info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
It's Cryin' Time again for the LNers
261 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 10:35:45 AM11/29/21
to
I don't believe that the rifle was ever shipped. I believe that the paperwork is all faked, that those responsible for the framing of Oswald had a 40" rifle serial number C2766 in their possession and made up the paperwork AFTER the assassination to match the rifle's serial number.
As their evidence, the FBI produced shipping documents that did not include the serial number of the rifle or the carton number that contained it.
They produced a money order that was never processed and wasn't deposited and an envelope that was postmarked at a time when Oswald was proven to be at work.
They produced a deposit slip for February 13, 1963 and a monthly statement dated 3/15/63 and tried to pass them off as a March deposit.
The Postal Service destroyed part 3 of the post office box application for box 2915 in order to hide the fact that the name "A.Hidell" was not on it and thus could not receive the rifle, then lied to the Commission by telling them the destruction was standard procedure.
In order for Oswald to have fired a shot at General Walker in April, they had to have him ordering the rifle from Klein's in March. The only 6.5 Italian rifle Klein's had in stock at that time was the 36" Troop Special.
They couldn't have known that there was difference between the rifle they had and the rifle in the advertisement. So they made the paperwork that showed Oswald purchased a 36" rifle but used the same serial number as their 40" rifle, which, according to Louis Feldsott, was sold in June of 1962.
This is why the order form, Waldman 7, shows the rifle shipped as a 36" rifle bearing serial number C2766.
It wasn't necessary for Klein's to be involved in the framing, all they had to do was whatever the FBI requested they do. If the FBI wanted blank order forms, they'd get them. If they wanted order forms filled out or partially filled out, they'd get them. All they had to say was that they wanted them for comparison. Under the circumstances, Klein's would have complied with whatever the FBI wanted.
The FBI would fill out the rest.
They could very well have filled out the form and left the control number and the serial number blank. In fact, examination of the Waldman 7 indicates that more than one person filled out the form. The 2's, 5's and 6's are different.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/wald_ex_7_2-651x1024.jpg
This may have been the reason why Klein's shipping employees were never called to give testimony as to the authentication of the order form bearing the serial number C 2766.
The Klein's "records" were on microfilm. The FBI also had a microfilm machine and could have easily produced the documents.
The FBI could have taken the fake money order to Klein's and used their deposit stamp to stamp it, explaining why although it has the deposit stamp, there is no evidence that it was ever deposited in Klein's account.
The bottom line is that in the business world, you can't have a money order that wasn't processed and wasn't deposited and have a finished sales transaction. Regardless of what the item is, without payment, it's never going to be shipped.
The evidence that it wasn't paid for is the evidence that it was never shipped. This was a conspiracy to frame Oswald between the FBI and the Dallas Postal Inspector.
Again, this is my opinion based on the evidence I've seen.
As their evidence, the FBI produced shipping documents that did not include the serial number of the rifle or the carton number that contained it.
They produced a money order that was never processed and wasn't deposited and an envelope that was postmarked at a time when Oswald was proven to be at work.
They produced a deposit slip for February 13, 1963 and a monthly statement dated 3/15/63 and tried to pass them off as a March deposit.
The Postal Service destroyed part 3 of the post office box application for box 2915 in order to hide the fact that the name "A.Hidell" was not on it and thus could not receive the rifle, then lied to the Commission by telling them the destruction was standard procedure.
In order for Oswald to have fired a shot at General Walker in April, they had to have him ordering the rifle from Klein's in March. The only 6.5 Italian rifle Klein's had in stock at that time was the 36" Troop Special.
They couldn't have known that there was difference between the rifle they had and the rifle in the advertisement. So they made the paperwork that showed Oswald purchased a 36" rifle but used the same serial number as their 40" rifle, which, according to Louis Feldsott, was sold in June of 1962.
This is why the order form, Waldman 7, shows the rifle shipped as a 36" rifle bearing serial number C2766.
It wasn't necessary for Klein's to be involved in the framing, all they had to do was whatever the FBI requested they do. If the FBI wanted blank order forms, they'd get them. If they wanted order forms filled out or partially filled out, they'd get them. All they had to say was that they wanted them for comparison. Under the circumstances, Klein's would have complied with whatever the FBI wanted.
The FBI would fill out the rest.
They could very well have filled out the form and left the control number and the serial number blank. In fact, examination of the Waldman 7 indicates that more than one person filled out the form. The 2's, 5's and 6's are different.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/wald_ex_7_2-651x1024.jpg
This may have been the reason why Klein's shipping employees were never called to give testimony as to the authentication of the order form bearing the serial number C 2766.
The Klein's "records" were on microfilm. The FBI also had a microfilm machine and could have easily produced the documents.
The FBI could have taken the fake money order to Klein's and used their deposit stamp to stamp it, explaining why although it has the deposit stamp, there is no evidence that it was ever deposited in Klein's account.
The bottom line is that in the business world, you can't have a money order that wasn't processed and wasn't deposited and have a finished sales transaction. Regardless of what the item is, without payment, it's never going to be shipped.
The evidence that it wasn't paid for is the evidence that it was never shipped. This was a conspiracy to frame Oswald between the FBI and the Dallas Postal Inspector.
Again, this is my opinion based on the evidence I've seen.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 11:00:13 AM11/29/21
to
One question about the money order: Why does the shipping department need to wait for the money order to be deposited before shipping the rifle? For what purpose? Why do they care? They get the order and fulfill it; the accounting department gets the money order. A money order is as good as cash. If it's a check, they wait for it to clear. But they don't have to wait for a money order to clear. It's essentially cash.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 11:08:41 AM11/29/21
to
calling the appropriate witnesses.
That's just sad...
> One question about the money order: Why does the shipping department
> need to wait for the money order to be deposited before shipping the
> rifle? For what purpose? Why do they care? They get the order and
> fulfill it; the accounting department gets the money order. A money
> order is as good as cash. If it's a check, they wait for it to clear.
> But they don't have to wait for a money order to clear. It's
> essentially cash.
wasn't the M.O. cashed?
It's questions like this that force Steven to show his cowardice - he
refuses to debate knowledgeable critics.
No believer in his right mind would ever bring up this topic. So he's
quite safe in replying to other believers.
While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 11:13:52 AM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> One question about the money order: Why does the shipping department need to wait for the money order to be deposited before shipping the rifle? For what purpose? Why do they care? They get the order and fulfill it; the accounting department gets the money order. A money order is as good as cash. If it's a check, they wait for it to clear. But they don't have to wait for a money order to clear. It's essentially cash.
But the money order was never DEPOSITED. How do they get the "GOOD AS CASH" if its not deposited ? Do they just ship out rifles without being paid ?
> One question about the money order: Why does the shipping department need to wait for the money order to be deposited before shipping the rifle? For what purpose? Why do they care? They get the order and fulfill it; the accounting department gets the money order. A money order is as good as cash. If it's a check, they wait for it to clear. But they don't have to wait for a money order to clear. It's essentially cash.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 11:17:17 AM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:08:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
Is that what they call research nowadays, gish gallop ? That must be Sleazant for "I'm in complete denial". ROFLMAO
>
> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 11:21:20 AM11/29/21
to
believers will label it a 'Gish Gallop' - and refuse to deal with
them.
You've compiled a great list of reasons to suspect that Oswald didn't
own the Mannlicher - and all believers can do is run...
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 11:25:36 AM11/29/21
to
assassins... This is why Kleins is the preferred rifle supplier for
all people wishing to become famous by shooting a President.
How DARE you point out the stupidity being passed off as research Gil!
You might confuse some lurkers into accepting a conspiracy in this
case!
