A Question for the Lone Nut trolls

[Gil Jesus]

( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )

Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg

What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Nutters don't make assertions. The Lord their Warren Commission makes all of their assertions for them.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

What about this, huh, huh, huh?

Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder. The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles. Having a manifesto is a huge red flag. Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.

But I don`t suppose it is very common to find evidence inside a person`s home implicating them when they commit murder (maybe DNA which wasn`t available in the sixties). But lets face it, Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.

[Bud]

Conspiracy idiots always believe what they are comfortable believing, truth be damned.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Moron Bud thinks that a moron like Bud knows the One True Truth and that his intellectual superiors don't have a clue.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.

Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
ROFLMAO

>The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.

How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
Did that make them all murderers ?

> Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.

And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?

> Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.

There's a lot you don't know.

> Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.

Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.

I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
You've never risen to such a height.

The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
or the Walker shooting.

No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
No shooting medal makes you a killer.
Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.

This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.

And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Nothing that directly implicates him. The evidence that implicates him was mostly at the TSBD.
The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which
matched the fibers in the rifle bag. Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the
one that took the backyard photos. Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which
could have been established by the paper trail alone. Mostly it's a list of nothing burgers.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:12:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
> Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
> So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
> ROFLMAO

This is an example of your piss poor reasoning abilities. Why do you think that list of items by
itself needs to prove Oswald's guilt. Why do you assclowns always look at the evidence in
isolation and ignore all the other evidence. Most of the damning evidence was found at the
TSBD. All of Oswald's possession taken from the Paine house are ancillary and don't amount to
squat. A few can be tied indirectly to the assassination.

> >The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
> How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
> Did that make them all murderers ?

No, just the ones whose rifle and fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. How many
would that be?

> > Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
> And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
> > Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
> There's a lot you don't know.
> > Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
> Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
> As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
> I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.

When has that ever happened. The only ones who looks like a fool are the ones who make
foolish arguments like yours.

>
> I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
> You've never risen to such a height.
>
> The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
> the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
> or the Walker shooting.

None was needed. All the damning evidence was either at the scene of the crime or in Oswald's
possession when arrested.

>
> No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
> No shooting medal makes you a killer.
> Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
>
> This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
>
> And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.

The fool is the one who thinks there needed to be damning evidence among Oswald's possessions.

[John Corbett]

OK, Gil, Now that I've answered your questions, let's see you answer mine What evidence was
taken from Ruby's apartment that implicate him in the murder of Oswald? Does the lack of such
incriminating evidence exonerate him in the murder of Oswald?

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.

You've told three lies in this one post.

The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:

MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )

No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.

> Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.

That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.

MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.

> Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.

That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.

Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )

That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.

Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?

SMH

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:12:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
> Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
> So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?

Non sequitur.

> ROFLMAO

Look at those goalpost move. Does anything found implicate (to bring into intimate or incriminating connection) Oswald. Yes. Does anything found give insight into what happened? Yes.

Is a conspiracy hobbyist ignoring those implications? Yes.

This is why stumps are rarely tapped to conduct investigations, this is a gold mine for a real criminal investigator, to Gil it is just a bunch of stuff with no bearing on anything.

> >The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
> How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?

Non sequitur.

Try to speak to the point made.

> Did that make them all murderers ?

It become relevant when a person trained to shoot rifles is implicated in a rifle murder. If a murder victim had their neck snapped, and a suspect had martial arts training, it would be relevant, regardless of how many other people have such training.

You want to play the silly conspiracy hobbyist game and isolate each bit of information while ignoring the cumulative effect.

> > Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
> And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?

What does it say about Oswald, the man?

> > Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
> There's a lot you don't know.

I don`t share your mental illness.

> > Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
> Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.

Yet you are just such a stump.

> As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
> I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.

Statement like this only show how out of touch with reality you really are.

> I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
> You've never risen to such a height.
>
> The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
> the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
> or the Walker shooting.

If that is your conclusion why are you bothering other people? Can we make you smarter?

> No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.

Being a stump, it gives you no insight.

> No shooting medal makes you a killer.

Being a stump, it gives you no insight.

> Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.

Who did he talk to? Who did he confide in?

> This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.

You want to ignore all information that gives insight into this event so you can make pretend Oswald is innocent. You want to apply no sound reasoning to the information because that would do harm tyo your silly games.

> And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.

Your truth. But you have deluded yourself about many things.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?

The "miscellaneous photographs" in the list include the photos later determined to have been taken in early March of 1963 of General Walker's home and the surrounding area, did it not? Due to construction work in the background, the photos were determined to have been taken on March 9th or 10th. Oswald purchased the money order used to pay for his rifle on March 12th.

Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:12:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.

If you don't value the opinion, why seek them?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Instead of making a positive assertion, Lying and Cowardly Weasel Hank asks Gil to prove a negative. Eurassys Dragon Sienzant.

What is a negative fallacy?
Formal Fallacy. Definition. Example. When it is claimed or implied that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true, or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.

Of course, Hank is too cowardly even to make the above claim.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this who claim that all of these powerful groups with near unlimited resources were behind the assassination and then turn around and say the evidence is thin, weak, spotty at best. If these groups were behind it all why not have people say Oswald said he hated JFK? Why not have a dozen fingerprints on the rifle? Why not have the cheek paraffin test be positive? Why not have six, eight, ten people in the Dealey Plaza stating, "I saw Oswald shoot from that window?" You can't say "A" - they faked the films and wounds and intimidated witnesses - and then say "B" - there's no evidence. But they do anyway.
To put a bow on this one: the same people who demand "A" and "B" and "C" in the JFK shooting ignore "A" and "B" and "C" in the Tippit shooting. They want direct witnesses in the shooting of JFK. Well, there are direct witnesses in the Tippit shooting and they still reject it. A good litmus test is the Tippit murder: if a conspiracist rejects all of the evidence in this shooting they sure as hell aren't going to accept the evidence in the JFK murder.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >
> > > What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
> > The "miscellaneous photographs" in the list include the photos later determined to have been taken in early March of 1963 of General Walker's home and the surrounding area, did it not? Due to construction work in the background, the photos were determined to have been taken on March 9th or 10th. Oswald purchased the money order used to pay for his rifle on March 12th.
> >
> > Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
> Instead of making a positive assertion, Lying and Cowardly Weasel Hank asks Gil to prove a negative.

Because Gil doesn't value my opinion. He said as much. So what would be the point of making a positive assertion?
Instead, I asked Gil to share his thoughts on what the photographs indicated to him in relation to his asking for "... items on these lists [that] implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in ... the shooting at the home of General Walker".



> Eurassys Dragon Sienzant.

Whatever that means.

>
> What is a negative fallacy?
> Formal Fallacy. Definition. Example. When it is claimed or implied that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true, or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
>
> Of course, Hank is too cowardly even to make the above claim.

Hilarious!

You make the charge I was cowardly to ask Gil to prove a negative, then by the end of the same post claim I was too cowardly to even make that claim.

So you therefore (ignoring the ad hominem) establish I didn't commit the logical fallacy you accused me of?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:54:06 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Everybody can see that you are a cowardly lying weasel. But do continue to embarrass yourself. The Lurker may enjoy such displays.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:53:43 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this who claim that all of these powerful groups with near unlimited resources were behind the assassination and then turn around and say the evidence is thin,
> weak, spotty at best. If these groups were behind it all why not have people say Oswald said he hated JFK? Why not have a dozen fingerprints on the rifle? Why not have the cheek paraffin test be positive? Why not
> have six, eight, ten people in the Dealey Plaza stating, "I saw Oswald shoot from that window?" You can't say "A" - they faked the films and wounds and intimidated witnesses - and then say "B" - there's no evidence.
> But they do anyway.
> To put a bow on this one: the same people who demand "A" and "B" and "C" in the JFK shooting ignore "A" and "B" and "C" in the Tippit shooting. They want direct witnesses in the shooting of JFK. Well, there are
> direct witnesses in the Tippit shooting and they still reject it. A good litmus test is the Tippit murder: if a conspiracist rejects all of the evidence in this shooting they sure as hell aren't going to accept the evidence in > the JFK murder.

Powerful groups with unlimited resources doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes putting the "case" together.
I notice you didn't answer the original question, "professor".
Now you're trying to change the subject to the Tippit murder.
ROFLMAO

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:27:48 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< bullshit deleted >

I'm asking you what specifically on that list ties Oswald to the three shootings.
Am I understanding you correctly that your answer is "miscellaneous photographs" ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 03:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Conspiracy idiots always believe what they are comfortable believing, truth be damned.

It's the truth that you're a coward:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Ok, I`ll play.

No, you won't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:53:42 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Always fascinating listening to conspiracists like this ...

That's okay... I always enjoy laughing at cowards...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:37:03 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:12:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
>> Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
>> So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
>> ROFLMAO
>
>This is an example of your piss poor reasoning abilities.

And this is an example of how you constantly rely on logical
fallacies, rather than the evidence.

>Why do you think that list of items by itself needs to prove Oswald's guilt.

Molesting your own mother now? I didn't see anywhere where Gil said
this...

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> >The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
>> How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
>> Did that make them all murderers ?
>
>No, just the ones whose rifle and fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. How many
>would that be?

Another begging the question fallacy... No need to answer.

>> > Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
>> And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?

Cowards run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

>> > Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
>> There's a lot you don't know.
>> > Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
>> Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
>> As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
>> I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
>
>When has that ever happened.

Just about daily.

>> I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
>> You've never risen to such a height.
>>
>> The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
>> the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
>> or the Walker shooting.
>
>None was needed.

This is, perhaps, the most revealing statement ever made by a believer

>> No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
>> No shooting medal makes you a killer.
>> Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
>>
>> This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
>>
>> And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
>
>The fool is the one who thinks there needed to be damning evidence among Oswald's possessions.

More fool then is the person who simply invents statements to whine
about.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:29:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> ( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
>>
>> Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
>>
>> What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
>
>Nothing that directly implicates him.

End of answer.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:41:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> ( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
>>
>> Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
>>
>> What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
>
>OK, Gil, Now that I've answered your questions

Nah... you simply lied.


> let's see you answer mine ...


You're simply a coward... perhaps Gil will ask some of my questions
just to watch you run away...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
>
>Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
>So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
>ROFLMAO

He's also been completely unable to show any "political nature" of the
crime. It's mere speculation based on the victim.

>>The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
>
>How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
>Did that make them all murderers ?

Nor was he a sharpshooter at the time of the crime - he wasn't even a
marksman.

>> Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
>
>And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?

You can't have reasonable debate with dishonest people.

>> Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
>
>There's a lot you don't know.

Indeed!

>> Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
>
>Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
>As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
>I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
>
>I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
>You've never risen to such a height.
>
>The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
>the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
>or the Walker shooting.
>
>No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
>No shooting medal makes you a killer.
>Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
>
>This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
>
>And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.

And, of course, Chickenshit doesn't believe the proof Bugliosi
uncovered showing that RFK was a conspiracy.

Ironic, as he's currently running from what Bugliosi stated...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Gil Jesus]

I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?

That's bullshit.

Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.

After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?

In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif

And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif

Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg

Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
> You've told three lies in this one post.
>
> The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
>
> MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
> MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
>
> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.

Did we not cover this six months ago in detail? Yeah, we did:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SkkX2zeieyo/m/elQMpGQvCAAJ
-- quote --
> ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
>
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
> opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )

He didn't conclude the fibers came from the blanket, but he did say, the fibers in the bag matched the blanket fibers, which is what John Corbett wrote: "the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag."

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

What John said was the absolute truth, the fibers from the bag matched in all observable characteristics the fibers from the blanket. It's not a lie, your claim that it's a lie is false.

> > Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
> That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.

Shaneyfelt is the photo expert. You are not. He concluded CE 133A and CE133B were taken with the same camera
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(356) Although he could not document absolutely the origin of CE 133-A because its negative was not available, Shaneyfelt concluded that both prints were taken with the same camera since they showed virtually identical background and lighting conditions. (139)
-- UNQUOTE --

And what about the negative of 133-B? Is it unclear to you that all three photos are taken of the same person in the same clothes on the same day in the same location (the Neely Street side yard)? Shaneyfelt concluded 133A & B were taken by the same camera because

Here's Shaneyfelt's conclusions about CE 133B (of which CE 749 is the negative) :
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 2
Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the
On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)
...
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.

Ergo, 133A was likewise taken with Oswald's camera.

Further, the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel determined 133A and 133B were taken with the same camera due to scratch marks on the emulsion that could be seen in first generation prints:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print, although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier were necessary to detect all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK exhibit F-397.) (168)

(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis . Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints' white borders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph . (See figs . IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)

(395) This analysis established that the Oswald backyard pictures had been exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera .
-- UNQUOTE --

But wait, there's more!
The DeMohrenschildt CE 133A bears Oswald's signature. This establishes that CE 133 was in Oswald's possession. That helps to link it to the Imperial Reflex camera. As the HSCA pointed out:
(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192) Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be the assassination weapon), and newspapers .

> > Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
> That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
>
> Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
>
> That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.

Let's start at the top. Oswald is known to have ordered one rifle, and one rifle only? The one shipped from Kleins bearing the serial number C2766? If that's all we knew, a reasonable person would conclude he's holding the same CE 139 rifle, wouldn't they?

But didn't Shaneyfelt say there were also no dissimilarities?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences.

So at the very least, a reasonable person have to conclude it was, if not the same weapon, the same make and model of the weapon Oswald ordered? And therefore the conclusion that it's the same C2766 weapon that is known to have been shipped to his PO Box would be a entirely reasonable one to reach?

And members of the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel went further 15 years later, and concluded using more sophisticated techniques it WAS Oswald's C2766 weapon, right?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk3.htm
-- QUOTE --
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Thank you.
Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir.
Mr. FITHiAN. Why don't you?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern.
Mr. FITHiAN. As a what?
Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock.
It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions.
Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 134, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even better illustrates this damage.
I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
-- UNQUOTE --

>
> Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?

They are not lies.

Your claims of lies are falsehoods.


>
> SMH

[Hank Sienzant]

Of the Walker house and environs. I said that. Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:

Oh the irony!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
> > description of the *location* of the large head wound.
> >
> > Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
> > paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
> >
> > You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
> >
> > Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
> >
> > Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
> I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
>
> That's bullshit.

In your opinion. But the photos are admissible as evidence as I've cited in the past.

>
> Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.

We really don't care what you think should have been done. That's the "If I ran the zoo" logical fallacy. "They should have done this, they should have done that."

It's also called the personal incredulity logical fallacy.

You can't understand how it was done that way, therefore it wasn't.

>
> After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?

No, they are lumped into miscellaneous photographs.

As I pointed out. I am still seeking your opinion on these photos

The "miscellaneous photographs" in the list include the photos later determined to have been taken in early March of 1963 of General Walker's home and the surrounding area, did it not? Due to construction work in the background, the photos were determined to have been taken on March 9th or 10th. Oswald purchased the money order used to pay for his rifle on March 12th.

Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Don't try to change the subject to other stuff, like you do below. That's a red herring logical fallacy.

You brought up this topic ("What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker?"). Don't run from it now.

>
> In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
> Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
>
> And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
>
> Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
>
> Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?

You're changing the subject. We see right through your arguments.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

I'm not letting you change the subject.
We're talking about the evidence list.
You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>
> I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two
> separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and
> negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons,
> including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those
> photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
>
>That's bullshit.

I don't think anyone has stated that believers have any common sense.

>Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
>
>After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
>
>In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
>Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
>
>And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
>
>Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
>
>Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?

Because they were created by the FBI, who sent back more evidence than
they recieved from the DPD.

No-one has ever claimed that Huckster's smart...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

As merely an average person, I have a problem with it. This is why
our jury system works.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:03:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:02:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 08:49:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:
> Oh the irony!!!

Why do you keep employing the same logical fallacy of changing the subject?
Gil's topic is the original police evidence list of the items taken from the Paine residence and what links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit, and the attempted murder of Walker. I'm responding to that point. You keep avoiding that point.

Irony, indeed.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
> I'm not letting you change the subject.

I didn't. You asked about the evidence list.

> We're talking about the evidence list.

Yes, and the backyard photos are part of that evidence.

> You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
> As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.

Yes, that's still the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Nobody cares what background you claim to have.

You asked, I answered. You then tell us your opinion didn't change, but we didn't expect it to, did we?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Why are you stalling and avoiding my point:

Oh the irony!!!

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:04:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 03:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I`ll play.
>
> No, you won't.

Yet I did.

[Hank Sienzant]

You are hardly an average person when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. You are a hard core conspiracy believer, arguing for, among other things, JFK's body being altered to conceal evidence of shots from the front.

I don't think you could serve on a jury to judge Oswald's guilt or innocence. You would be excluded for cause, having made up your mind already.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:15:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:18:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Huckster again shows his inability to reason... Here he demonstrates
his cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 04:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:39:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> Ok, I`ll play. The political literature implicates Oswald due to the political nature of the murder.
> >
> >Boy, are you reaching. Your argument is weak, as usual.
> >So you're going to send a man to the electric chair over some magazines and pamphlets ?
> >ROFLMAO
> He's also been completely unable to show any "political nature" of the
> crime. It's mere speculation based on the victim.

<snicker> This political figure, the leader of the free world, is murdered and Ben doesn`t see it as a politically motivated occurrence. Perhaps a jealous husband.

And of course this is hypocritical, because the conspiracy hobbyists (and Gil is one of the worst offenders) are always speculating that Kennedy was killed by certain groups because of political action he had taken or was going to take.

> >>The sharpshooter medal shows he had training, and gained some prowess in shooting rifles.
> >
> >How many men qualified as sharpshooters in the Marine Corps ?
> >Did that make them all murderers ?
> Nor was he a sharpshooter at the time of the crime - he wasn't even a
> marksman.

Meaningless empty claim.

> >> Having a manifesto is a huge red flag.
> >
> >And what did that manifesto say about Kennedy ?
> You can't have reasonable debate with dishonest people.

Startling confession. Is that why you removed my reply?

> >> Don`t know what cameras and/or film/slides there are significant.
> >
> >There's a lot you don't know.
> Indeed!

Again the person who claims to be honest removed my reply. Many of my replies. He is a dishonest intellectual coward.

> >> Sirhan Sirhan wrote "R.F.K must die - RFK must be killed Robert F Kennedy must be assassinated" in his diary and stumps like yourself still can`t figure that murder out.
> >
> >Irrelevent. I've never done any research on the RFK assassination.
> >As I've said before, your insults only affect me if I value your opinion, which I don't.
> >I DO enjoy coming in here and making a fool out of you trolls time and time again.
> >
> >I'd say that the only stump here is you but in order to become a stump, you would have had to have been a tree at one time.
> >You've never risen to such a height.
> >
> >The truth of the matter is that in spite of their two searches of the Paine residence on Friday and Saturday,
> >the evidence lists compiled by police show no evidence directly linking Oswald to the assassination, the murder of Tippit
> >or the Walker shooting.
> >
> >No magazine or pamphlet makes you a killer.
> >No shooting medal makes you a killer.
> >Oswald never made threats to Kennedy.
> >
> >This is all Bud bullshit as he grasps for straws.
> >
> >And no matter how much he tries to side step it, that's the truth.
> And, of course, Chickenshit doesn't believe the proof Bugliosi
> uncovered showing that RFK was a conspiracy.

Look, Ben almost made an argument like an adult. Almost.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
> > description of the *location* of the large head wound.
> >
> > Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
> > paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
> >
> > You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
> >
> > Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
> >
> > Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
> I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
>
> That's bullshit.
>
> Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.

What a stump. Gil thinks they should have picked up those photos and said "Hey, I know this, this is Walker`s house!"

And he also assumes that the list needs to be in order of significance, based on nothing but his idiotic assumption.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
> >
> > I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
> I'm not letting you change the subject.

The things found in the search are the subject, stupid.

> We're talking about the evidence list.

Which is a list of things found. But you disallow any discussion on the things found. But of course you are a hypocrite who has already commented on some of the things found. In fact you are bringing up things that were said to be found but not on the list.

> You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.

You haven`t shown the list is in order of significance.

> As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.

You`re a stump. You have problems thinking.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:39:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit can't tell the difference between a house and a rifle!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:36:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Bud]

Ben is only here to troll the discussion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
> You've told three lies in this one post.
>
> The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
>
> MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
> MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
>
> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.

> > Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>
> MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
> That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.

> > Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
> That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
>
> Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
>
> That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
>

> Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
>

You are the one telling three lies. These items all matched. It is true the positive match isn't 100%
conclusive, but that doesn't mean it isn't probative. If these items didn't match, then they could
have been excluded. If the fibers from the bag didn't match the blanket, then the blanket could
have been excluded as the source, but that isn't the case. Had the imperial reflex camera not
been a match to the negative, it could have been excluded as the camera which took the
backyard photos, but that isn't the case. Had the rifle in the photo not matched the rifle found
in the TSBD, those photos could have been excluded as evidence Oswald owned the rifle, but that
is not that case. You have this silly idea that any one piece of evidence by itself must be 100%
conclusive or it has no probative value. You are an idiot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 09:47:58 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
>> You've told three lies in this one post.
>>
>> The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
>>
>> MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
>> MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )
>>
>> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
>>> Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
>> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>>
>> MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
>> That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
>>> Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
>> That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
>>
>> Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
>>
>> That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
>>
>> Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
>>

>You are the one telling three lies...

The rest of your logical fallacy deleted.

[Steven Galbraith]

Remember that the claim is they faked three - not one but *three* - photos. Plus a negative (they don't like to talk about this). So that's four fakes. Yes, let's quadruple our chances of being discovered by manufacturing *four* pieces of fake evidence because just making one photo isn't enough. Everyone signed on to this idea.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:46:06 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
> > description of the *location* of the large head wound.
> >
> > Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
> > paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
> >
> > You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
> >
> > Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
> >
> > Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

> I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
>
> That's bullshit.
>
> Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
>

> After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?

Here's where Gil reveals he is too stupid for this hobby. The list is nothing more than an
inventory of the items taken from the Paine house. No attempt was made to identify which items
were significant an which were not. That would be done later by the investigators who went
through the evidence and determined what was significant and what was not. That is pretty
much true of the entire 26 volumes of exhibits and testimony. Not everything in those 26 volumes
was probative. Those volumes were nothing more than a documentation of everything that was
gathered during the course of the investigation. It was left to the WC and its investigators to
determine which items were probative and which items were not.x

>
> In fact, there are items the Dallas Police claimed they found during this search that are not on the evidence list.
> Like the blank Selective Service cards, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it."
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/blank-ss-cards.gif
>
> And the, "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon."
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/kleins-ad-found.gif
>
> Neither of these items, as significant as they would seem, were listed by police among the items found during the Saturday search.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WH_Vol21_598-stovall-b.jpg
>
> Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the Saturday evidence list ?

Why do you assume all these items were made during the same sweep?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

You can't even spell "criminal justice" as you just demonstrated. You're a professional asshole, and damn good at it I might add. It's clearly your area of expertise. What would possess you to
think the police gave the same significance to the backyard photos that they did to Junie's baby
pictures. At what point were the baby pictures presented as evidence by any law enforcement
agency?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:41:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > ( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
> >
> > Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
> >
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
> >
> > What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
> OK, Gil, Now that I've answered your questions, let's see you answer mine What evidence was
> taken from Ruby's apartment that implicate him in the murder of Oswald? Does the lack of such
> incriminating evidence exonerate him in the murder of Oswald?

Did you miss this question, Gil? You're implication in your original question seems to indicate
that Oswald's possession taken from the Paine residence must be probative of Oswald's guilt or
it somehow exonerates him. It seems a fair enough question to apply your same thought process
to any items taken from Ruby's apartment.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:07:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Remember that the claim is they faked three - not one but *three* -
> photos.

That you find this incredible simply shows what a moron you are. The
fact that the background is virtually IDENTICAL in all photos is the
evidence you don't want to address.

And never will.

Cowards run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:30:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Did you miss this question, Gil?

Oh the irony!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:04:47?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:49:46?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> Please explain how Oswald's surveilling and photographing the Walker home about the time the rifle was ordered by Oswald could possibly be unrelated to the murder attempt on Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963.
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
>> I'm not letting you change the subject.
>> We're talking about the evidence list.
>> You have no problem with the police giving the backyard photographs the same significance as Junie's baby pictures.
>> As a criminal jusitce professional, I have a problem with it.

Logical fallacies laughed at, then deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:19:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:46:06?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:05:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 06:28:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>>
>>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>>
>>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>>
>>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>>
>>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>> I believe Hank expects us to believe that you have a suspect for two separate homicides under arrest and you find two photographs and negatives of him with what appears to be the alleged murder weapons, including the rifle he claimed he never owned, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous photographs" ?
>>
>> That's bullshit.
>>
>> Those photographs should have been the first item noted on the list, not lumped in with Junie's baby pictures.
>>
>> After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail ?
>

>Here's where...


The moron starts with his logical fallacies. He can't address the
topic.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
> > Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>

My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths. I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera
was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement. Gil
tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth. The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is
that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative,
CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.

[quote on]
Mr. EISENBERG. How would you characterize this camera in terms of expense, Mr. Shaneyfelt?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is a relatively inexpensive camera. It is what we refer to as a fixed-focus box-type camera. A simple box-type camera with a simple one-shutter speed and no focusing ability, fixed focus.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know where the camera was made?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was made in the United States At the base of the camera it has the name Imperial Reflex, made in U.S.A., on the front, below the lens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.
[quote off]

So as anyone can see, it is the negative, not the photos themselves that were matched to
Oswald's camera to the exclusion of all others. Gil leaves this part out in order to push the lie
that Oswald's camera could not be matched to the photos. It was matched to the negative and
the negative was shown to have produced one of the photos. The photos were all similar in
nature and Marina testified to having taken those photos. These are all key elements that Gil
leaves out of his big lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 10:51:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
>>> Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
>> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>>

>My earlier post pointed out ...

A logical fallacy.

Morons are unable to argue based on evidence. They NEED logical
fallacies to make themselves feel good.

[Steven Galbraith]

As I mentioned above, they don't like to talk about the negative. How do you manufacture a fake/composite negative? That is fool proof?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>As I mentioned above, they don't like to talk about the negative.

Says the coward who doesn't like to talk to knowledgeable critics who
make him look the fool.

[Bud]

Ben the Troll makes noise but never actually says anything.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Gil is likely done in this post. His pattern is to say things, when the things he says are exposed or examined, he disappears. Later he will bring them up again as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.

[Steven Galbraith]

He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument. That's the conspiracy "Get Out of Jail Free" card for all of this evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:40:35 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Gil is likely done in this post. His pattern is to say things, when the things he says are exposed or examined, he disappears. Later he will bring them up again as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.

Says the guy who thinks the gunsack was 41 inches.
Another winner.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:55:10 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument. That's the conspiracy "Get Out of Jail Free" card for all of this evidence.

Professor Numbnut can't seem to let go of the fact that all of the major pieces of evidence against Oswald in this case
have never been authenticated by the persons who found them.

This includes:

The rifle
The 3 shells found on the 6th floor
The 4 Tippit shells
Oswald's jacket
CE 399

He seems to have a real problem getting past this.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
> dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.

> I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.

No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.

>Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.

No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif

> The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.

CE 750 is the camera, not the negative.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You don't know the evidence.

You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
That was matched to the camera.
It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.

You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.

Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
And you saying it was is a lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:40:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>He can still pull out his "Chain of custody was broken!!" argument.

Did the facts change???

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:02:52 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Simply a lack of honesty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:25:55 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
>> dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
>
>> I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
>
>No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.

Also need to point out that it's begging the question to identify the
camera as Oswald's.

>>Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
>
>No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif

Believers just HATE the testimony!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus

<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>> My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
>> dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
>
>> I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
>

>No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.

Where's the evidence that connects Oswald to this camera?

Where's the chain of custody for this camera?

>>Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match
>> photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
>

>No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
>

>> The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
>

>That negative, CE 750 is the negative from which CE 133-B was made.

[Bud]

Why do you raise issues you have already fled from?

> Another winner.

[John Corbett]

Yes, I conflated CE749 and CE750. It doesn't change the fact that the negative was positively
matched to the camera to the exclusion of all other cameras. CE749 was the negative that
produced CE133-B. CE133-A and CE133-B show pretty much the same thing. It's pretty silly to
argue one is genuine and one is a fake. Why would somebody bother producing a fake photo
that shows the same thing a genuine photo shows? If you had the ability to reason, you would have
asked yourself that question and realized it makes no sense that somebody would do that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:25:57?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:51:22?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> My earlier post pointed out Gil's poor reasoning skills or lack thereof. Now I will point out Gil's
>>> dishonesty. Like most liars, Gil tells half truths.
>>
>>> I stated that Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos. That is a true statement.
>> No, that's a lie. Shaneyfelt could not positively identify the Imperial Reflex camera as having taken CE 133-A, which is part of the "backyard photographs" that you claim the camera took.
>> >Gil tried to refute that by pointing to Shaneyfelt's statement about being unable to positively match photo 133-A to Oswald's camera. That is the half truth.
>> No, that's his testimony as you can see here:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/shaneyfelt-cant-id-camera-ce133a.gif
>> > The full truth, which liar Gil left out, is that Shaneyfelt was able to positively match Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the negative, CE 750, to the exclusion of all other cameras.
>> CE 750 is the camera, not the negative.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275b.htm
>> This shows you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>> You don't know the evidence.
>>
>> You're talking about the negative from which CE 133-B was made. Thats was CE 749.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0275a.htm
>> That was matched to the camera.
>> It has nothing to do with CE 133-A.
>>
>> You admit saying, "Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took the backyard photos".
>> That's not true. The camera was NOT connected to BOTH photos.
>>
>> Oswald's Imperial reflex camera was shown to have been the one that took CE 133-B, not both pictures.
>> No one ever testified ( and there is no evidence ) that the Imperial Reflex camera took the photo CE 133-A allegedly found by the Dallas Police in the Paine garage.
>> And you saying it was is a lie.
>

>Yes, I conflated CE749 and CE750. It doesn't change the fact...


ROTFLMAO!!!

Only a believer can say this...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:34:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

Only a troll would think it significant. His point remained, but Gil used the error to dodge the point.

[Bud]

Your empty claims never do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
> You've told three lies in this one post.
>
> The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
>
> MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
> MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )

>
> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.
> > Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>

> MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
> That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.
> > Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
> That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
>
> Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
>
> That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.
>
> Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?
>
> SMH

Yoo Hoo, Gil!

Why did you avoid this post (linked and copied below)

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fn03q13tfeE/m/PXF6sA6dAwAJ

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:09:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 7:29:07 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag.
> You've told three lies in this one post.
>
> The FBI never said the fibers in the bag matched the fibers from the blanket:
>
> MR EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
> MR STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those ( 4 H 88 )

>
> No opinion means no match. Lie # 1 debunked.

Did we not cover this six months ago in detail? Yeah, we did:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SkkX2zeieyo/m/elQMpGQvCAAJ
-- quote --
> ON THE BLANKET FIBERS FOUND IN THE BAG:
>
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an
> opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )

He didn't conclude the fibers came from the blanket, but he did say, the fibers in the bag matched the blanket fibers, which is what John Corbett wrote: "the rifle blanket which matched the fibers in the rifle bag."

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

What John said was the absolute truth, the fibers from the bag matched in all observable characteristics the fibers from the blanket. It's not a lie, your claim that it's a lie is false.

> > Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the one that took the backyard photos.
> That's lie # 2. The FBI could not determine that CE 133-A was taken by the Imperial Reflex camera.
>

> MR. SHANEYFELT. "........in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph was made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133-A does not show that shadowgraph area. Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible." ( 4 H 289 )
> That means no match. Lie # 2 debunked.

Shaneyfelt is the photo expert. You are not. He concluded CE 133A and CE133B were taken with the same camera
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(356) Although he could not document absolutely the origin of CE 133-A because its negative was not available, Shaneyfelt concluded that both prints were taken with the same camera since they showed virtually identical background and lighting conditions. (139)
-- UNQUOTE --

And what about the negative of 133-B? Is it unclear to you that all three photos are taken of the same person in the same clothes on the same day in the same location (the Neely Street side yard)? Shaneyfelt concluded 133A & B were taken by the same camera because

Here's Shaneyfelt's conclusions about CE 133B (of which CE 749 is the negative) :
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you an Imperial Reflex Duo Lens camera. Let me state for the record, that this camera was turned over to the FBI by Robert Oswald, the brother of Lee Harvey Oswald, on February 2
Robert Oswald identified the camera as having belonged to Lee Oswald and stated that he, Robert, had obtained it from the Paine residence in December 1963, several weeks after the
On February 25, 1964, Marina was given the camera and she identified it as the one which she had used to take the pictures 133A and 133B.
Mr. Shaneyfelt, are you familiar with this camera?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 750?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 750 was marked and received in evidence.)
...

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you compare the negative, Exhibit 749, with the camera, Exhibit 750, to determine whether the negative had been taken in that camera to the exclusion of all other cameras?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What conclusion did you come to?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I reached the conclusion that the negative, which is Commission Exhibit 749, was exposed in the camera, Commission Exhibit 750, and no other camera.

Ergo, 133A was likewise taken with Oswald's camera.

Further, the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel determined 133A and 133B were taken with the same camera due to scratch marks on the emulsion that could be seen in first generation prints:
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4B1_Backyard.pdf
-- QUOTE --
(393) Because only the 133-B negative (CE-749) and the uncropped 133--A de Mohrenschildt print contained a full image area showing the frame edge markings, only these were compared for frame edge markings with the test photograph. In the case of the 133-B negative, 11 unique identifying frame edge marks were found which corresponded with the test photography. (See fig. IV-28, JFK exhibit F-188.) These identifiers were also present in the 133-A de Mohrenschildt print, although the panel notes that in this case, a light box and magnifier were necessary to detect all of the marks. (See fig. IV-29, JFK exhibit F-397.) (168)

(394) These results were confirmed by the panel's scratch-mark analysis . Here, all the backyard picture materials could be reviewed because the scratch marks that were the subject of the analysis had not been cropped out by any of the prints' white borders. The analysis clearly indicated that the scratch marks were located in precisely the same location in each photograph . (See figs . IV-26, 28, and 29.) (169)

(395) This analysis established that the Oswald backyard pictures had been exposed in Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera .
-- UNQUOTE --

But wait, there's more!
The DeMohrenschildt CE 133A bears Oswald's signature. This establishes that CE 133 was in Oswald's possession. That helps to link it to the Imperial Reflex camera. As the HSCA pointed out:
(437) Beyond the evidence produced by the use of the various photographic analyses, which did not detect any evidence of fakery in the backyard pictures, several practical considerations reinforce these conclusions. For example, the FBI established that the newspapers that appear in the photographs did not reach Oswald until March 27, or 28, 1963, and the committee determined that by April 5, 1963, Oswald had already autographed the back of one of the pictures (133A-DeM). (192) Aside from the obvious question of whether Oswald would place his signature on a fake picture, for the photograph to have been faked would have required access, within just a 10-day period, to Oswald's backyard, his camera, rifle (knowing that this would be the assassination weapon), and newspapers .


> > Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which could have been established by the paper trail alone.
> That's lie # 3. The FBI could not positively identify the rifle in CE 133-A as the CE 139 rifle.
>
> Shaneyfelt testified that when he compared the rifle in the photographs to the CE 139 rifle, he did not find any really specific peculiarities, "on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other weapons of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) And while he found a notch in the stock that appeared faintly in the photograph, it was "not sufficient to warrant positive identification" ( ibid. )
>
> That means no match. Lie # 3 debunked.

Let's start at the top. Oswald is known to have ordered one rifle, and one rifle only? The one shipped from Kleins bearing the serial number C2766? If that's all we knew, a reasonable person would conclude he's holding the same CE 139 rifle, wouldn't they?

But didn't Shaneyfelt say there were also no dissimilarities?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences.

So at the very least, a reasonable person have to conclude it was, if not the same weapon, the same make and model of the weapon Oswald ordered? And therefore the conclusion that it's the same C2766 weapon that is known to have been shipped to his PO Box would be a entirely reasonable one to reach?

And members of the HSCA Photographic Expert Panel went further 15 years later, and concluded using more sophisticated techniques it WAS Oswald's C2766 weapon, right?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk3.htm
-- QUOTE --
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Thank you.
Now, Sergeant, the FBI concluded that and they told the Warren Commission that the mark on the forestock of the rifle that you are holding was not sufficient to identify positively this rifle. Do you agree with the FBI?
Sergeant KIRK. No, sir.
Mr. FITHiAN. Why don't you?
Sergeant KIRK. Well, sir, we refer to this as a random pattern.
Mr. FITHiAN. As a what?
Sergeant KIRK. As a random pattern. You can expect this weapon, just as you can expect all those TV cameras, to receive certain amounts of damage when it is handled. If you were to examine those cameras, even though they are the same, you would not find dents and chips out of the surface in precisely the same area.
Just as the chances of a tire running over the same pieces of glass to cut the tread would be exactly the same. We have examined this chip out of the forestock and we have determined it is quite old, some attempt is made to sand it down, and it was finished the same color as the stock.
It was probably damaged in one of two ways. It received a shock on the top of the forestock that knocked off the chip, which means the top forestock has been replaced, or the stock was damaged as it was taken apart.
It is my opinion that this is unique and unto itself. As you can see here, we photographed the duplicate weapon that was purchased from the distributor of this rifle, the one who allegedly sent it to Dallas, which is photographed here on the top, and it does not show any of the damage that the second photograph does.
I have made a photographic enlargement of the chip out of the forestock.
We have here a United Press International photograph taken of the rifle being displayed outside of the homicide office in the Dallas police department headquarters. A photographic enlargement shows the same chip out of the stock in precisely the same location, going in the same direction, and same dimensions.
Taking 133 DeMohrenschildt, which at the time was the best photograph we had, we find the same defect in the wood, the same dimensions, and the same location. I might add that 134, which was discovered only this weekend in the Archives, even better illustrates this damage.
I might add, in all candor, with respect to the FBI, they did not have 133-A DeMohrenschildt. They did not have 133-A Stovall. They did not have 134 or did not recognize 134 as being first generation print.
So, their conservativeness they had then was based on the amount of evidence they had to work with, not on what we had to work with today.
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
-- UNQUOTE --

>
> Why do you keep repeating these lies over and over when they've been sufficiently debunked by your own experts' testimonies ?

They are not lies.

Your claims of lies are falsehoods.


>
> SMH

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[BT George]

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 6:29:07 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 5:42:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > ( This is the first time I've asked this question so don't give me your cop-out bullshit that this question has already been answered )
> >
> > Stovall Exhibits A & B are the lists of items taken by Dallas Police from the Paine residence during their searches on November 22nd and 23rd.
> >
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol21_596-stovall-ex-A-B.jpg
> >
> > What items on these lists implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the murder of officer J.D. Tippit, or the shooting at the home of General Walker ?
> Nothing that directly implicates him. The evidence that implicates him was mostly at the TSBD.

> The one item from the Paine house that is probative of Oswald's guilt is the rifle blanket which

> matched the fibers in the rifle bag. Oswald's Imperial reflect camera was show to have been the
> one that took the backyard photos. Those items helped establish his ownership of the rifle which
> could have been established by the paper trail alone. Mostly it's a list of nothing burgers.

Conviction by direct evidence is an expectation of the CSI era and always (well before their time) the CT community. But in the *real* world, direct evidence is fairly rare, and *greatly* underappreciated is the *cumulative* power of a circumstantial case. Bottom line: if your only defense is you were framed or the most unlucky human of all time, you can *expect* to thought guilty by most people and most juries. (Unless maybe you are maybe an OJ and your jury is from south LA.)

[John Corbett]

You have done a masterful job of exposing how Gil makes deceitful claims by telling half truths,
the half that supports the narrative he is pushing. He then twists other people's words to make
it seem that they are the ones misstating the facts. I never stated the FBI could positively say
the fibers in the rifle bag came from Oswald's rifle blanket. I stated the fibers matched which is
absolutely true. The fact the fibers matched becomes highly probative when combined with the
facts that Oswald's fingerprints were on that bag, the bag was long enough to hold Oswald's
disassembled rifle, the rifle was found on the floor of the TSBD where the shooter was seen, and
the rifle had Oswald's palm print on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed
there when the rifle was disassembled. But like most CTs, Gil never tries to put the pieces of the
puzzle together. Instead he looks at each piece in isolation from all the others and states it
doesn't prove anything. It's the only way he can argue for Oswald's innocence because when you
put all the pieces together, the only possible conclusion is that Oswald was a double murderer.

[Hank Sienzant]

Asked and answered here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/nrLFcg83AgAJ

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:41:34 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> Asked and answered here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/nrLFcg83AgAJ

Argumentum ad Linkum. Here the Weasling Sienzant runs away by throwing up a link as a squid will squirt ink to hide himself as he weasels away!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 08:46:18 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>You have done a masterful job...

If cowardice, lying, and logical fallacies are your criteria.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 16:41:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant