouldn't call other people stupid.

> Try looking at ALL the body of evidence, not just the prosecution's side.
>

None of what you presented is evidence Oswald was anywhere but the sniper's nest at 12:30.
The forensic evidence clearly establishes that. You respond with hearsay and sworn statements
given many years later and act as if those statements outweigh the solid forensic evidence that
tells us Oswald was the shooter.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:37:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:18:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:




> Every time you post, you lie about the facts.
>
> Evidence supporting Oswald's alibi that he was on the first floor before, during and after the shooting.
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>

Gil is full of shit and a bad researcher...That, of course, gets him automatic membership at the Education Forum...


Gil is exploiting the trick that the Education Forum has installed on the JFK internet...He uses his attacks on Lone Nutters to cover-up the real issue here...Gil's main offense is not against Lone Nutters since we already know they are not credible...Gil's main offense is against good conspiracy research which he refuses to answer for and responds by switching the subject to his straw men attacks on the Lone Nutters...


Gil is entering garbage that quotes the lies of the FBI investigators and he is doing it in order to mislead the research community on the conspiracy evidence...Oswald never gave any alibi that he was on the 1st Floor...The 1st Floor was a lie that FBI developed in order to get rid of dangerous evidence that Oswald was on the 2nd Floor during the assassination...When the FBI encountered dangerous witnesses like Carolyn Arnold they altered their testimony and sent Oswald to the 1st Floor...Gil is dumb enough that he doesn't see this...They did this because they knew there were so many witnesses on the 1st Floor that any claims that Oswald was on the 1st Floor could be dismissed...

We then have to ask if Gil is as stupid as he looks or if he is a gov't op?...

Gil gets away with murder on this unmoderated site and simply ignores what disproves him...

[John Corbett]

You guys are never more entertaining than when you argue about which of you is the nuttiest.
That's like arguing over which of the Hostess snack cakes are the most fattening.

[donald willis]

Certainly, Oswald is going to make a statement (re "seeing the two black guys") which could easily be contradicted by... the two black guys. Just another FBI/DPD set-up to catch Oswald in a "lie". I bought the lie for a long time, so it's not surprising that *you* still do....

dcw

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 4:53:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> Certainly, Oswald is going to make a statement (re "seeing the two black guys") which could
> easily be contradicted by... the two black guys. Just another FBI/DPD set-up to catch Oswald in > a "lie". I bought the lie for a long time, so it's not surprising that *you* still do....

Oswald was caught in numerous lies during his interrogation. What difference would one more
make. The lies all came from Oswald and conspiracy hobbyists have been buying those for
almost six decades.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Here, you're looking at the wrong evidence incorrectly. We don't have a recording or a transcript of what Oswald said. No stenographer was present. All we have is what the cops said, what the FBI said, and what the weirdly-involved postal inspector said. Since we don't really know what Oswald said during his interrogations, we can't say that he lied during those interrogations. Though we can say that somebody lied.

[John Corbett]

Since there is no record of what Oswald said, how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman
and Norman?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26?AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56?PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> >>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> >>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> >>> you can just say so and stop now.
> >>>
> >>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> >>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> >>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> >>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> >>> your scenario. Now the list.
> >>>
> >>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> >>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> >
> >> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
> >
> > But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter
> > or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?
> Other witnesses, indeed a MAJORITY who are documented in those first
> few days - pointed to the Grassy Knoll

As what?

> > If you have a problem with witness statements, who in this case
> > observed something consistent with physical evidence that helps tie
> > things together into a consistent narrative of what history records as
> > to what happened (Oswald alone, no known help), then please disregard
> > your own witness statements, which in your case, relay tales largely
> > uncorroborated by other physical evidence.
> Believers are incapable on naming even *ONE* eyewitness whom they
> believe totally in their testimony.
>
> This fact says volumes...

That we understand that humans are fallible.

> >> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
> >>
> >> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
> >
> > You're being too clever by half. Of course Oswald "created" the SN
> > by firing his shots that killed JFK from that location. Oswald as
> > JFK's assassin is confirmed by several investigations.
> This is, of course, simply sheer speculation combined with begging the
> question...

It is a fact that several investigations found Oswald culpable for killing JFK.

> >> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
> >
> >JFK's own Presidential Library and Museum disagrees with you.
> Can you cite ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL that relied on what a
> Presidential Library said in place of actual evidence?

The people who handle Kennedy`s legacy and history believe you guys are FOS.

> ...
> > You've probably written a million words on the assassination at
> > various discussion boards, yet you've never detailed a case. Why?
> > Can't you detail a 500 word to 1,500 word summary of what you think
> > happened and link to evidence and tests that supports your claim(s)?
> We know for a FACT that Chuckles can't do this.

It was done for him.

> And the amusing fact that believers keep demanding what they
> themselves refuse to provide tells you all you need to know about
> believers.

There is an explanation for this event on the table for consideration. Only one.

> They're cowards.

You`re delusional.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'm not Gil.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're looking at the wrong diagnosis incorrectly.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:24:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Since there is no record of what Oswald said, how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman
> and Norman?

Yeah, there is a record. It's in the notes of Capt. Fritz

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/fritz-notes.png

As usual, you've proven that you dont know WTF you're talking about.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:24:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Since there is no record of what Oswald said, how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman
> > and Norman?
> Yeah, there is a record. It's in the notes of Capt. Fritz
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/fritz-notes.png

the online link:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103

[Bud]

As usual, you show what a dope you are. What are the a record of? What Fritz said, right?

