Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 10

[Gil Jesus]

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

[Ben Holmes]

Corbutt's Answer: "Why would it have anything on it???"

ROTFLMAO!!!!

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:35:38 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.

[Bud]

That seems to be the right question.

> ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

I`ve never seen where such things were found on the bullet that went through both victims.

[John Corbett]

Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it. FBI agent Robert
Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
that. He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
examination.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Fish Part Messiah apparently thinks CSI Miami techniques should've been employed in 1963. Wait for him to ask us to explain why DNA evidence wasn't collected.

[John Corbett]

DNA could have told them who got shot. I think they figured that out anyway.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


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

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

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

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:18:04 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>DNA could have told them who got shot. I think they figured that out anyway.

If that's all DNA could have told them, then you're simply a moron,
aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Fish Part Messiah apparently thinks CSI Miami techniques should've been employed in 1963. Wait for him to ask us to explain why DNA evidence wasn't collected.

Can you name these logical fallacies? Or should I wait for Huckster
to refuse to name them?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:30:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
>since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

You'll NEVER cite for that lie. You can't.

> FBI agent Robert
>Frazier testified there could have been trace elements of blood but he was not concerned with
>that.

Yet another claim you can't cite for.

> He was interested in determining if CE399 had been fired from Oswald's rifle and he
>determined that it had been. Trace elements of blood would not have interfered with his
>examination.
>
>Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
>Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
>Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
>Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Sorry stupid, this doesn't support your lies posted above.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:06:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:30:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know
> >since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.
> You'll NEVER cite for that lie. You can't.

Neither you or Gil will ever show that they tested bullets for blood doing this time period.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:38:30 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.

Nice one, Jerry.
What kind of an expert do you need to tell you that a bullet that makes 7 wounds in two victims, and ends up in the second victim's thigh,
should have blood on it ?

It's a "yes or no" question Jerry.
There are only two ways to answer.
Good luck.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:25:20 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:38:30 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Who claimed that CE 399 *must* have had, by necessity, identifiable bone particles, fibers, or blood? I mean, someone who is actually recognized as an expert in the appropriate fields.
> Nice one, Jerry.
> What kind of an expert do you need to tell you that a bullet that makes 7 wounds in two victims, and ends up in the second victim's thigh,
> should have blood on it ?

What kind of idiot would expect blood on it after it was in a couple people`s pockets?

> It's a "yes or no" question Jerry.
> There are only two ways to answer.
> Good luck.

You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.

There you go lying again.

Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof
and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting. It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.

Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question.
No, it's YOU that has nothing.
You prove it every time you post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.
>
>Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question.
>No, it's YOU that has nothing.
>You prove it every time you post.

They prove both their dishonesty and their cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're only stating the obvious, Gil.

And these morons already know this - they're just too dishonest to
admit it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:39:25 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:50 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > You contrive "What about this, huh, huh, huh" questions to try to hide the fact that you have nothing.
> Four posts and you can't give a simple answer to a "yes" or "no" question.

To your "What about this, huh, huh, huh?" questions? The fact that you have to ask other people about these things is merely an admission that you can`t take them anywhere.

> No, it's YOU that has nothing.

I have what you never will, an explanation on the table for consideration.

> You prove it every time you post.

Conspiracy forum, I have no conspiracy ideas to sell.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:37:30 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.
> There you go lying again.
>
> Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof

Proof of what? CE399 had markings that proved conclusively that it was fired by the rifle found on the same floor of the same building where witnesses saw a gunman and where three spent
shells were found, shells that also could only have been fired by that same rifle. Since only one
other fragmented bullet was ever recovered, it doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out the
bullets hit somebody.

> and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting.

Ballistic matching already did that.

> It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
> the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

We don't need to negate that. For some strange reason you think it is significant that witnesses
couldn't say with certainty that CE399 was the same bullet they had handled. Do you think most
people could distinguish one bullet from another?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:41:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:37:30?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.
>> There you go lying again.
>>
>> Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof
>
>Proof of what? CE399 had markings that proved conclusively that it was fired by the rifle found on the same floor of the same building where witnesses saw a gunman and where three spent
>shells were found, shells that also could only have been fired by that same rifle. Since only one
>other fragmented bullet was ever recovered, it doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out the
>bullets hit somebody.

CE572 proves you a liar.

>> and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting.
>
>Ballistic matching already did that.

No, it's didn't. CE572 proves you a liar.

Notice that Corbutt DENIES all of the medical, and most of the
ballistic expert testimony.

>> It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
>> the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.
>
>We don't need to negate that.

*YOU* don't. *YOU* prefer your fantasies to the truth.

>For some strange reason you think it is significant that witnesses
>couldn't say with certainty that CE399 was the same bullet they had handled. Do you think most
>people could distinguish one bullet from another?

99% of non-morons can differentiate a pointy nosed bullet from a blunt
nosed one.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:18:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:37:30?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:30:25?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >> > Whether there were trace elements of blood on CE399 is something we will probably never know since it would have no evidentiary value and therefore no reason to test for it.
> >> There you go lying again.
> >>
> >> Since the bullet wasn't found at the crime scene nor removed from either victim, the presence of blood, bone matter or clothing fibers WOULD be evidentiary proof
> >
> >Proof of what? CE399 had markings that proved conclusively that it was fired by the rifle found on the same floor of the same building where witnesses saw a gunman and where three spent
> >shells were found, shells that also could only have been fired by that same rifle. Since only one
> >other fragmented bullet was ever recovered, it doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out the
> >bullets hit somebody.
> CE572 proves you a liar.

Meaningless noise. Ben can never make a counter argument like a man, always vaguely allude to something he can`t support.

> >> and CRUCIAL EVIDENCE connecting the bullet with the shooting.
> >
> >Ballistic matching already did that.
> No, it's didn't. CE572 proves you a liar.

Meaningless noise. Been coming here for decades and have never seen Ben make an adult, supported counter argument.

> Notice that Corbutt DENIES all of the medical, and most of the
> ballistic expert testimony.

No supported counter argument to be found there, just more meaningless noise.

> >> It would prove that the bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and would serve to negate the fact that the first four persons who handled
> >> the bullet could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.
> >
> >We don't need to negate that.
> *YOU* don't.

That`s what he said.

>*YOU* prefer your fantasies to the truth.
> >For some strange reason you think it is significant that witnesses
> >couldn't say with certainty that CE399 was the same bullet they had handled. Do you think most
> >people could distinguish one bullet from another?
> 99% of non-morons can differentiate a pointy nosed bullet from a blunt
> nosed one.

Another non-argument from the forum troll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:25:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:35:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> QUESTION # 10: When examined by the FBI, did CE 399 have any bone particles, clothing fibers or blood from either victim on it ?

No. NEXT!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>