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 11:34:26 AM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 10:35:45 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
Asked and answered here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
You not only avoided responding to any of the points made and the evidence cited, you simply reposted your refuted claims anew.
No, that doesn’t work.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 11:49:05 AM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:08:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> It's questions like this that force Steven to show his cowardice - he
> refuses to debate knowledgeable critics.
You have yet to debate me on any of the claims of Mark Lane in your numbered series. You constantly delete my points and change the subject or call me names.
Gil Jesus didn’t debate these points either. He ignored my rebuttal to his original post here
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
And simply started a new thread with the same information.
>
> No believer in his right mind would ever bring up this topic. So he's
> quite safe in replying to other believers.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
And he ignored the response. It’s clear he’s not looking for a debate. If he was looking to debate, there was no need to start a new thread with the same points.
>
>
> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
Gil’s response was to ignore everything I posted and repost his claims in a new thread.
That’s not the actions of a man looking to debate anything.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 11:59:57 AM11/29/21
to
== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
…
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963: and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. You're reading from Waldman---
Mr. WALDMAN. From a Mr. A. Hidell of Post Office Box No. 2915, from Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And you are now reading from Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7?
Mr. WALDMAN. As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
== unquote ==
All you have is a bunch unsupported suppositions. No evidence whatsoever.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 12:03:07 PM11/29/21
to
You already labeled everything above your opinion. Not fact. Opinion.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 12:17:41 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:13:52 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
As to Klein's: They got paid. They have a money order. It's the same as cash. If the accounting department got cash and didn't deposit the cash they still got paid for the rifle. They just failed to put it in the bank. But Klein's still has the money.
Again: Why does the shipping department care about the money order? Or what happens to it? The order is received - and BTW, the handwriting on the money order, order and envelope were identified as belonging to Oswald - by Klein's. How was that faked?
The shipping department receives the order for the rifle. The accounting department gets the money order. Two separate actions. The shipping department then processes the order and ships the rifle out. What the accounting department does with the MO is meaningless to the shipping department.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 12:20:10 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
If you want to believe everything is faked there's nothing that can be done to dissuade you. I can't present a film or live video of them finding this material. Even if I did the response would be it's staged.
As I also said: what evidence would you accept that the material was authentic? Is there any?
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:28:38 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:17:41 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> As to Klein's: They got paid. They have a money order. It's the same as cash. If the accounting department got cash and didn't deposit the cash they still got paid for the rifle. They just failed to put it in the bank. But Klein's still has the money.
No they didn't have the money order. The money order was in the hands of the government. How did the money order get in the hands of the government without passing through the federal reserve system ?
> As to Klein's: They got paid. They have a money order. It's the same as cash. If the accounting department got cash and didn't deposit the cash they still got paid for the rifle. They just failed to put it in the bank. But Klein's still has the money.
Where's the stamp from the bank of chicago and the fed ?
Paid ? I don't think so.
Read the testimony of Robert Wilmouth.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 12:29:44 PM11/29/21
to
It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:31:02 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:20:10 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> As I also said: what evidence would you accept that the material was authentic? Is there any?
You guys can't have it both ways. Either there was more than one rifle with the same serial number or the paperwork is faked.
> As I also said: what evidence would you accept that the material was authentic? Is there any?
Which side are you taking ?
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:35:42 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
You guys say the rifle was his ?
The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
Chuck Schuyler
Nov 29, 2021, 12:43:29 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
What would you accept as evidence?
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 12:44:30 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 10:35:45 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:48:56 PM11/29/21
to
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 12:50:13 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:35:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
If you aren't convinced of Oswald's guilt by the mountain of evidence there is of that fact, nothing will ever convince you. You will continue to what CTs have been doing for almost 6 decades. You will invent an excuse to dismiss each and every piece of evidence that Oswald was the assassin, then turn around and accuse people on nothing more than your whims. Sometimes you don't even accuse people. You accuse the mysterious "they".
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
>
> You guys say the rifle was his ?
> The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
Whoever was working the counter that day.
> You guys say the rifle was his ?
> The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 12:50:32 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:35:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, you think they put the rifle in a PO Box? You've never received a notice from the PO about needing to pick up a package? This was before today's delivery service? I remember receiving notice to go to the PO to sign for a package. Or pick it up.
Holmes explained how it was done. You receive a notice in your PO Box that a package was available. You take the notice to a window, present it, and are given the package. Didn't you ever do this before?
Here is Holmes explaining the procedure.
Mr. LIEBELER. After it has been received here in Dallas, as I understand the procedure, a notice would be put in the post office box indicating that a package was being held there in the post office; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. There is a regular card, when the package is too large to go in the box, or if it is c.o.d., or insured, or registered. However, this was an ordinary parcel. It was not insured or c.o.d. There would be a card for him put in the box, and he would have to pick it up at a window.
As to the evidence: It's all there. You reject it as faked or manufactured. So there is simply no answer to anyone who believes the evidence of a crime is faked. What is produced will be rejected. Oswald's handwriting was identified on the money order and order and envelope. But I would guess you say it's faked, correct? So how can I respond?
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 12:52:22 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:29:44 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:03:07 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:08:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
>>>> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
>>> Is that what they call research nowadays, gish gallop ? That must be Sleazant for "I'm in complete denial". ROFLMAO
>> Speaking of complete denial: Don’t you wish your arguments had evidence like mine?
>>
>> You already labeled everything above your opinion. Not fact. Opinion.
>
>How is someone supposed to respond ...
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:03:07 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:17:17 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:08:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
>>>> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
>>> Is that what they call research nowadays, gish gallop ? That must be Sleazant for "I'm in complete denial". ROFLMAO
>> Speaking of complete denial: Don’t you wish your arguments had evidence like mine?
>>
>> You already labeled everything above your opinion. Not fact. Opinion.
>
Easy. You take the same facts that were listed, AND GIVE *YOUR*
CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THEM.
But, of course, that's too difficult for believers...
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 12:56:19 PM11/29/21
to
it's YOUR burden.
Stop trying to run from your burden... get busy!
The EXISTING evidence shows that it wasn't cashed... **YOU** have the
burden to show that it was.
>> It's questions like this that force Steven to show his cowardice - he
>> refuses to debate knowledgeable critics.
>
>Debate? Debate?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>You have yet to debate me ...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>> No believer in his right mind would ever bring up this topic. So he's
>> quite safe in replying to other believers.
>
>What topic?
>> While it's easy to see that Gil's list could be thought of as a "Gish
>> Gallop" - Steven didn't even try to answer them.
>
>I did answer them.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:56:38 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:32 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
I'm looking for the name of who gave Oswald the rifle. I know how the procedure in the Dallas Post Office worked. I'm not looking for opinion or speculation, I'm looking for EVIDENCE. I can be convinced that Oswald received the rifle, but I need the name of the person in the post office from he received it.
I'm looking for the name of who gave Oswald the rifle. I know how the procedure in the Dallas Post Office worked. I'm not looking for opinion or speculation, I'm looking for EVIDENCE. I can be convinced that Oswald received the rifle, but I need the name of the person in the post office from he received it.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 12:58:44 PM11/29/21
to
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:29:44 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> >How is someone supposed to respond ...
You respond with evidence.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 12:58:52 PM11/29/21
to
But you'll never CITE where this answer has been previously given.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:00:09 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> Whoever was working the counter that day.
You'd make a helluva prosecutor.
> Whoever was working the counter that day.
Name please ?
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 1:00:15 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:34:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> You not only avoided responding to any of the points made and the
> evidence cited, you simply reposted your refuted claims anew.
>
>No, that doesn’t work.
Indeed, it doesn't:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> You not only avoided responding to any of the points made and the
> evidence cited, you simply reposted your refuted claims anew.
>
>No, that doesn’t work.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:05:36 PM11/29/21
to
The HSCA photographic experts said the rifle in the BYP was the one found in the sniper's nest. There's evidence. Is that acceptable?
No, because the BYP were faked.
So we just go in circles here. The evidence we present that Oswald was the assassin is, for them, evidence he wasn't the assassin. Since it's fake. It's an endless series of back-and-forths.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:07:37 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:05:36 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> So we just go in circles here. The evidence we present that Oswald was the assassin is, for them, evidence he wasn't the assassin. Since it's fake. It's an endless series of back-and-forths.
Still looking for that name.
> So we just go in circles here. The evidence we present that Oswald was the assassin is, for them, evidence he wasn't the assassin. Since it's fake. It's an endless series of back-and-forths.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:08:06 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> Whoever was working the counter that day.
What date was that, John ?
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 1:08:49 PM11/29/21
to
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:13:15 PM11/29/21
to
You actually think a worker in the PO would remember this? They gave out packages in the hundreds. How would they remember that they gave a package to Oswald?
This is an impossible standard. And when it's not met - it can't be - you think it's a relevant point.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:16:41 PM11/29/21
to
That had a rifle in it. The rifle that he had in the backyard photos. The one that was identified as the one found in the sniper's nest. The one that was used to kill JFK. The one that had Oswald's prints on it.
The one he left behind when he left the building about 3 minutes afterwards. To go to his rooming house. To get his revolver. And extra bullets. That he used to shoot Tippit.
I can go on but won't. Because you will say all of the above is faked. And so here we are almost 60 years later with the same back and forth.
And yet you believe that Democrats and Republicans in government over this past half a century plus got together and covered all of this up. Yes, Democrats and Republicans who literally detest one another are joining up for this. For what purpose? It's silly and you know it.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:18:27 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> You really want a name for the actual person at the PO 58 years ago who gave Oswald the package?
> You actually think a worker in the PO would remember this? They gave out packages in the hundreds. How would they remember that they gave a package to Oswald?
> This is an impossible standard. And when it's not met - it can't be - you think it's a relevant point.
It IS a relevant point if you're trying to prove that Oswald received the rifle. If it's in the evidence, you should be able to find it. If not, you have to ask why not.
> You really want a name for the actual person at the PO 58 years ago who gave Oswald the package?
> You actually think a worker in the PO would remember this? They gave out packages in the hundreds. How would they remember that they gave a package to Oswald?
> This is an impossible standard. And when it's not met - it can't be - you think it's a relevant point.
I'm looking for the name of the person in the post office who handed Oswald the rifle and now thanks to John Corbett, I'd like the date it was handed to him as well.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:23:40 PM11/29/21
to
And would you accept his account? I have a suspicion you wouldn't accept it. You would ask, "How did he know it was a rifle? It could have been anything."
And you would be right. How would he know the package he somehow remembered giving out nine months earlier to Oswald contain a rifle.
Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
Go ahead please.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 1:24:39 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:32 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:35:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> > I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> >
> > You guys say the rifle was his ?
> > The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> > So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
> Sorry how I am supposed to find out the name of the person who handed him the package containing the rifle? PO workers give packages to people all of the time. You think one would remember this?
> Second, you think they put the rifle in a PO Box? You've never received a notice from the PO about needing to pick up a package? This was before today's delivery service? I remember receiving notice to go to the PO to sign for a package. Or pick it up.
> Holmes explained how it was done. You receive a notice in your PO Box that a package was available. You take the notice to a window, present it, and are given the package. Didn't you ever do this before?
Recently, I had to go pick up a letter that they tried to deliver to my home, but required a signature. They left a note on my door that I could pick it up at the post office by bringing the notice. I brought the notice and signed for it. No one requested ID. The entire CT argument is a series of begged questions and shiftings of the burden of proof. I’ve asked in the past for any CT to cite one court case where the prosecution had the obligation to not only show the evidence the accused committed the murder but establish how, when, and where the accused acquired the murder weapon. They can’t do it, because establishing such things is not necessary. In the recent Rittenhouse case, did the prosecution have to establish how Rittenhouse acquired the weapon before he could be convicted?
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:35:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> > I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> >
> > You guys say the rifle was his ?
> > The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> > So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
> Sorry how I am supposed to find out the name of the person who handed him the package containing the rifle? PO workers give packages to people all of the time. You think one would remember this?
> Second, you think they put the rifle in a PO Box? You've never received a notice from the PO about needing to pick up a package? This was before today's delivery service? I remember receiving notice to go to the PO to sign for a package. Or pick it up.
> Holmes explained how it was done. You receive a notice in your PO Box that a package was available. You take the notice to a window, present it, and are given the package. Didn't you ever do this before?
Their complaints here are nonsense.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:40:39 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:23:40 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> Go ahead please.
It's easier to believe a lie than it is to look for the truth. Any evidence that did not point to Oswald was ignored, omitted or disappeared. They did it again in the 1970s with the HSCA. General Walker tried in vain to let them know that the bullet in evidence was NOT the bullet removed from his house, but they ignored him. Eventually, any evidence to the contrary is going to be gone. An investigation today would be costly and fruitless, just like the HSCA.
> Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> Go ahead please.
To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings, but the evidence against him was weak. So he remains in history as the assassin, not because he was guilty, but because any evidence of others was destroyed back in the day. Ever hear of the Katzenbach Memo ? That was the blueprint for the Warren Report. The Commission started with a conclusion and worked backwards, as did the HSCA. This is not how an investigation works.
Oswald was killed by Ruby to prevent him from going to trial and exposing the fraudulent case against him. Ruby didn't have to know when Oswald was going to be transferred, the Dallas cops just held up the transfer until Ruby was in the basement.
Like I said, I can be convinced Oswald was guilty. But as a former cop, I look at the evidence and just shake my head.
Perhaps my standard for casting someone into the abyss of history is higher than yours, but before I convict someone I need ABSOLUTE proof of his or her guilt.
No questions, no doubt.
Bud
Nov 29, 2021, 1:44:21 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:35:42 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
Show me that you are capable of assessing information in a reasonable manner.
>
> > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> You guys say the rifle was his ?
> The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
Bud
Nov 29, 2021, 1:47:44 PM11/29/21
to
> Stop trying to run from your burden... get busy!
>
> The EXISTING evidence shows that it wasn't cashed... **YOU** have the
> burden to show that it was.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 1:48:37 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Who sold OJ his knife?
Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
> Who sold OJ his knife?
1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 1:53:32 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
Working backward,
Marina pointing out the blanket in the Paine garage establish Oswald owned a rifle.
The blanket being empty establish his rifle was elsewhere.
The rifle found in the TSBD establish an employee brought it in.
The paper bag in the sniper’s nest corner establishes it was smuggled in within a paper sack.
The prints on the weapon establish that person was Oswald.
Two witnesses saw him with such a long paper sack that they estimated as shorter than the found sack.
The photos of him holding it in the Neely Street backyard establish he possessed it months earlier.
Marina affirms she took the photos. And photographic experts affirm the photos are legit.
Holmes testimony establishes Oswald could have picked up the weapon with only the notice.
The Klein’s business records establish the weapon was shipped to his PO Box.
The order form, ad, and money order establish he ordered it.
You reject all that.
I’m sure with a large enough contribution to someone’s retirement fund, I could find somebody in Dallas to affirm they remember giving Oswald a large package in late March of 1963. What if a document was found in the historical record of Oswald signing a receipt for the package?
But you wouldn’t accept that either, would you? That too would be a fake, right?
So why are you asking for evidence you know is not available at present and you know you will reject in the future if found?
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:56:50 PM11/29/21
to
What was in this for Katzenbach?
You actually think Republicans took the "easy" way out - for almost 60 years? - and covered up for LBJ? Why would they do that? It makes no political sense.
What about the media's investigations? The NY Times? CBS? NBC? ABC? Why did they "believe the lie."
You have so many different people, so many different institutions and entities over nearly 60 years all covering this up.For what benefit?
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 1:57:33 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:23:40 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> > Go ahead please.
> It's easier to believe a lie than it is to look for the truth.
So the question reduces to who is believing what lie.
>
> > Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> > Go ahead please.
> It's easier to believe a lie than it is to look for the truth.
What evidence would it take to convince you it’s you believing in a massive conspiracy?
You reject anything pointing to Oswald as faked out of hand.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 1:58:15 PM11/29/21
to
I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 1:58:21 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:47:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Cowardice... sheer cowardice.
>> Stop trying to run from your burden... get busy!
>>
>> The EXISTING evidence shows that it wasn't cashed... **YOU** have the
>> burden to show that it was.
>
> The file locator number...
Has nothing to do with this.
>> Stop trying to run from your burden... get busy!
>>
>> The EXISTING evidence shows that it wasn't cashed... **YOU** have the
>> burden to show that it was.
>
Has nothing to do with this.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 2:08:36 PM11/29/21
to
run from it when we point it out.
You need to develope a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
evidence as we know it to be.
That you've failed is shown by polling.
Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
You've lost.
Face it.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 2:12:42 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
>
> You need to develop a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
>
> evidence as we know it to be.
>
> That you've failed is shown by polling.
>
> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
>
> You've lost.
>
> Face it.
Ben, you can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
>
> That you've failed is shown by polling.
>
> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
>
> You've lost.
>
> Face it.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 2:22:12 PM11/29/21
to
write forthe lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 2:23:59 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:23:40 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> > Go ahead please.
> It's easier to believe a lie than it is to look for the truth. Any evidence that did not point to Oswald was ignored, omitted or disappeared. They did it again in the 1970s with the HSCA. General Walker tried in vain to let them know that the bullet in evidence was NOT the bullet removed from his house, but they ignored him. Eventually, any evidence to the contrary is going to be gone. An investigation today would be costly and fruitless, just like the HSCA.
>
> To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings, but the evidence against him was weak. So he remains in history as the assassin, not because he was guilty, but because any evidence of others was destroyed back in the day. Ever hear of the Katzenbach Memo ? That was the blueprint for the Warren Report. The Commission started with a conclusion and worked backwards, as did the HSCA. This is not how an investigation works.
Can you quote what Katzenbach said, *in context*? Or will you, like CTs before you, only quote the part out of context that you think supports your argument?
>
> > Okay here's my question: Why would Democrats and Republicans in Washington over the past 50+ years agree to cover up for the murder of JFK? Why would Republicans protect an LBJ? What benefit is there?
> > Go ahead please.
> It's easier to believe a lie than it is to look for the truth. Any evidence that did not point to Oswald was ignored, omitted or disappeared. They did it again in the 1970s with the HSCA. General Walker tried in vain to let them know that the bullet in evidence was NOT the bullet removed from his house, but they ignored him. Eventually, any evidence to the contrary is going to be gone. An investigation today would be costly and fruitless, just like the HSCA.
>
> To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings, but the evidence against him was weak. So he remains in history as the assassin, not because he was guilty, but because any evidence of others was destroyed back in the day. Ever hear of the Katzenbach Memo ? That was the blueprint for the Warren Report. The Commission started with a conclusion and worked backwards, as did the HSCA. This is not how an investigation works.
And by the way, a change of subject by you.
>
> Oswald was killed by Ruby to prevent him from going to trial and exposing the fraudulent case against him.
> Ruby didn't have to know when Oswald was going to be transferred, the Dallas cops just held up the transfer until Ruby was in the basement.
>
> Like I said, I can be convinced Oswald was guilty. But as a former cop, I look at the evidence and just shake my head.
Tell me, as a former cop, if you arrested someone who claimed he was innocent but his fingerprint was in blood at the scene of a person stabbed to death, would your first thought be the evidence was faked to frame him? That appears to be your process here.
> Perhaps my standard for casting someone into the abyss of history is higher than yours, but before I convict someone I need ABSOLUTE proof of his or her guilt.
> No questions, no doubt.
Bud
Nov 29, 2021, 2:28:30 PM11/29/21
to
> >> Stop trying to run from your burden... get busy!
> >>
> >> The EXISTING evidence shows that it wasn't cashed... **YOU** have the
> >> burden to show that it was.
> >
> > The file locator number...
>
> Has nothing to do with this.
What does the file locator number signify?
Bud
Nov 29, 2021, 2:35:17 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who sold OJ his knife?
> >> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
> >>
> >> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
> >>
> >> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
> >
> > So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
> > accept answers to those questions?
> > I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
We just look at these things correctly.
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who sold OJ his knife?
> >> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
> >>
> >> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
> >>
> >> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
> >
> > So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
> > accept answers to those questions?
> > I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
> You need to develope a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
> evidence as we know it to be.
> That you've failed is shown by polling.
> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
> You've lost.
Being able to figure out a simple crime is losing?
> Face it.
Seems a fair amount of people think something fishy happened with this event, something more than Oswald and his rifle. That a lot of people have their suspicions isn`t that significant.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 2:37:43 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who sold OJ his knife?
> >> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
> >>
> >> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
> >>
> >> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
> >
> > So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
> > accept answers to those questions?
> > I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
Begged Question. You have to cite the evidence it’s fraudulent, not just assert it is fradulent (AKA “point it out”) based on CT assumptions of what the record should show but doesn’t. You find some place a “T” is not dotted and an “i” is not crossed, and you think you’ve established a conspiracy. You haven’t.
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who sold OJ his knife?
> >> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
> >>
> >> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
> >>
> >> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
> >
> > So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
> > accept answers to those questions?
> > I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
> run from it when we point it out.
>
> You need to develope a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
> evidence as we know it to be.
>
> That you've failed is shown by polling.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>
> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
>
> You've lost.
>
> Face it.
You still have nothing. Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
You ignore that and claim the current state of the evidence indicates a conspiracy.
Different convoys.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 2:53:28 PM11/29/21
to
What the public thinks is meaningless to whether something is true or not, real or not.
Hell, the majority of people voted for Biden. Okay, so I was one of them <g>. Not a good point. Ignore that.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 2:59:03 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
> write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
>
> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
Either they're busting balls or they're really in denial. Anyone who is a novice or likes to lurk and check out information might see something and say, "wow, let me look into that," because some people's interpretation may be different than others. Or they might just be curious and wanna look at the evidence.
But these people don't even wanna look at the evidence.
They don't want anyone waking them up.
They don't want anyone telling them that the FBI LIED in their reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
They don't want to know that the police lineups were conducted unfairly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vuH8c4AnCI
They don't want to know that they rifle in the backyard photos had a different sling mount than the one in the TSBD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_9pOsRL0o
They don't want to know that the Dallas Police originally reported that the rifle had no fingerprints on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pikh6GMyP0A
They don't want to know that Oswald couldn't possibly have carried the rifle into the building in the manner which Buell Frazier said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-5L_JNF6g
They don't want to hear that Oswald was in the Texas Theater when Tippit was murdered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0
They're happy and secure in their little fantasy world where 7.65 Mausers become 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos, .38 auto shells become .38 specials and white jackets turn tan. Where an invisible paper "gunsack" suddenly appears out of nowhere and a steel-jacketed bullet changes its jacket to copper. Where a man's constitutional rights can be violated. Where he can be held incommunicado for 24 hours so that he can't contact counsel or have his family do it for him. Where he gets arraigned at 1:38 in the morning, a tactic known as sleep deprivation. Where his wife can be held against her will for 2 months. Where witness statements are altered or omitted and witnesses are threatened or intimidated into changing their stories. Where a suspect is placed in a police lineup with three policemen.
This is the travesty of justice they support.
Of course, the government would never lie to us.
Gil Jesus
Nov 29, 2021, 3:12:15 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
Au contraire mon frere.
>
Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
www.gil-jesus.com
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 3:18:41 PM11/29/21
to
Your view seems to be that everyone in these agencies hated JFK. Nobody was against this coverup? No one? They all conspired - before this? or just after? - to pull this off. It cannot be done. It cannot be kept quiet. It cannot be covered for nearly half a century.
You take mistakes and incompetence and eyewitness contradictions (do a search of Rashomon effect) and ascribe to them sinister motives.
One point: Nobody prevented Oswald from talking to a lawyer. He had access to a phone. He wanted John Abt. And no one else. The head of the Dallas Bar Association met with him and asked if he wanted a lawyer. He said no. Again, he said he wanted John Abt. Oswald met with his wife, his brother, his mother and Nichols. He met with the media. At no time - none - did he reveal this conspiracy. Marina is still alive. She's free to expose your conspiracy. But she hasn't. Why?
The things you guys believe that were done simply cannot.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 3:21:19 PM11/29/21
to
“To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
You said it here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cmnSi0VCOcE/m/miP7IumgBQAJ
How is what you said different than how I summarized it?
What’s the difference between what you said and what I said you said?
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 3:35:47 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
> > write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
> >
> > When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
> > by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
Gee, that’s exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to you here:
>
> > I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
> > write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
> >
> > When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
> > by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
I cited plenty of evidence. You have to date ignored it.
> Either they're busting balls or they're really in denial. Anyone who is a novice or likes to lurk and check out information might see something and say, "wow, let me look into that," because some people's interpretation may be different than others. Or they might just be curious and wanna look at the evidence.
> But these people don't even wanna look at the evidence.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
> They don't want anyone waking them up.
>
> They don't want anyone telling them that the FBI LIED in their reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>
> They don't want to know that the police lineups were conducted unfairly
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vuH8c4AnCI
>
> They don't want to know that they rifle in the backyard photos had a different sling mount than the one in the TSBD
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v_9pOsRL0o
>
> They don't want to know that the Dallas Police originally reported that the rifle had no fingerprints on it.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pikh6GMyP0A
>
> They don't want to know that Oswald couldn't possibly have carried the rifle into the building in the manner which Buell Frazier said.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-5L_JNF6g
>
> They don't want to hear that Oswald was in the Texas Theater when Tippit was murdered.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p4AvezLnG0
>
> They're happy and secure in their little fantasy world where 7.65 Mausers become 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos, .38 auto shells become .38 specials and white jackets turn tan. Where an invisible paper "gunsack" suddenly appears out of nowhere and a steel-jacketed bullet changes its jacket to copper. Where a man's constitutional rights can be violated. Where he can be held incommunicado for 24 hours so that he can't contact counsel or have his family do it for him. Where he gets arraigned at 1:38 in the morning, a tactic known as sleep deprivation. Where his wife can be held against her will for 2 months. Where witness statements are altered or omitted and witnesses are threatened or intimidated into changing their stories. Where a suspect is placed in a police lineup with three policemen.
>
> This is the travesty of justice they support.
>
> Of course, the government would never lie to us.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 3:40:15 PM11/29/21
to
It fails when it confronts the evidence.
> Your view seems to be that everyone in these agencies hated JFK.
> Nobody was against this coverup? No one? They all conspired - before
> this? or just after? - to pull this off. It cannot be done. It cannot
> be kept quiet. It cannot be covered for nearly half a century.
> You take mistakes and incompetence and eyewitness contradictions (do
> a search of Rashomon effect) and ascribe to them sinister motives.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 3:41:43 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:35:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> You need to develope a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
>> evidence as we know it to be.
LFD.
>> That you've failed is shown by polling.
LFD.
>> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
>> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
LFD.
>> You've lost.
LFD.
>> Face it.
LFD.
wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Who sold OJ his knife?
>>>> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
>>>>
>>>> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
>>>>
>>>> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
>>>
>>> So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
>>> accept answers to those questions?
>>> I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
>>
>> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
>> run from it when we point it out.
>
> We just look at these things correctly.
No, you provably don't.
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Who sold OJ his knife?
>>>> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
>>>>
>>>> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
>>>>
>>>> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
>>>
>>> So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
>>> accept answers to those questions?
>>> I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
>>
>> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
>> run from it when we point it out.
>
> We just look at these things correctly.
>> You need to develope a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
>> evidence as we know it to be.
>> That you've failed is shown by polling.
>> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
>> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
>> You've lost.
LFD.
>> Face it.
LFD.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 3:41:47 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > >
> > Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
> > Au contraire mon frere.
> >
> > www.gil-jesus.com
> You said this about two hours ago:
>
> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > >
> > Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
> > Au contraire mon frere.
> >
> > www.gil-jesus.com
> You said this about two hours ago:
>
> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 3:46:09 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:37:42 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Who sold OJ his knife?
>>>> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
>>>>
>>>> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
>>>>
>>>> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
>>>
>>> So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
>>> accept answers to those questions?
>>> I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
>>
>> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
>> run from it when we point it out.
>
>Begged Question.
Proven time and time again.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:08:36 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 10:58:14 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:44:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Who sold OJ his knife?
>>>> Hey Einstein, wanna take a shot at that ?
>>>>
>>>> 1. What's the name of the person in the Dallas Post Office who gave Oswald his rifle and
>>>>
>>>> 2. What date did Oswald receive it ?
>>>
>>> So you think all of the existing evidence is faked but you would
>>> accept answers to those questions?
>>> I have my doubts that you would. Sorry, call me a cynic.
>>
>> Much of the evidence clearly *IS* fraudulent... and believers like you
>> run from it when we point it out.
>
>Begged Question.
Here's a recent example:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>> You need to develop a coherent and BELIEVABLE explanation for the
>> evidence as we know it to be.
>
> Cited the Warren Report and the 26 Volumes of evidence. Whether you
> find it personally convincing is not the standard.
You cannot defend the lies told by the WCR by citing the WCR.
>
> Cited the Warren Report and the 26 Volumes of evidence. Whether you
> find it personally convincing is not the standard.
>> That you've failed is shown by polling.
>
>Hilarious. Another logical fallacy from Ben.
faith *HAS* failed.
It's not a "logical fallacy" to point that out.
>> Over 50 years, with the traditional mass media and education system on
>> your side, and you STILL can't convince a majority of Americans.
>
Your unsupported speculation not asked for...
>> You've lost.
>>
>> Face it.
>
And yet, you soldier on... how brave!
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 3:46:14 PM11/29/21
to
Right, a small handful of people becomes all of these entities.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 3:54:00 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:35:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
>>> write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
>>>
>>> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
>>> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
>> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
>
>Gee, that’s exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to you here:
Gee, that's exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to
your outright lies here:
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
>>> write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
>>>
>>> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
>>> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
>> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
>
>Gee, that’s exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to you here:
Gee, that's exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 3:54:57 PM11/29/21
to
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Kennedy lovers (and haters), all did this. And have kept it quiet since that November day.
This is, at bottom, what they are claiming.
It's a fruitless effort to try and reason with this world view. Nothing will penetrate such a mindset.
Ben Holmes
Nov 29, 2021, 3:56:01 PM11/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > >
>> > Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
>> > Au contraire mon frere.
>> >
>> > www.gil-jesus.com
>> You said this about two hours ago:
>>
>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
>
>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
This is the sort of subtle shifting of assertions that believers
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > >
>> > Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
>> > Au contraire mon frere.
>> >
>> > www.gil-jesus.com
>> You said this about two hours ago:
>>
>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
>
>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
employ all the time. Huckster is masterful at it.
It shows that he's incapable of debating without logical fallacies &
lies.
The two statements are *NOT* identical.
And Huckster knows it.
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 4:08:37 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:48:56 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:43:29 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > > > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> >
> > > I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> > What would you accept as evidence?
> > >
> > > You guys say the rifle was his ?
> > > The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> > > So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
> Show me the evidence that names the person at the Dallas Post Office who handed him the rifle when it came in and you'll answer for me once and for all if he ordered it, paid for it and received it.
Do you really think the USPS keeps a record of which postal clerk handled which packages?Do you really think a postal clerk that handles countless packages would remember having handed Oswald the carton containing the Carcano? Why would you think there would be any evidence of who gave Oswald his rifle and that the lack of such evidence proves no one ever handed Oswald the rifle?
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:43:29 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:35:42 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:29:44 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > How is someone supposed to respond to someone who says, "I think this was faked?" and "I think this was manufactured?" and "I think this was falsified"? There is no answer. I cannot show a film of them finding the material. Even if I did the response would be "I think it's faked."
> > > > It's impossible to respond and disprove speculation of this type. Certainly impossible to a conspiracist.
> >
> > > I can be convinced Oswald is guilty. Show me the evidence.
> > What would you accept as evidence?
> > >
> > > You guys say the rifle was his ?
> > > The rifle was too large to fit in a post office box.
> > > So who at the Dallas Post office handed him the rifle ?
> Show me the evidence that names the person at the Dallas Post Office who handed him the rifle when it came in and you'll answer for me once and for all if he ordered it, paid for it and received it.
Do you really think the USPS keeps a record of which postal clerk handled which packages?Do you really think a postal clerk that handles countless packages would remember having handed Oswald the carton containing the Carcano? Why would you think there would be any evidence of who gave Oswald his rifle and that the lack of such evidence proves no one ever handed Oswald the rifle?
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 4:10:38 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:08:06 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > Whoever was working the counter that day.
> What date was that, John ?
Why would that matter?
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 12:50:13 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > Whoever was working the counter that day.
> What date was that, John ?
Why would that matter?
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 4:18:51 PM11/29/21
to
A demand - a series of them - that cannot be satisfied. At this point, we know their routine. If you go to conspiracy sites - the Holocaust deniers, the 9/11 truthers, FDR allowed Pearl Harbor - it's always this type of demand.
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 4:22:15 PM11/29/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > You really want a name for the actual person at the PO 58 years ago who gave Oswald the package?
> > You actually think a worker in the PO would remember this? They gave out packages in the hundreds. How would they remember that they gave a package to Oswald?
> > This is an impossible standard. And when it's not met - it can't be - you think it's a relevant point.
> It IS a relevant point if you're trying to prove that Oswald received the rifle. If it's in the evidence, you should be able to find it. If not, you have to ask why not.
>
> I'm looking for the name of the person in the post office who handed Oswald the rifle and now thanks to John Corbett, I'd like the date it was handed to him as well.
Your desires do not place a burden on others to satisfy those desires. I really don't care if there is a record of who handed Oswald the rifle. It is completely unnecessary in order to
prove Oswald used that rifle to kill JFK. We have an ample paper trail to show the rilfe was ordered under an alias Oswald had created for himself. The rifle was delivered to the PO Box
Oswald had opened for himself. There are photos of him with the rifle. His wife testified he
owned a rifle that he kept wrapped in a blanket. On the day of the assassination, it was discovered that blanket no longer held a rifle. The rifle in question was found on the same floor of the TSBD where numerous witnesses saw a rifleman. That rifle had Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel which is proof positive he handled the rifle. That rifle had fibers in the butt plate that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day. That rifle was the only weapon in the world that could have fired the three shells recovered at the location the rifleman was seen and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting. You are willing to dismiss all of that because there is no record of which USPS employee handed the rifle to Oswald.
Amazing. Truly amazing.
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 1:13:15 PM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>
> > You really want a name for the actual person at the PO 58 years ago who gave Oswald the package?
> > You actually think a worker in the PO would remember this? They gave out packages in the hundreds. How would they remember that they gave a package to Oswald?
> > This is an impossible standard. And when it's not met - it can't be - you think it's a relevant point.
> It IS a relevant point if you're trying to prove that Oswald received the rifle. If it's in the evidence, you should be able to find it. If not, you have to ask why not.
>
> I'm looking for the name of the person in the post office who handed Oswald the rifle and now thanks to John Corbett, I'd like the date it was handed to him as well.
Your desires do not place a burden on others to satisfy those desires. I really don't care if there is a record of who handed Oswald the rifle. It is completely unnecessary in order to
prove Oswald used that rifle to kill JFK. We have an ample paper trail to show the rilfe was ordered under an alias Oswald had created for himself. The rifle was delivered to the PO Box
Oswald had opened for himself. There are photos of him with the rifle. His wife testified he
owned a rifle that he kept wrapped in a blanket. On the day of the assassination, it was discovered that blanket no longer held a rifle. The rifle in question was found on the same floor of the TSBD where numerous witnesses saw a rifleman. That rifle had Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel which is proof positive he handled the rifle. That rifle had fibers in the butt plate that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing that day. That rifle was the only weapon in the world that could have fired the three shells recovered at the location the rifleman was seen and the only two bullets recovered from the shooting. You are willing to dismiss all of that because there is no record of which USPS employee handed the rifle to Oswald.
Amazing. Truly amazing.
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 4:28:01 PM11/29/21
to
I told myself not to go down this rabbit hole again with these conspiracists. And here I am. It's like being in the Mafia or something <g>. One you're in it, you're in it for life.
John Corbett
Nov 29, 2021, 4:58:49 PM11/29/21
to
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=michael+coreleone+they+pull+me+back+in&&view=detail&mid=1E213E0E723FA2BDF1931E213E0E723FA2BDF193&rvsmid=91F33D50884E3E54A68691F33D50884E3E54A686&FORM=VDQVAP
Or maybe you feel more like George Constanza
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=george+constanza+they+pull+me+back+in&docid=608024243767873239&mid=1E213E0E723FA2BDF1931E213E0E723FA2BDF193&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
Message has been deleted
Steven Galbraith
Nov 29, 2021, 8:24:05 PM11/29/21
to
I wish I could find the tape. I think it was on Hardball when Chris Matthews was on MSNBC.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 9:13:04 PM11/29/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Nov 29, 2021, 9:14:45 PM11/29/21
to
Scrum Drum
Nov 29, 2021, 9:51:51 PM11/29/21
to
When I first saw this I thought here we go again another nutty theory like Prayer Man...But the more I looked at it the more I realized it was real and they actually did go out and forge evidence for Oswald ordering the rifle on friday night...It's really unbelievable but it is true...
The original thread was on the Education Forum...Gil hasn't covered some of the dirtiest stuff where the Money Order serial number came from stacks that were out of date with Oswald ordering it at the time he (allegedly) did...The processing stamp at the Money Order terminus was also out of sequence...
There's a reason why Oswald was framed with a 40 inch Carcano when he clearly ordered a 36 inch Carbine...
The original thread was on the Education Forum...Gil hasn't covered some of the dirtiest stuff where the Money Order serial number came from stacks that were out of date with Oswald ordering it at the time he (allegedly) did...The processing stamp at the Money Order terminus was also out of sequence...