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:49:59 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:46:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:24:17 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > Since there is no record of what Oswald said, how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman
> > > and Norman?
> > Yeah, there is a record. It's in the notes of Capt. Fritz
> >
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/fritz-notes.png
> the online link:
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103
> >

Another online source: CE 2003----Fritz's report on his interrogation of Oswald
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0143a.htm

There's plenty of records of what Oswald said.

As usual, you've proven that you dont know WTF you're talking about.

You'll leave an internet legacy of ignorance and stupidity like your boys Bud and Chuckles, who also argue about things they have no knowledge of.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:58:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> As usual, you show what a dope you are. What are the a record of? What Fritz said, right?

Speak English, retard.

There is a record in the notes of Capt. Fritz
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103

and Fritz's report on his interrogation of Oswald
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0143a.htm

Corbett said there was no record of what Oswald said, that's a lie.
And he asked, "how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman and Norman" ?
Because its in the public record.

[John Corbett]

That was a rhetorical question in response to the Toilet's claim that there was no record of
what Oswald said. Perhaps I could have worded it better. I probably should have begun the
question with "If" instead of "Since". The Toilet had used the word "Since" when he claimed
we don't really know what Oswald said so I simply followed suit in questioning that claim.

[John Corbett]

Toilet said there was no record and I questioned his claim.

[Scrum Drum]

If you don't recognize that it was the 3pm interrogators and FBI who lied and said Oswald told them he was on the 1st Floor then you are uselessly digressing and wasting people's time by not going right to the best evidence...There are several places in the evidence where you catch some of those authorities slipping and admitting Oswald told them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...

This is obviously what you are getting at Sky Throne...So why waste our time pissing around the bush?...

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:43:31 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> If you don't recognize that it was the 3pm interrogators and FBI who lied and said Oswald told them he was on the 1st Floor then you are uselessly digressing and wasting people's time by not going right to the best > evidence...There are several places in the evidence where you catch some of those authorities slipping and admitting Oswald told them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...

Cite them.

You say the FBI lied about Oswald saying he was on the first floor, but Fritz's notes corroborate that.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0142a.htm

It's also repeated in the Warren Report
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0312b.gif

Mrs. Robert Reid testified that she had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, "with the girls who work under me". ( 3 H 271 )
Did any of them report seeing Oswald there ?

Yes or No, Mr. Researcher ?

Knock off your usual long, boring bullshit speeches and let's see your evidence.

[John Corbett]

I don't know where Oswald was at 12:00 but I know where he as at 12:30. He was on the 6th
floor firing the shots that killed JFK. We have ample evidence of that and nothing Oswald told his
interrogators changes that.

[robert johnson]

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:12:46 AM UTC+1, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 7:46:27 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 7:11:54 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:34:26 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

> > > > On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56 PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> > > > > not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> > > > > you can just say so and stop now.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> > > > > you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> > > > > you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> > > > > don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> > > > > your scenario. Now the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> > > > > of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> > > > And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
> > > >

> > > > And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> > > > Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
> > > >

> > > > And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.

> > > Of course not. Not by itself. You have to put the pieces together.

> > > > > Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
> > > > Curiously arranged all in a neat row, if memory serves.

> > > Your memory fails.

> > > > > Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
> > > >
> > > > > The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
> > > > > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> > > >
> > > > > Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
> > > > > Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
> > > > > hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
> > > > > rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
> > > > Long time since I have looked at the ballistics, but I am certain you must have been made aware by others of the issues surrounding the both the science used here, alongside the issue of chain of custody - which I get the feeling is treated by some nutters as if it is some lawyerly looophole used by defense teams. The chain of custody is absolutely vital for reasons that should be obvious.

> > > How do you explain that the bullet in evidence from Parkland was fired by the same rifle that
> > > fired the fragmented bullet found in the limo? Do you think both were planted? If so, why
> > > would you think that? What evidence do you have that the Secret Service provided the FBI
> > > with fragments other than what they found in the limo the night of the assassination?

> > > > > There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
> > > > > from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
> > > > > to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
> > > > Paper trails can be created to fit the needed scenario. In intelligence circles, it is called "backstopping". What we have, due to no trial, is a paper trail that used handwriting analysis since Oswald himself could no longer verify or deny filling in the paperwork, and crucially, there were no witnesses to him doing so, and he himself denied owning such a weapon and using Hidell as an alias.

> > > Why do you dispute that the paper trail is invalid? Do you have evidence that any part of it
> > > was fabricated? Or is this just an excuse to dismiss a piece of evidence against Oswald that
> > > you don't want to accept.

> > > >
> > > > Moreover, it is easy to forge a signature if you have a specimen,
> > > >

> > > Any evidence that was done?

> > > > And Oswald's handwriting was simple and childlike - the easiest ti imitate.

> > > Keep those excuses coming.

> > > > > Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
> > > > Are you sure about that?
> > > >

> > > Yes.

> > > > I dispute that it is the same rifle. The weapon in this photo is the 36 inch model that was actually ordered.

> > > How do you determine that from the photo.

> > > >
> > > > I dispute that the photos are true pictures free of what I would call manual photoshopping.

> > > I have no idea what that means.

> > > > > Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
> > > > > only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
> > > > "Found" right after they took his palmprint in Fritz's office and were in desperate need of "finding"something - anything - to tie him to the weapon they allege was used.

> > > How do you transfer a black ink palm print to the barrel of the Carcano.

> > > > > A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
> > > > > the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
> > >
> > > > And such a bag went missing from the Paine garage AFTER the assassination.

> > > That's a new one? What's your cite for that. The bag was photographed being brought out of
> > > the TSBD. Are you claiming that bag had been taken from the Paine garage.

> > > > And I would point out that this "found" bag was not photographed in situ at the allege crime scene. Can you maybe join those dots?

> > > You're dismissing all the dots.

> > > > > Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
> > > > No dount, since it came from the Paine garage and seems to have been moved around constantly within the garage by all and sundry.

> > > Now you're just making stuff up.

> > > > > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > > > > rifle.
> > > > Fibers that were consitent with but not proven to come from, that blanket to the exclusion of any other. But I will ceded you this, even though that bag was never in the blanket. It is called "contamination". They had the evidence sitting in piles at various time.

> > > Yes, it is theoretically possible that the fibers could have come from an identical blanket but
> > > given the fact Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor and the bag was found on the 6th
> > > floor with Oswald's prints on it, what is the likelihood that those fibers came from a blanket
> > > other than the one in the Paine's garage?

> > > > > Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
> > > > > at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
> > > > > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
> > > > LOL. The cops rearranged the boxes for the photos.

> > > How did they know Oswald's fingerprints would be on them and the direction they were
> > > oriented.

> > > > > Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
> > > > > Oswald was wearing when arrested.
> > > > More contamination.

> > > More baseless excuses to dismiss another damning piece of evidence against Oswald.
> > > Where is the evidence of contamination for this one. What is the likelihood those fibers
> > > on the butt plate came from any shirt other than the one Oswald was wearing.

> > > > And are yous aying he never went and changed his shirt?

> > > Oswald was recognized by his former landlady on McWatters bus. She noticed a hole in the
> > > elbow of one of the sleeves. The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had a hole in the
> > > elbow of his sleeve. Just another coincidence I suppose.

> > > > > Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
> > > > > evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
> > > > > sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
> > > > > doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
> > > > > you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
> > > > > Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
> > > > > applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
> > > > > killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
> > > > What you laid out is a very poor circumstantial case using at least some evidence that be eviscerated today.
> > > >
> > > > Here is an example of a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence
> > > >
> > > > https://innocenceproject.org/cases/ralph-armstrong/
> > > > In addition to a circumstantial case, the prosecutor withheld evidnece of his innocence
> > > >
> > > > It mirrors Oswald's case in both regards.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with the use of circumstantial evidence (apart from the ease with which it can be manufactured by police) is that unlike direct evidence which prove a fact, circumstantial evidence allows you only to make inferences at best. Which is procisely what the WC did and what you are doing.

> > > What you call circumstantial evidence is forensic evidence which can be analyzed through
> > > rigorous testing. It is the strongest type of evidence there is. It is far more compelling than
> > > eyewitness testimony which is notoriously unreliable.

> > > >
> > > > You are using building blocks that don't belong to the puzzle (such as the creation of an alleged sniper's nest), or have innocent explanations (fingerprints on the boxes) or have been created post-facto by design (the palmprint) or negligence (fiber contamination) to create your lego masterpiece.

> > > Who said the sniper's nest was created. Oswald could have just as easily taken advantage of
> > > what was already there. It matters not whether Oswlad moved any boxes at all, other than the
> > > two he stacked to form the rifle rest.

> > > >
> > > > Note that I will not be drawn into an in-depth debate on individual points I have made as it way too detailed for this shithole, and nor do I have the time or inclination to write whole book chapters here.

> > > IOW, you can't construct a plausible scenario.

> > > >
> > > > The bottim line remains - he saw two people re-enter the building at 12:25.

> > > So you can conceive that so many law enforcement officers, from different agencies conspired,
> > > to fabricate a wealth of evidencee to frame Oswald but you can't conceive that the prime
> > > suspect in the murder might lie about where he was when the shots were fired. You think
> > > Oswald's claimed but unsupported alibi outweighs all the forensic evidence that indicates he
> > > was in the sniper's nest firing the shots that killed JFK.
> > > > These were the only two poeple who went out to watch the parade but re-entered before the parade started. He could not have seen this from the 6th floor. And that is hardly the oly evidence that supports his alibi - it is just the easiest to explain and comprehend - and for now, the hardest to refute. This evidence trumps your very shaky and easily contrived circumstantial case every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
> > > Bud has often observed that conspiracy hobbyists are very bad at weighing evidence. Nothing
> > > illustrates that better than the above paragraph. Oswald's unconfirmed story outweighs all the
> > > evidence of his guilt in your mind.
> > >
> > > I asked you to layout a scenario explaining the available evidence and instead you resorted to
> > > dismissing all the evidence and typically did so by attacking each piece of evidence in isolation
> > > with the others. You try to argue for Oswald's innocence by pointing out how none of these items
> > > by themselves prove he was the assassin. But none of these items stand by themselves.
> > > Collectively they establish Oswald's guilt. For just about every item, you could offer a plausible
> > > alternative explanation but when you are forced to argue for a less likely alternative for every
> > > item, it becomes an exercise in absurdity. That's why I asked you for a plausible scenario that
> > > incorporates all of this evidence. You were unable to do so but that's not an indictment of you.
> > > In 59 years, nobody else has been able to do so either.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission laid out the evidence and presented us with a complete scenario that
> > > fits with ALL of the evidence. It is the only scenario ever presented that has ever been able to
> > > do that. It demonstrates what I have long said. The Warren Commission explained the evidence.
> > > Its critics are forced to explain away the evidence.
> > >
> > > If you ever want to make a convincing argument for Oswald's innocence, you are going to have to
> > > offer and alternative explanation that fits with the known evidence or find evidence that
> > > exonerates him. So far, you and the rest of the conspiracy hobby have failed to do either.
> > >
> > > Thanks for playing.
> > No. Thank you. Guilt by inference from a shaky circumstantial case is the True Texan Way.
> >
> > "We never could put Oswald in that Sniper's nest", Jesse Cury's frank and very UnTexan-like admission.
> He didn`t run the investigation.

Correct, he was in charge of the ones that ran the investigation.
What a feeble commenter you are.

[robert johnson]

Dumber than a empty trash bag.

[John Corbett]

I know enough to know Curry was NOT in charge of the ones that ran the investigation. The
DPD did the initial evidence gathering and did gather enough to charge Oswald with both murders.
However, the FBI took over the investigation that weekend and along with the Warren Commission
did the bulk of the investigation. They were the ones that ran the investigation and Curry was
not in charge of them.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 6:06:52 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:58:47 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > As usual, you show what a dope you are. What are the a record of? What Fritz said, right?
> Speak English, retard.

That was English, stupid.

Fritz`s notes are a record of what Fritz said that Oswald said when interviewed.

> There is a record in the notes of Capt. Fritz
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103

So if Fritz writes it down as notes it is reliable, but if he writes it down in a report it isn`t? If he says it out loud in testimony it isn`t reliable?

> and Fritz's report on his interrogation of Oswald
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0143a.htm
>
> Corbett said there was no record of what Oswald said, that's a lie.
> And he asked, "how does Gil know Oswald said he saw Jarman and Norman" ?

You are the one who maintains t6hat the information derived from Oswald during the interrogations is unreliable because it wasn`t recorded. But if you think there is something that is useful to your silly ideas, then it becomes reliable.

> Because its in the public record.

So everything in Fritz`s report is true?

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:47:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:43:31 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:




> Cite them.
>
> You say the FBI lied about Oswald saying he was on the first floor, but Fritz's notes corroborate that.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0142a.htm

Gil - You are just repeating the same inadequate responses you gave multiple times before...I have cited repeatedly and you failed to give credible response...ALL the witnesses said Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...First there was Sarah Stanton who heard Oswald tell her directly he was going to go back in to the Break Room...Then there was Carolyn Arnold who saw Oswald carry out what he told Stanton when she saw him in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at 12:25...Next was Jack Dougherty who told Gil Toff Oswald ate his lunch up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his lunch down below in the Domino Room...Then you have Fritz who told Ball directly that Oswald told him he was eating his lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...Next was James Hosty who came out and told Nigel Turner that Oswald told them he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination...No one ever asked Hosty why he didn't mention that in his notes?...Any reference by Fritz to Oswald being on the 1st Floor during the shots was the cover story that was developed by FBI...If you have any subtle evidence detection skills you can see the detailed evidence I have repeated over and over that Fritz was telling the truth when he said 2nd Floor because Ball desperately forced him back to the first floor...How dare you ignore this and try to force it back to your dishonest, simplistic level that ignores all the subtle evidence I explained...You are dishonest when you try to ignore Frazier saying a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple were seen on the table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating...You are a worse conspiracy evidence denier than some of the more notorious Lone Nutters...You have failed to show where what I cited was not adequately sourced or wasn't from the known evidence...You're a cheap fraud Gil...You get away with murder when you call for citation over things you can't give any credible answer to like you do here...The problem here isn't citation...It is failure to give any adequate answer by yourself...

>
> It's also repeated in the Warren Report
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0312b.gif

None of the Conspiracy researchers on the Education Forum ever question your Lone Nutter tendency to cite the FBI and Warren Commission...Those are the same sources cited by David Von Pein...

>
> Mrs. Robert Reid testified that she had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, "with the girls who work under me". ( 3 H 271 )
> Did any of them report seeing Oswald there ?

When I sent photo evidence of a second Mrs Reid to Groden he said that was the mystery woman he has been looking for for decades...She looks different than the Mrs Reid seen out on the sidewalk in front of the Depository...Oswald being seen hiding, waiting for Mrs Reid to clear out the ladies from the Lunch Room, suggests Mrs Reid was working for Intel and was part of the plan to empty the 2nd Floor Lunch Room for Oswald...Despite this evidence you have the balls to quote Mrs Reid and do so in a way that denies some of the more exotic conspiracy evidence...You just plain ignore my discovery of Sarah Stanton, who saw Oswald hiding from those ladies out on the 2nd Floor staircase landing...And you call yourself a Conspiracy researcher...Obviously Mrs Reid is lying about the time and Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in there alone at 12:25 after Mrs Reid cleared the ladies out...Oswald had gone back in to the Break Room like he told Stanton...The people who call themselves Conspiracy researchers are completely ignoring this while Jim D gives praise to ROKC...

>
> Yes or No, Mr. Researcher ?
>
> Knock off your usual long, boring bullshit speeches and let's see your evidence.

You've seen it dozens of times already...The problem is you keep answering it with piss poor material and evasive bullshit every time (like you do here)...You need to be brought before a CT tribunal in an open and fair debate on this on the Education Forum without a scumbag cowardly moderator being your extra tag team member and banning me once you start losing...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 15:31:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 2:30:40?PM UTC-4, neus wrote:
>> John Corbett wrote:
>>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>>> you can just say so and stop now.
>>>
>>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>>> your scenario. Now the list.
>>>
>>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
>>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
>>>

>>> Later 3 spent casings were found at the sniper's nest.
>>>

>>> Elsewhere on the floor a Carcano rifle was found between rows of boxes.
>>>
>>> The shell casings were determined to have been fired from the Carcano
>>> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>>>
>>> Later, two bullets were found, a fragmented bullet found in the limo by the
>>> Secret Service and a whole bullet found at Parkland on a guerney by a
>>> hospital employee. Both bullets were ballistically matched to the Carcano
>>> rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>>>

>>> There was a paper trail that established Oswald had ordered the Carcano
>>> from Klein's mail order sporting goods dealer and that it had been delivered
>>> to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>>

>>> Photos of Oswald with the rifle were later found among his possessions.
>>>

>>> Oswald's palm print was found on the underside of the barrel where it could
>>> only have been place with the rifle disassembled.
>>>

>>> A bag was discovered near the sniper's nest that was long enough to hold
>>> the longest piece of the disassembled Carcano.
>>>

>>> Oswald's prints were found on the bag.
>>>

>>> The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
>>> rifle.
>>>

>>> Oswald's fingerprints were found on the top of a box that had been stacked
>>> at the window, presumably to form a rifle rest. The prints were oriented as
>>> they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
>>>

>>> Fibers were found on the butt plate of the Carcano which matched the shirt
>>> Oswald was wearing when arrested.
>>>

>>> Unless I have overlooked something, that is a summation of the forensic
>>> evidence against Oswald in addition to the witnesses who identified the
>>> sniper's nest as the source of the shots.
>>>
>>> Can you present a plausible scenario to explain the above evidence that
>>> doesn't conclude Oswald was the gunman on the 6th floor? I recognize
>>> you have no obligation to participate in this exercise. We often tell Ben
>>> Holmes he does not get to hand out homework assignments and the same
>>> applies to me now. However, if you believe Oswald is innocent of having
>>> killed JFK, this is your opportunity to make that case.
>>>

>> ---------------
>>
>> All those things were easily planted.
>>
>> Nobody doing a crime like this would allow those signs to exist.
>>
>The standard CT cop out. Never explain the evidence.

Such HYPOCRISY!!!

You've never explained ANY evidence pointed to by a critic.

NEVER!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 19:18:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>There is no support for Oswald's alibi.

Other than, the facts... that is.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 02:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:18:17?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> There is no support for Oswald's alibi. Nobody saw him anywhere but the sniper's nest at the
>> time the shots were fired. That is what would be needed to establish an alibi for Oswald.
>> Alleged and confirmed sightings of Oswald elsewhere in the building before and after the
>> shooting do not preclude him from being the one in the sniper's nest firing the shot that killed
>> JFK. That is where a wealth of forensic evidence and an eyewitness place him.
>
>Every time you post, you lie about the facts.
>
>Evidence supporting Oswald's alibi that he was on the first floor before, during and after the shooting.
>https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>

>Who saw him in the sniper's nest ? Brennan ?
>https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/
>

>ROFLMAO. Your silly comments always make you look stupid.

>Try looking at ALL the body of evidence, not just the prosecution's side.
>

>www.gil-jesus.com

You didn't need to go any futher than 6 words into your response, Gil.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:37:02?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 10:18:17?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> There is no support for Oswald's alibi. Nobody saw him anywhere but the sniper's nest at the
>>> time the shots were fired. That is what would be needed to establish an alibi for Oswald.
>>> Alleged and confirmed sightings of Oswald elsewhere in the building before and after the
>>> shooting do not preclude him from being the one in the sniper's nest firing the shot that killed
>>> JFK. That is where a wealth of forensic evidence and an eyewitness place him.
>> Every time you post, you lie about the facts.
>>
>> Evidence supporting Oswald's alibi that he was on the first floor before, during and after the shooting.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>

>Your own argument contradicts itself, Gil.

Your own lies contradict the truth, Corbutt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 15:39:09 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 4:53:39?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>
>> Certainly, Oswald is going to make a statement (re "seeing the two black guys") which could
>> easily be contradicted by... the two black guys. Just another FBI/DPD set-up to catch Oswald in > a "lie". I bought the lie for a long time, so it's not surprising that *you* still do....
>
>Oswald was caught in numerous lies during his interrogation.

Prove it.

You can't.

You're lying...you're offering opinion as fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 18:24:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Since there is no record of what Oswald said...

But of course, Corbutt *KNOWS* he lied...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You guys are never more entertaining than when you argue about which of you is the nuttiest.
>That's like arguing over which of the Hostess snack cakes are the most fattening.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 07:44:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:47:13?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:43:31?AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>> > If you don't recognize that it was the 3pm interrogators and FBI who lied and said Oswald told them he was on the 1st Floor then you are uselessly digressing and wasting people's time by not going right to the best > evidence...There are several places in the evidence where you catch some of those authorities slipping and admitting Oswald told them he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...
>> Cite them.
>>
>> You say the FBI lied about Oswald saying he was on the first floor, but Fritz's notes corroborate that.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0142a.htm
>>
>> It's also repeated in the Warren Report
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0312b.gif
>>
>> Mrs. Robert Reid testified that she had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, "with the girls who work under me". ( 3 H 271 )
>> Did any of them report seeing Oswald there ?
>>
>> Yes or No, Mr. Researcher ?
>>
>> Knock off your usual long, boring bullshit speeches and let's see your evidence.
>
>I don't know where Oswald was at 12:00 but I know where he as at 12:30.

No you don't. Your opinion isn't even believed by your own mother...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:43:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>

>>>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26?AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:

>>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56?PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>>>>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>>>>> you can just say so and stop now.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>>>>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>>>>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>>>>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>>>>> your scenario. Now the list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
>>>>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
>>>

>>>> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
>>>

>>> But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter
>>> or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?
>>
>> Other witnesses, indeed a MAJORITY who are documented in those first

>> few days - pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> If you have a problem with witness statements, who in this case
>>> observed something consistent with physical evidence that helps tie
>>> things together into a consistent narrative of what history records as
>>> to what happened (Oswald alone, no known help), then please disregard
>>> your own witness statements, which in your case, relay tales largely
>>> uncorroborated by other physical evidence.
>>
>> Believers are incapable on naming even *ONE* eyewitness whom they
>> believe totally in their testimony.
>>
>> This fact says volumes...
>
> That we understand that humans are fallible.

Chickenshit acknowledges publicly that I'm right.

>>>> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
>>>> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
>>>

>>> You're being too clever by half. Of course Oswald "created" the SN
>>> by firing his shots that killed JFK from that location. Oswald as
>>> JFK's assassin is confirmed by several investigations.
>>
>> This is, of course, simply sheer speculation combined with begging the
>> question...

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
>>>

>>>JFK's own Presidential Library and Museum disagrees with you.
>> Can you cite ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL that relied on what a
>> Presidential Library said in place of actual evidence?

Logical fallacy deleted.

And just like Chuckles, Chickenshit couldn't answer the question.

>> ...
>>> You've probably written a million words on the assassination at
>>> various discussion boards, yet you've never detailed a case. Why?
>>> Can't you detail a 500 word to 1,500 word summary of what you think
>>> happened and link to evidence and tests that supports your claim(s)?
>>
>> We know for a FACT that Chuckles can't do this.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And the amusing fact that believers keep demanding what they
>> themselves refuse to provide tells you all you need to know about
>> believers.
>
> There is an explanation for this event on the table for consideration. Only one.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.


>> They're cowards.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:42:36 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:47:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:43:31 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:

Ben is going on another thread-sliding binge to help walk Gil around my post that he can't answer...

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:30:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:43:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> >> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26?AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56?PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
> >>>>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
> >>>>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
> >>>>> you can just say so and stop now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
> >>>>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
> >>>>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
> >>>>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
> >>>>> your scenario. Now the list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
> >>>>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
> >>>
> >>>> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
> >>>
> >>> But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter
> >>> or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?
> >>
> >> Other witnesses, indeed a MAJORITY who are documented in those first
> >> few days - pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
>
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Cowardice noted.

Ben removes the truth because he hates it.

> >>> If you have a problem with witness statements, who in this case
> >>> observed something consistent with physical evidence that helps tie
> >>> things together into a consistent narrative of what history records as
> >>> to what happened (Oswald alone, no known help), then please disregard
> >>> your own witness statements, which in your case, relay tales largely
> >>> uncorroborated by other physical evidence.
> >>
> >> Believers are incapable on naming even *ONE* eyewitness whom they
> >> believe totally in their testimony.
> >>
> >> This fact says volumes...
> >
> > That we understand that humans are fallible.
> Chickenshit acknowledges publicly that I'm right.

Nothing wrong with looking at information correctly.

> >>>> And apart from that, the area was not "created" by Oswald.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mr. DULLES. Mr. Williams, were all the boxes of books moved out of this area while you were working, or as you finished a part of it, were some boxes put back in?
> >>>> Mr. WILLIAMS. To begin with, I think we were working on the wall first. I don't think we moved too many books in this area. I think we just moved them out and right back in, as I remember. But I think after we got a little further over, I think we had to move some books. We had to move these books to the east side of this building, over here, and those books--I would say this would be the window Oswald shot the President from. We moved these books kind of like in a row like that, kind of winding them around.
> >>>
> >>> You're being too clever by half. Of course Oswald "created" the SN
> >>> by firing his shots that killed JFK from that location. Oswald as
> >>> JFK's assassin is confirmed by several investigations.
> >>
> >> This is, of course, simply sheer speculation combined with begging the
> >> question...
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Cowardice noted.

Ben removes the truth because he hates it.

> >>>> And putting aside my doubts about this being the source of the shots, even if it was, it is not proof that it was Oswald.
> >>>
> >>>JFK's own Presidential Library and Museum disagrees with you.
> >> Can you cite ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL that relied on what a
> >> Presidential Library said in place of actual evidence?
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Cowardice noted.

Ben removes the truth because he hates it.

> And just like Chuckles, Chickenshit couldn't answer the question.

It was both a non sequitur and a loaded question.

> >> ...
> >>> You've probably written a million words on the assassination at
> >>> various discussion boards, yet you've never detailed a case. Why?
> >>> Can't you detail a 500 word to 1,500 word summary of what you think
> >>> happened and link to evidence and tests that supports your claim(s)?
> >>
> >> We know for a FACT that Chuckles can't do this.
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Ben responds just so he can run.

> >> And the amusing fact that believers keep demanding what they
> >> themselves refuse to provide tells you all you need to know about
> >> believers.
> >
> > There is an explanation for this event on the table for consideration. Only one.
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

Nobody would accept "Some people did some things" as an explanation, would they?

>
> >> They're cowards.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
> The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> rifle.

Wrong. Nobody ever said they matched the blanket.

When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers.

The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched "some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket “in all observable microscopic characteristics.” Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to determine that the fibers which he found in the bag had come from the blanket.

In fact, he testified that he could not form an opinion on the "origin of the fibers" he found in the bag.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WC_Vol4_88-stombaugh.gif

That's NOT a positive match. And people like you lie when you say that it is.

Here's an exercise for you:

DO SOME RESEARCH so you know WTF you're talking about.

[Brian Doyle]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:12:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Gil calls you out but then when you demolish him with your answer he ignores it...


Gil backs the crazies and the trolls when he refuses to honestly discuss the evidence that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots...He misinforms the research community and refuses to answer for it...


Gil does more harm to the correct CT evidence than the Lone Nutters do...

[John Corbett]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:12:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:27:56 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> > The bag contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his
> > rifle.
> Wrong. Nobody ever said they matched the blanket.
>
> When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers.
>
> The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched "some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket “in all observable microscopic characteristics.” Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to determine that the fibers which he found in the bag had come from the blanket.

Just another amazing coincidence I suppose. That's the nature of fiber evidence. Fiber
evidence is NEVER conclusive because it is theoretically possible the fibers could have come
from an identical item. That doesn't mean it is not probative. It would have been significant if
the fibers had not matched. Since they did, common sense would tell a reasonably intelligent
person that the fibers came from Oswald's blanket but since you are neither reasonably
intelligent nor possess common sense, you can't figure this out.

>
> In fact, he testified that he could not form an opinion on the "origin of the fibers" he found in the bag.

That is because FBI standards do not allow for speculation on probabilities. Whether matching
fingerprints or bullets there are only three possible conclusions: a definite match, a definite
mismatch, or inconclusive. With fiber evidence, there is never a definite match because there
will always be the possibility a fiber came from an identical item. When fibers match, FBI
standards do not ever allow them to say it is a definite match.

>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WC_Vol4_88-stombaugh.gif
>
> That's NOT a positive match. And people like you lie when you say that it is.

It is a positive match in that the fibers were identical to those on Oswald's blanket.

>
> Here's an exercise for you:
>
> DO SOME RESEARCH so you know WTF you're talking about.

Obviously, you haven't.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:19:48 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
>
> Gil backs the crazies and the trolls when he refuses to honestly discuss the evidence that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots..

What's your evidence, that unquoted newspaper article from Earl Golz ?
I prefer interviews where the witness is quoted, documents, testimony and exhibits.

Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )
Mrs. Reid never said that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom in the 30 minutes she was there.
She also testified that she wasn't alone and that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was, but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )

In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were, but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )

Two of those girls who worked under Mrs. Reid and may have been in the second floor lunchroom were 18-year old Gloria Jeanne Holt and 20-year old Judy Marie Johnson, both clerical employees of the TSBD and both who told the FBI that they left the building approximately 12:10-12:15.
Both told the FBI that they hadn’t seen Lee Harvey Oswald that day. ( 22 H 652, 22 H 665 )

In additon, two of Mrs. Reid’s other “younger girls”, 20-year olds Sharon Simmons Nelson and Bonnie Richey, told the FBI that they left the building in the 12:15-12:20 timeframe.
Neither mentioned that they ever saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom.

Not surprisingly, none of these younger women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked by the FBI whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.

And yet there were no less than 5 witnesses who saw Oswald on the FIRST floor before, during and after the shooting.

https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

[John Corbett]

Witnesses were called to testify before the WC based on preliminary statements. There would be
no point in wasting time with witnesses who had nothing to add. Did any of the women in question
say they saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30? If so, who and
what is your source?

>
> And yet there were no less than 5 witnesses who saw Oswald on the FIRST floor before, during and after the shooting.

You're lying. Name one witness who said they saw Oswald on the first floor DURING the shooting. Of course you can't. The only person who claims Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom
during the shooting was Oswald. Nobody else saw him there. People who said they saw him
there at or shortly before noon don't establish his presence there during the shooting. Carolyn
Arnold said she MIGHT have seen Oswald a few minutes before 12:15 but that was not in the
first floor lunchroom. Her signed statemen said she left the building at 12:25 but that statement
did not say she saw Oswald when she left. You have combined two statements to make it sound
like she said she saw Oswald at 12:25. You're peddling bullshit, Gil, and it's not even good
bullshit. If you really had a case for Oswald's innocence you wouldn't have to twist the facts as
you have done here.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:13:44 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Hell, a bunch of people saw Oswald at 10th and Patton *after the shooting*.

> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

[Brian Doyle]

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:13:44 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

It is plainly obvious that Gil is trying to get away with a crossed 'T" and dotted "I" excuse in order to flagrantly dodge giving an answer to my evidence...A credible Peer Reviewed research community would not let him get away with it...Gil takes full advantage of bogus moderation that works with a corrupted research community to hide evidence...Gordon is a rotten, corrupt moderator and the Education Forum has a well-known reputation for being uncredibly moderated...Lately even the members have been protesting this on the board...In any case, Gil is dishonest and he can't show where anything I wrote is not credibly sourced or doesn't accurately reflect the correct evidence...Gil is taking this aggressive tack because he's trying to hide the fact that it is HIS material that possesses the dubious sourcing and reference...Gil goes on the offensive because he is trying to avoid that he has the exact same reference posture as the worst Lone Nutters in his reliance on the Commission and FBI...Gil is dishonest because he refuses to admit that his material directly relays the lies and evidence alteration of the FBI and Commission directly in its context and intent...Gil attacks some of the most important Conspiracy witnesses using the lies and distortions of the FBI and Commission and then he goes over to the Education Forum and gets a warm reception from CT'ers...When you read Gil's posts you get the impression that he doesn't even realize the FBI & Commission were doing a cover-up and that the quotes he offers from them are in the context of getting around the damning conspiracy evidence...So while Gil falsely plays the reference and sourcing card to infer that technicality then makes his claims correct, and also infer that it gives him the right to ignore my evidence, he avoids mentioning that he is outright endorsing the worst lies of the authorities against some of the most important CT witnesses...You'll never see that dishonest asshole Jim DiEugenio protest this obscene violation of CT ethics by Gil...He ignores it and gives Gil praise...

Gil's next outrageous violation is he has the balls to quote Mrs Reid even though my recent discoveries strongly point to her being a spook whose job it was to clear the Lunch Room for Oswald whom Sarah Stanton saw hiding on the 2nd Floor staircase landing waiting for Mrs Reid to clear the ladies out with excited reports of the motorcade's progress...This is a highly important discovery yet it is being prevented from being posted on the Education Forum by James Gordon while the members don't seen to care...Taking advantage of this destructive censorship, Gil then ignores all this and attacks the victims by quoting Mrs Reid...It never dawns on Gil that since I discovered FBI had lied and covered-up Stanton's witnessing of Oswald that they might have done that with Mrs Reid and the other women employees he blithely quotes while blindly running all the CT red lights involved with quoting these people directly...Gil dishonestly refuses to mention that even though his quotes are sourced and referenced that they are the words of the same FBI that got caught lying about Stanton not seeing Oswald...Gil contemptuously ignores my discovery of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he was going back to the "Break Room"...Gil totally ignores that and it doesn't bother him in the least...The ball-less assholes on the Education Forum also totally ignore it while serving that rogue tyrant Gordon...They trade approval of that stupid son of a bitch for posting space and it doesn't bother them in the least that just betrayed the final solution to the conspiracy...No, Gil is committing radical Judas-like offenses in his endorsement and quoting of FBI's worst lies that they used to deny the conspiracy evidence...Don't forget, Gil is backing the same FBI that murdered dozens of witnesses...Gil is too dumb to realize that the reason none of those ladies were interviewed by the Warren Commission is because the FBI didn't want them exposing their lies...They may have seen Oswald just like Stanton...So while Jim D and the assholes on the Education Forum are kissing Gordon's ass they are stupidly missing a highly important solving of the conspiracy by myself...And Gil helps the most evil people involved in killing Kennedy by endorsing their lies and using them against the people they killed in order to cover-up the conspiracy evidence...

Gil is lying above and there were no witnesses who saw Oswald on the 1st Floor at the time of the shots...ALL the witnesses either saw or witnessed Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...Gil is gas-lighting me by making me type those witnesses over and over...Gil's lies are idiotic and dishonest, and the worst thing about them is their dependency on the lies of the investigating authorities and their cover-up...

Let's make a new thread where Gil has to defend those alleged witnesses case by case...He's lying and I can show how he is ignoring evidence in each and every one of those fabricated cases...Very simply, Oswald couldn't be on the 1st Floor if I have already proven he was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Gil has the Mickey Mouse balls to ignore Frazier witnessing Oswald's partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the same table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating lunch...This conversation needs to be had on the Education Forum without any manners queen moderator coming in and shutting the conversation down when Gil starts obviously losing...

[Brian Doyle]

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 10:43:43 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:13:44 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:19:48 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

Gil ran from my June 10th response and refused to answer it...


My highly important discovery of Mrs Reid being Intel is being censored and ignored...


Gil is quoting the lies of the Commission and FBI and refusing to account for it while referring to himself as a "Warren Commission critic"...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 04:47:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:30:02?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 18:48:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:43:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 May 2023 09:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:34:26?AM UTC-5, Greg Parker wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 10:27:56?PM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>>>> Based on what I have read of your recent posts, you believe Oswald was
>>>>>>> not the one who fired the shots that killed JFK. If that premise is incorrect,
>>>>>>> you can just say so and stop now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the premise is correct, I will present you with a list of evidence and ask
>>>>>>> you to construct a scenario that takes into account all of those items. If
>>>>>>> you believe any of the items I list is not valid evidence, explain why you
>>>>>>> don't think it is valid, in which case you don't have to incorporate it into
>>>>>>> your scenario. Now the list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several witnesses identified the southeast corner window on the 6th floor
>>>>>>> of the TSBD as the source of gunfire. (the sniper's nest)
>>>>>
>>>>>> And other witnesses identied other locations. Witness statements are statistically, the least reliable evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> But those other witnesses you are referring to identified a shooter
>>>>> or possible shooter from an upper floor of the TSBD, correct?
>>>>
>>>> Other witnesses, indeed a MAJORITY who are documented in those first
>>>> few days - pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.

Notice folks, that believers just CANNOT handle the truth. A majority
of witnesses who are documented in those first few days - pointed to
the Grassy Knoll.

This is a fact.

It's indisputable.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 05:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ouch! Corbutt just got spanked!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:05:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:13:44?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:19:48?AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
>> >
>> > Gil backs the crazies and the trolls when he refuses to honestly discuss the evidence that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots..
>> What's your evidence, that unquoted newspaper article from Earl Golz ?
>> I prefer interviews where the witness is quoted, documents, testimony and exhibits.
>>
>> Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )
>> Mrs. Reid never said that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom in the 30 minutes she was there.
>> She also testified that she wasn't alone and that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was, but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
>>
>> In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were, but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
>>
>> Two of those girls who worked under Mrs. Reid and may have been in the second floor lunchroom were 18-year old Gloria Jeanne Holt and 20-year old Judy Marie Johnson, both clerical employees of the TSBD and both who told the FBI that they left the building approximately 12:10-12:15.
>> Both told the FBI that they hadn’t seen Lee Harvey Oswald that day. ( 22 H 652, 22 H 665 )
>>
>> In additon, two of Mrs. Reid’s other “younger girls”, 20-year olds Sharon Simmons Nelson and Bonnie Richey, told the FBI that they left the building in the 12:15-12:20 timeframe.
>> Neither mentioned that they ever saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom.
>>
>> Not surprisingly, none of these younger women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked by the FBI whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
>
>Witnesses were called to testify before the WC based on preliminary statements.

This is a lie.

James Chaney is the proof.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 13:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 1:13:44?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:54:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 8:12:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Amusingly, Corbutt didn't refute a single word....

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:13:43 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ouch! Gil is spanking trolls left and right!