On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> #1. ON FIBERS FOUND ON THE BUTT PLATE OF THE RIFLE COMING FROM OSWALD'S SHIRT:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "The Commission was able to conclude......that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt". ( Report, pg. 125 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> MR STROMBAUGH. We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )
>
A. It's Stombaugh.
B. You're cherry-picking. Stombaugh went on to say:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.
"Another identical shirt". What are the odds that a conspirator (or even one of those multitude of "Oswald doubles" had an identical shirt? Were conspirators following the Oswald's around and purchasing the same article of clothing Lee or Marina purchased? What about Christmas gifts? If Oswald got that particular shirt as a gift from his brother Robert, were conspirators following all of Lee's relatives around in case they bought him a gift shirt?
Given how absurd the alternative is, I think it's reasonable to conclude, as the Commission did, "...that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt".
Don't you agree?
>
> #2.ON COMPARING THE FIBERS FOUND IN THE "PAPER GUNSACK" WITH THE FIBERS IN THE BLANKET FROM THE PAINE GARAGE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers found in the blanket....the green cotton fibers from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket...." ( pg. 591 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
>
Well, you spelled his name correct, but it's still a quote out of context.
Stombaugh said the fibers matched those in the blanket, which is what the Commission said above.
But asked if he could these fibers came from this particular blanket, he said:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come. from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.
Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors, and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and 3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.
So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
== unquote ==
>
> #3. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. NICOL. .....I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. ( 3 H 513 )
>
Again with the quote out of context! Nicol said *exactly* what the Commission said he said.
== quote ==
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible. Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, we had testimony from a Mr. Frazier yesterday of the FBI Firearms Section, and he testified that the FBI does not make probable identifications, but merely positive or negative identifications.
Mr. NICOL. I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going over board in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do.
== unquote ==
>
> #4. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle into the Depsoitory Building concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. CADIGAN. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle. ( 4 H 97 )
What part of the "preponderance of the evidence" confused you?
Oswald's rifle - normally stored in the Paine garage - was found in the Depository after the assassination. Oswald was seen transporting a long bag to the Depository the morning of the assassination. A bag was found in the Depository that was determined to bear Oswald's palmprint. Oswald lied in custody about having a long bag that he put on the back seat of Frazier's car. Oswald told Frazier he was making a special trip on Thursday to the Paine's residence to pick up curtain rods. Oswald denied telling Frazier this.
The preponderance of the evidence is Oswald transported the rifle to the Depository. I know of no one else who the evidence indicates had the knowledge where Oswald's rifle was normally stored, and had access to the Depository's sixth floor as well. Who besides Oswald could have brought the weapon into the Depository? List their names and the evidence for that here:
>
>
> #5. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BULLET THAT HIT GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S WRIST:
>
> The Report concluded:
> The nature of the wounds suffered by....Governor Connally....establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine. ( pg. 18 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Dr. GREGORY. The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound...on...the back of the hand...it passed from the dorsal or back side to the volar.
> Mr. SPECTER. When you say volar, what do you mean by that ?
> Dr. GREGORY. The palm side. ( 4 H 118-119 )
Again, quote out of context!
Connally suffered a wound in his back that was higher than his exit wound in the chest.
Doctor Gregory affirmed all the wounds could be caused by one bullet fired above and behind the Governor:
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is. those described by Dr. Shaw. and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.
== unquote ==
Dr. Shaw said the same thing:
== quote ==
Mr. DULLES - You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this chart here which the Chief Justice has.
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the bullet that hit the President to Judge at all whether these two angles of declination are consistent?
Dr. SHAW - We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of declination of the wound that the Governor sustained.
== unquote ==
The Commission's conclusion is correct. The wounds the Governor sustained were from a bullet or bullets fired above and behind the limo.
>
>
>
> #6. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see from where the gun came ?
> Mr. BREWER. No. ( 7 H 6 )
Brewer went on to say:
== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him,
== unquote ==
He saw the gun in Oswald's hand, he heard an officer yell "He's got a gun!", and he saw the officers taking the gun from Oswald.
You think there's an argument there that Oswald didn't pull a gun in the theatre. I don't see any room for that argument.
>
>
> # 7 ON WHETHER TIPPIT AND OSWALD EVER SAW EACH OTHER
>
> The Report concluded:
> Investigation has revealed no evidence that Oswald and Tippit ....had ever seen each other.... ( WCR 651 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> "...Officer J.D. Tippit was in the restaurant... and "shot a glance at Oswald." ( CE 3001 / 26 H 516 )
What part of "each other" confused you? Did Oswald see Tippit?
Wasn't Oswald normally at work over a mile away at the time of the supposed incident (10AM)?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0276b.htm
Isn't it true that often "witnesses" come forward to claim they saw someone that couldn't have been where they are claimed to be?
(For example, all the sightings of Elvis Presley after his death).
Did you consider this 'sighting" in that vein, or are you assuming it is legitimate?
>
>
> You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.
I'll go by what the evidence says and the Commission concluded, and ignore your attempt to spin both.