There's a reason why Oswald was framed with a 40 inch Carcano when he clearly ordered a 36 inch Carbine...
John Corbett
Nov 30, 2021, 7:48:15 AM11/30/21
to
length of time knows that too. Young people make a lot of noise but they can't be counted on to show up at the polls.
John Corbett
Nov 30, 2021, 8:45:29 AM11/30/21
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 9:30:27 AM11/30/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Who would I be pointing it out to?
But, just to prove you a liar yet again, one statement speaks to the
evidence, with the clear implication EVEN in the statement that the
evidence was fraudulent, your dishonest re-write clearly makes Gil out
to be a believer in the WCR - an impllication that doesn't exist in
his original statement.
Now, were you an honest man, you'd feel the need to RETRACT what is
now, clearly, a lie on your part.
But you won't... You're clearly too dishonest to do so.
But, just to prove you a liar yet again, one statement speaks to the
evidence, with the clear implication EVEN in the statement that the
evidence was fraudulent, your dishonest re-write clearly makes Gil out
to be a believer in the WCR - an impllication that doesn't exist in
his original statement.
Now, were you an honest man, you'd feel the need to RETRACT what is
now, clearly, a lie on your part.
But you won't... You're clearly too dishonest to do so.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 9:31:11 AM11/30/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:14:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Run coward... RUN!
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 9:32:11 AM11/30/21
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 17:08:06 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>FYI----
>
>Just about anything anybody could ever want to know about "Oswald's
> Rifle Purchase" and "The Money Order" is contained in my two links
> below.
Yet when we point out outright lies and omissions in your webpages,
nothing changes.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>FYI----
>
>Just about anything anybody could ever want to know about "Oswald's
> Rifle Purchase" and "The Money Order" is contained in my two links
> below.
Yet when we point out outright lies and omissions in your webpages,
nothing changes.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 30, 2021, 12:08:52 PM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:30:27 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
> >>>>> Au contraire mon frere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> www.gil-jesus.com
> >>>> You said this about two hours ago:
> >>>>
> >>>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
> >>>
> >>>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
> >> This is the sort of subtle shifting of assertions that believers
> >> employ all the time. Huckster is masterful at it.
> >>
> >> It shows that he's incapable of debating without logical fallacies &
> >> lies.
> >>
> >> The two statements are *NOT* identical.
> >>
> >> And Huckster knows it.
> >
> >I would ask you to point out where the meanings are different but we both know you won’t do that.
> Who would I be pointing it out to?
To me. Duh.
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
> >>>>> Au contraire mon frere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> www.gil-jesus.com
> >>>> You said this about two hours ago:
> >>>>
> >>>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
> >>>
> >>>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
> >> This is the sort of subtle shifting of assertions that believers
> >> employ all the time. Huckster is masterful at it.
> >>
> >> It shows that he's incapable of debating without logical fallacies &
> >> lies.
> >>
> >> The two statements are *NOT* identical.
> >>
> >> And Huckster knows it.
> >
> >I would ask you to point out where the meanings are different but we both know you won’t do that.
> Who would I be pointing it out to?
>
> But, just to prove you a liar yet again, one statement speaks to the
> evidence,
— “today there's no evidence” —Gil
— “current state of the evifradulentdence” — me
> with the clear implication EVEN in the statement that the
> evidence was fraudulent, your dishonest re-write clearly makes Gil out
> to be a believer in the WCR - an impllication that doesn't exist in
> his original statement.
There’s no difference between the two statements.
So we have to accept how you *interpret* the two comments to find any discrepancy.
It’s not in the statements themselves, it’s in what you interpret the implications to be.
So now we can spend another 20 posts debating whether you get to reinterpret my post and Gil’s to insert a supposed implication and that way to find a discrepancy. Count me out. You’re just arguing to avoid discussing the evidence I cited.
>
> Now, were you an honest man, you'd feel the need to RETRACT what is
> now, clearly, a lie on your part.
Ben goes from what I said being the standard to his *interpretation* of what I said being the new standard. And because I disagree with his *interpretation*, I’m therefore dishonest, and therefore a liar.
One set of rules for Ben, a different set of rules for anyone disagreeing with Ben.
Remember, we can’t summarize Ben’s claims. We have to quote him precisely.
Ben gets to reinterpret anything we post to his liking to insist it’s a lie.
>
> But you won't... You're clearly too dishonest to do so.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 30, 2021, 12:15:10 PM11/30/21
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cmnSi0VCOcE/m/4frc_gWaBQAJ
== quote ==
FRINGE RESET.
Asked and answered here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pXBHoG_zO3o/m/m_uc3E1NBQAJ
You not only avoided responding to any of the points made and the evidence cited, you simply reposted your refuted claims anew.
No, that doesn’t work.
== unquote ==
Since then, both Gil and Ben have avoided the evidence posted like the plague.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 12:19:29 PM11/30/21
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:08:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
despite the fact that I did PRECISELY this.
Nor is this the first time that Huckster lied and claimed I wouldn't
do what I promptly did.
>> Who would I be pointing it out to?
>
>To me. Duh.
That's the point.
Whip out a "Hilarious" and claim you didn't get it.
>> But, just to prove you a liar yet again, one statement speaks to the
>> evidence,
LFD.
>> with the clear implication EVEN in the statement that the
>> evidence was fraudulent, your dishonest re-write clearly makes Gil out
>> to be a believer in the WCR - an impllication that doesn't exist in
>> his original statement.
LFD.
>> Now, were you an honest man, you'd feel the need to RETRACT what is
>> now, clearly, a lie on your part.
Notice that I did precisely what Huckster said I wouldn't, and he
couldn't retract what is now quite clearly a lie.
>> But you won't... You're clearly too dishonest to do so.
And this says all you need to know about Huckster and his "honesty."
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:30:27 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
>>>>>>> Au contraire mon frere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.gil-jesus.com
>>>>>> You said this about two hours ago:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
>>>>>
>>>>>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
>>>> This is the sort of subtle shifting of assertions that believers
>>>> employ all the time. Huckster is masterful at it.
>>>>
>>>> It shows that he's incapable of debating without logical fallacies &
>>>> lies.
>>>>
>>>> The two statements are *NOT* identical.
>>>>
>>>> And Huckster knows it.
>>>
>>> I would ask you to point out where the meanings are different but
>>> we both know you won’t do that.
Notice folks, that this blatant lie has not yet been retracted,
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:30:27 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:13:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:41:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:12:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:37:43 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.
>>>>>>> Au contraire mon frere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.gil-jesus.com
>>>>>> You said this about two hours ago:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “To answer your question, today there's no evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in those shootings…” — Gil Jesus
>>>>>
>>>>>“Even Gil recognizes the current state of the evidence indicates Oswald was the lone assassin.” — Hank Sienzant
>>>> This is the sort of subtle shifting of assertions that believers
>>>> employ all the time. Huckster is masterful at it.
>>>>
>>>> It shows that he's incapable of debating without logical fallacies &
>>>> lies.
>>>>
>>>> The two statements are *NOT* identical.
>>>>
>>>> And Huckster knows it.
>>>
>>> I would ask you to point out where the meanings are different but
>>> we both know you won’t do that.
despite the fact that I did PRECISELY this.
Nor is this the first time that Huckster lied and claimed I wouldn't
do what I promptly did.
>> Who would I be pointing it out to?
>
>To me. Duh.
Whip out a "Hilarious" and claim you didn't get it.
>> But, just to prove you a liar yet again, one statement speaks to the
>> evidence,
>> with the clear implication EVEN in the statement that the
>> evidence was fraudulent, your dishonest re-write clearly makes Gil out
>> to be a believer in the WCR - an impllication that doesn't exist in
>> his original statement.
>> Now, were you an honest man, you'd feel the need to RETRACT what is
>> now, clearly, a lie on your part.
couldn't retract what is now quite clearly a lie.
>> But you won't... You're clearly too dishonest to do so.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 12:21:21 PM11/30/21
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:15:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
No.
You're a liar.
You've **NEVER** addressed the above cited post.
And... I predict... never will.
PROVE ME WRONG, HUCKSTER SIENZANT!
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:14:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:35:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
>>>>>>> write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
>>>>>>> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
>>>>>> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee, that’s exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to you here:
>>>>
>>>> Gee, that's exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to
>>>> your outright lies here:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>>
>>>Change of subject logical fallacy.
>> Run coward... RUN!
>
>Here’s where I addressed...
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:14:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:54:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:35:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no illusions that I'm convincing dishonest people... I mainly
>>>>>>> write for the lurkers who are trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you can't even get a believer to acknowledge the PROVEN lies told
>>>>>>> by the WCR, you know you aren't dealing with honest people.
>>>>>> My experience having conversations with them is that they're not stupid, they just don't want to look at the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gee, that’s exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to you here:
>>>>
>>>> Gee, that's exactly the impression I got when I wrote my response to
>>>> your outright lies here:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>>
>>>Change of subject logical fallacy.
>> Run coward... RUN!
>
No.
You're a liar.
You've **NEVER** addressed the above cited post.
And... I predict... never will.
PROVE ME WRONG, HUCKSTER SIENZANT!
Gil Jesus
Nov 30, 2021, 1:34:15 PM11/30/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:51:51 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> The original thread was on the Education Forum...Gil hasn't covered some of the dirtiest stuff where the Money Order serial number came from stacks that were out of date with Oswald ordering it at the time he (allegedly) did...The processing stamp at the Money Order terminus was also out of sequence...
>
> There's a reason why Oswald was framed with a 40 inch Carcano when he clearly ordered a 36 inch Carbine...
Good Lord Almighty, Brian, could it be that we've finally found something that we can agree on ?
>
> There's a reason why Oswald was framed with a 40 inch Carcano when he clearly ordered a 36 inch Carbine...
Are you beginning to see the light ?
1. The shipping papers that don't show the serial number or the carton number.
2. The Money Order that wasn't paid on.
3. The deposit slip they tried to pass off as a March deposit but was from February.
4. The order form that shows a 36" rifle was shipped.
5. The difference in the sling mounts between the BY rifle and the Depository rifle.
6. The Feldsott affidavit saying that C2766 was sold in June of 1962.
7. The destruction of part 3 of the post office box application against regulations and the FBI investigation that showed that "A.Hidell" was NOT on that application.
8. The money order that was purchased and mailed when Oswald was at work.
It goes on and on. This is the "evidence" they had against Oswald.
Either what we have here is two rifles with the same serial numbers, or the documentation the FBI provided is fake.
The LNers can't have it both ways.
BTW, You're absolutely right about the sequence of the money order number. I forgot all about that.
It's all right here:
https://gil-jesus.com/?page_id=1333
Gil Jesus
Nov 30, 2021, 1:39:33 PM11/30/21
to
On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 3:21:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> How is what you said different than how I summarized it?
> What’s the difference between what you said and what I said you said?
Because I said there's no EVIDENCE. I didn't say he did it. You make it sound like I'm saying he's guilty. That's not what I'm saying. He wasn't convicted of any of those things so whether you like it or not, he's the accused, not the convicted.
The reason why there's no evidence is because they suppressed, omitted and ignored any evidence to the contrary.
And there was plenty of it.
Message has been deleted
Bruce
Nov 30, 2021, 2:01:04 PM11/30/21
to
> The Feldsott affidavit saying that C2766 was sold in June of 1962.
You're missing a crucial detail here...that affidavit says that it was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods then.
"3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963." 11 H 205
The money order (CE 788) is dated March 12, 1963. So the store had had it since June of the previous year. I fail to what this indicates.
Scrum Drum
Nov 30, 2021, 2:01:48 PM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 1:34:15 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:51:51 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> Good Lord Almighty, Brian, could it be that we've finally found something that we can agree on ?
> Are you beginning to see the light ?
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 9:51:51 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> Good Lord Almighty, Brian, could it be that we've finally found something that we can agree on ?
> Are you beginning to see the light ?
> BTW, You're absolutely right about the sequence of the money order number. I forgot all about that.
>
I am the best mind by far on Prayer Man and have proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...I'm "absolutely right" on that too...
>
The JFK internet research community has been hijacked by the Prayer Man people and their crony moderators...I have been basically intellectually assassinated by those assholes and my important discoveries are being ignored while they describe themselves as credible researchers...
Gil Jesus
Nov 30, 2021, 2:08:12 PM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> "3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963." 11 H 205
>
> The money order (CE 788) is dated March 12, 1963. So the store had had it since June of the previous year. I fail to what this indicates.
It means the money order is fake.
>
> "3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods, Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963." 11 H 205
>
> The money order (CE 788) is dated March 12, 1963. So the store had had it since June of the previous year. I fail to what this indicates.
Bruce
Nov 30, 2021, 2:10:03 PM11/30/21
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 30, 2021, 2:17:43 PM11/30/21
to
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:10:03 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> Let me get this straight, the fact that Klein's Sporting Goods had the item in stock in June of *1962* means the money order from March of *1963* is fake? That's incoherent.
I didn't mean the money order, I meant the shipping record. My error. The Warren Commission said C2766 was part of a February shipment from Crescent Firearms to Klein's. How can that be if it was sold in June, 1962 ?
> Let me get this straight, the fact that Klein's Sporting Goods had the item in stock in June of *1962* means the money order from March of *1963* is fake? That's incoherent.
The money order is fake because it was never paid on and it was never deposited.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 4:01:06 PM11/30/21
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:45:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> And this says all you need to know about Huckster and his "honesty."
>
>I'm still waiting for him to cite the chapter and verse where Linnie Mae Tandle said the the package she saw Oswald with that morning was 36 inches.
>
>I searched the Volumes and the Report. I can't find it.
It's always worthwhile to CONTINUE pointing out the lies of liars -
because you never know when some new lurker is going to start reading
the forum, and not be aware of the liars.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> And this says all you need to know about Huckster and his "honesty."
>
>
>I searched the Volumes and the Report. I can't find it.
It's always worthwhile to CONTINUE pointing out the lies of liars -
because you never know when some new lurker is going to start reading
the forum, and not be aware of the liars.
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 4:02:26 PM11/30/21
to
the original person Huckster lied about.
Bud
Nov 30, 2021, 5:47:52 PM11/30/21
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 30, 2021, 5:53:06 PM11/30/21
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:47:51 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:01:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:45:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> And this says all you need to know about Huckster and his "honesty."
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting for him to cite the chapter and verse where Linnie Mae Tandle said the the package she saw Oswald with that morning was 36 inches.
>>>
>>>I searched the Volumes and the Report. I can't find it.
>>
>> It's always worthwhile to CONTINUE pointing out the lies of liars -
>> because you never know when some new lurker is going to start reading
>> the forum, and not be aware of the liars.
LFD.
>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 4:01:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:45:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:19:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> And this says all you need to know about Huckster and his "honesty."
>>>
>>>I'm still waiting for him to cite the chapter and verse where Linnie Mae Tandle said the the package she saw Oswald with that morning was 36 inches.
>>>
>>>I searched the Volumes and the Report. I can't find it.
>>
>> It's always worthwhile to CONTINUE pointing out the lies of liars -
>> because you never know when some new lurker is going to start reading
>> the forum, and not be aware of the liars.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages