Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 17

[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.

The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg

QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

[John Corbett]

Your questions are comical, Gil. Most likely the company that sold him the gun would have
provided that information. Why the hell does that even matter. He knew he needed .38 Special
rounds. We know he knew that because he had those in his pocket and in his revolver when he
was arrested. Why do you keep asking such stupid questions?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 05:02:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

The more important question is why you keep running from these obvious
questions - and why you can't point to the answer in the WCR.

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:21 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.
>
> The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.

You mean the gun he had in his possession when he was arrested, the one he tried to use of the arresting officers.

> But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
> that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg
>
> QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Oswald didn`t say what he knew about the ammunition for the weapon, and when he knew it. NEXT!

[recip...@gmail.com]

You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.

See here:

https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

[John Corbett]

Damn it! Quit confusing Gil with the facts.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.
>
> See here:
>
> https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg

Thank you for that.
But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.

What magazine is your ad from ?
How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

[John Corbett]

So you think the January ad would have had less information than the April ad? Why?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:42:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 7:31:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 10:22:04?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You only show the order form cut from the corner of the ad. The actual advertisement was quite a big and more detailed. The ad says the pistol is a ".38 Special" in nice big letters.
>>>
>>> See here:
>>>
>>> https://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/060120/Seaport_060120_Fig08.jpg
>> Thank you for that.
>> But the ad you posted is from an April 1963 magazine.
>> Commission Exhibit 135 shows that the order form had a date of 1/27 on it.
>>
>> What magazine is your ad from ?
>> How can an order form dated 1/27 come from an ad in an April 1963 magazine ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:54:48 -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 Fri, 27 Oct 2023 04:04:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:39:21?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.
>>>
>>> The Commission said that Oswald ordered a .38 caliber handgun that had been rechambered to fire .38 Special cartridges, which are a different size ( smaller ) diameter than a regular .38 cartridge.
>>>
>>> But the ad from which Oswald allegedly ordered the handgun lists the weapon as a .38, and makes no mention that the weapon has been rechambered, or
>>> that it requires ammunition other than what it was manufactured for.
>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CE135.jpg
>>>
>>> QUESTION # 17: How did Oswald know that the weapon had been rechambered and he needed to purchase the smaller .38 Special ammunition instead of the regular .38 ?

Logical fallacies deleted.

[recip...@gmail.com]

"1/27" was hand-written on the order coupon. As such, it doesn't prove anything in and of itself.

The April issue of True Adventures was registered copyrighted on Feb 5, 1963, which is the best indicator for when that issue was printed and sent out. The magazine industry's penchant for pre-dating issues has already been discussed here.

[John Corbett]

It is very common for companies to run the same ad in multiple issues consecutively. What the
April ad shows is the company identified the weapon in question and the order form in the lower
right of the April ad was the same as the one Gil showed stand alone. It would be absurd to
think the company would sell a firearm and not let the buyer know the caliber of the weapon he
was buying.

It is also standard practice in the firearms industry for the caliber to be stamped on the weapon
because it would be very dangerous to put the wrong caliber ammo into a firearm. It would be a
liability issue. I would bet that the new cylinder would have had .38 Special stamped on it. I have
a Glock 32C which originally came in .357 Sig. Glock pistols are modular which means parts can
be swapped out. I replaced the original barrel with one in .40 S&W which is all that I needed to
do to change the caliber. The caliber of both barrels is stamped on the top of both. If I put the
wrong caliber ammo in for the barrel I have installed, it's my fault.

It is preposterous to suggest that Oswald wouldn't have known the correct ammo to put into his
revolver. Obviously he did because he had .38 Special ammo in the gun and his pockets from
two different manufacturers when arrested.

[Hank Sienzant]

Uh, maybe when he tried the wrong size ammo and realized it didn’t fit?

And are you sure you have your facts right?

I recall that the bullets Oswald was using in the revolver weren’t the appropriate size, but were slightly too small, causing an erratic passage down the barrel, which is why the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body couldn’t be matched to the weapon.

== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
== unquote ==

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Here Hank admits that the bullets fired into Tippit could not be matched to Oswald's gun.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 15:44:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is very common for companies to run the same ad in multiple issues consecutively. What the
>April ad shows is the company identified the weapon in question and the order form in the lower
>right of the April ad was the same as the one Gil showed stand alone. It would be absurd to
>think the company would sell a firearm and not let the buyer know the caliber of the weapon he
>was buying.

A meaningless assertion.

>It is also standard practice in the firearms industry for the caliber to be stamped on the weapon

There are just two weapons involved in this case. Cite a photo of
either of them with the caliber stamped on the weapon.

But you won't.

>It is preposterous to suggest that Oswald wouldn't have known the correct ammo to put into his
>revolver. Obviously he did because he had .38 Special ammo in the gun and his pockets from
>two different manufacturers when arrested.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 19:58:47 -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?

[Hank Sienzant]

Sure, because that is true.

However, the bullets aren’t the only physical evidence and other evidence we have. We have the shells recovered at the scene by witnesses and determined to match Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. We also have testimonial evidence, such as numerous witnesses identifying Oswald as the shooter. We have testimonial evidence that Oswald pulled the same weapon on a policeman in the Texas theater. We have testimonial evidence that Oswald was north of the Tippit shooting site before the shooting, and south of the Tippit shooting site after the shooting. We have a jacketed shooter and a jacketless Oswald when arrested, which would appear to absolve Oswald to some extent, but not when you take in the further facts that a jacket was found discarded in a nearby parking lot, and a witness puts Oswald in that parking lot.

All this information is available in the 26 volumes of testimony and evidence published by the President’s Commission, so don’t ask me to cite for it. You know it sufficiently to attempt to rebut it on occasion.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

But after 60 years you still can't match the Tippit bullets to Oswald's gun.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:25:50 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> But after 60 years you still can't match the Tippit bullets to Oswald's gun.

They can't even match the bullets to the shells.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 10:58:48 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Oswald did use the correct ammo for his modified revolver. It had been rechambered from the
British .38/200 round to the .38 Special which has a slightly smaller diameter bullet. The
British .38 had a bullet diameter of .361 inches while the .38 Special is .357 inches. That .004
inch difference between the bullet diameter and the bore of the barrel prevented the barrel from
making a consistent ballistic fingerprint. The Smith & Wesson Victory Model .38 revolver was
part of a lot of 5 million produced under the Lend Lease act for British, Canadian, New Zealand,
and South African troops. After the war, these revolvers became surplus and many were put
back into the US Market. They were rechambered for the .38 Special which was a more common
ammo in the US and therefore more readily available. The other modification to Oswald's
revolver was to shorten the barrel from 5" to 2 1/2 or 2 1/4 depending on which source you
believe. After the barrel was shortened, the front sight was reinstalled on it.

Here's a website I found that pretty much sums up the history of the revolver. If I had found it
before I typed the above, it would have saved me quite a bit of time researching all of that
information.

https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/oswald-s-revolver#:~:text=Due%20to%20the%20demand%20of%20revolvers%20that%20could,1%2C000ths.%20In%20Oswald%E2%80%99s%20revolver%2C%20that%20was%20the%20case.

[John Corbett]

Tell us how bullets can be matched to shells.

If you are talking about the makes of the shells and the bullets removed from Tippit's body,
the WC offered a perfectly plausible explanation. Both Remmington and Winchesters were
used in the shooting. There was a difference in the number of Remmington and Winchesters
between the bullets and the shells. One was a 2-2 split and the other was a 3-1. It is quite
possible that Oswald fired 5 or more shots but only hit Tippit with 4. That would mean he
discarded more than 4 shells at the scene but only 4 were found. The 4 that were found were
not the same distribution of makes as the bullets. Perfectly plausible. The other possibility
which I find much less likely is that Oswald reloaded a shell from one company with a bullet
from another. That is something that is more commonly done with rifle ammo which is a bit
more expensive and thus a greater incentive to use reloads.

[John Corbett]

All just a series of coincidences according to the conspiracy hobbyists. Oswald had to be the
unluckiest guy that ever lived to have all the coincidences fall into place to make it look like he
was a double murderer

[John Corbett]

One correction. I wrote that 5 million of the revolvers were produced under the Lend Lease
program. The article I cited put the number at over 500,000. The article I posted seems to be
thoroughly researched and is probably a better source than the one where I read that 5 million
were produced. The lower number seems to be far more likely.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:56:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 06:14:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>One correction...

Should probably make another one. Stop trying to repost what you
think a citation says. Just cite it, and move on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All just a series of coincidences according to the conspiracy hobbyists.

You're blatantly lying again. You'll be COMPLETELY unable to cite any
statement by any critic that supports this lie.

>Oswald had to be the unluckiest guy that ever lived to have all the
>coincidences fall into place to make it look like he was a double murderer

Is that what you think?

We critics have a much more credible & believable explanation...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 05:53:19 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Oswald did use the correct ammo for his modified revolver.

Rather silly of you to make such a silly claim. You clearly didn't
understand what you were reading.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 06:01:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:59:29?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:25:50?AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > But after 60 years you still can't match the Tippit bullets to Oswald's gun.
>> They can't even match the bullets to the shells.
>
>Tell us how bullets can be matched to shells.
>

>If you are talking about the makes of the shells and the bullets removed from Tippit's body...

There you go, you answered your own question! Don't you feel stupid
now?

[Hank Sienzant]

Hey Gil, any reason you saw this thread and failed to respond to my points?

[Hank Sienzant]

Not ballistically, no. But there is no way to do that.
However the shells seen discarded by the gunman and recovered at the scene were matched ballistically to Oswald’s revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:26:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Hey Huckster, any reason you saw this thread and failed to respond to
my points?

[Ben Holmes]