Another look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part II

[Gil Jesus]

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii

Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

Of course not.
The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?

Or are you that fucking stupid ?

The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.

Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.

Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.

#1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the second negative ?

#2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?

#3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?

#4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?

#5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "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" ever listed on the evidence list ?

#6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?

Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ?
Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?

If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
Period.

The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
> >
> > Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
> Of course not.
> The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
> the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
>
> You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
>

Says the guy who clings to the fantasy that Oswald is innocent. Irony alert noted.

> Or are you that fucking stupid ?

I'm smart enough to figure out Oswald killed two men and there isn't a doubt about that.

>
> The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.

You have done nothing to invalidate any of the evidence gathered against Oswald. At best you
have demonstrated there might have been some miscommunication as to what was found when.

>
> Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.

Your questions don't prove anything. You have to determine the answers to those questions.
That's not my job.

>
> Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.

I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.

>
> #1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
> But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the second negative ?

Let us know when you find out the answer.

>
> #2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?

They didn't need him. Keep those questions coming that don't prove anything.

>
> #3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?

What about this? What about this?

Is this really the best you can do?

>
> #4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?

What about this? What about this?

>
> #5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "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" ever listed on the evidence list ?

You're starting to sound desperate with your inane questions.

>
> #6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
>
> Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ?
> Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?

All you have are questions. You never bother trying to find answers. Questions prove nothing.
Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there was
some nefarious conduct going on. If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do better
than just raising questions. You have to find the answers and show how those answers prove
a cover up was going on.

>
> If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
> Period.

Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why do
you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?

>
> The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).

You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.

[Bud]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
> >
> > Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
> Of course not.
> The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
> the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".

How would the earlier time help your idea that these were manufactured?

> You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
>
> Or are you that fucking stupid ?

Are you stupid enough to believe the DPD whipped these photos up on the spur of the moment and planted them?

Since you don`t understand reasoning, you don`t recognize when other people do it. The proper way to approach these things is "what is reasonable to believe?". Of course such an approach destroys every idea you`ve ever had about this case. I find it reasonable to believe they found these photographs/negative(s) in with Oswald`s possession because there is no other reasonable alternative available (certainly you will never produce one).

> The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.

The problem is with the incredible things your ideas suggest when you question what the DPD did.

> Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
>
> Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.

I read this this morning, and started a response but discarded it because I wanted to get out and do some things. When I returned just now I see that Corbett`s response is right along the lines of what my response was going to be. This is "What about this, huh, huh, huh?", and it`s cousin "explain these things to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit" (as if it is in our control to stop you from believing stupid shit).

> #1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
> But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the second negative ?

Dunno. How to the missing negative speak to the authenticity of the photos and negative in evidence? Rose said the one negative was of the photo he found, rendering it redundant.

> #2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?

Dunno. If you see them ask them. You can look in the evidence and find where the photos/negatives were admitted, and find the process used.

> #3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?

Dunno. If you see them, ask them.

When the questioned Day did they bring every piece of evidence that he had processed for him to identify, the bag, the rifle, the shells, the fingerprint he lifted, ect?

> #4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?

Can you show this is a requirement?

It seems they took a bunch of stuff Friday night, but didn`t process it until Saturday morning.

> #5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "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" ever listed on the evidence list ?

Who are you quoting?

> #6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?

You haven`t shown it needed to be on the list to be considered evidence.

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

Perhaps you misunderstand the reason and/or nature of the list.

> Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?

Some things were found Friday. It seems all the things were processed on Saturday.

> If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.

How does that follow?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii

According to Inspector Kelley, the BYP was shown to Oswald at the 6 PM interview on Saturday, if that matters. https://postimg.cc/NKqrp6C0

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
>
>Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.

I quite doubt if Corbutt bothered to read the cited text... he
certainly made no effort at all to refute it.

The complete lack of any chain of custody is a fairly big thing in
legal circles, and would *CERTAINLY* invalidate the photos as
evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
>>>
>>> Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
>> Of course not.
>> The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
>> the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
>>
>> You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Or are you that fucking stupid ?
>

>I'm smart enough...


Clearly not.

>> The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
>

>You have done nothing ...


Yet you can't refute what Gil has pointed out. Using the very thing
that terrifies you - the evidence.

>> Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
>

>Your questions...


Nope. These are FACTS that Gil is pointing out. That they take the
*FORM* of questions that you can't answer validates these facts as
true.

You lose!

>> Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
>
>I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.

Chickenshit will run too. And Huckster is too smart to get involved.

>> #1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
>> But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the second negative ?
>
>Let us know when you find out the answer.

It's your burden.

>> #2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
>
>They didn't need him.

That would be a lie. The photos could not have been admitted in
court.

>Keep those questions coming that don't prove anything.

"to YOU"... they don't prove anything to YOU. Always remember to add
that.

>> #3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
>
>What about this? What about this?
>
>Is this really the best you can do?

It's quite devastating. Who cares that you aren't honest enough to
see it.

>> #4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
>
>What about this? What about this?

Not devastating by itself, but the entirety of the evidence Gil is
showing is devastating indeed.

>> #5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "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" ever listed on the evidence list ?
>
>You're starting to sound desperate with your inane questions.

You're starting to sound desperate with your denials...

>> #6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
>>
>> Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ?
>> Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?
>
>All you have are questions.

No, all Gil has are FACTS. It's a FACT that the WC never established
chain of custody of the photos, as Gil has pointed out. He points it
out in the *FORM* of a question - to which you have no answer - and
thus you've AGREED that these photos have no chain of custody, and
therefore wouldn't be admitted in a court of law.

> You never bother trying to find answers.

Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.


> Questions prove nothing.


But *UNANSWERED* questions do.

>Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there was
>some nefarious conduct going on.

Let's rephrase that to be more accurate: "Because I DON'T KNOW the
answer to your questions, and I CANNOT offer any legitimate solutions,
the only remaining answer is that some nefarious conduct was going
on."

That's more accurate. Do try to be accurate in the future.

>If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do better
>than just raising questions.

Don't have to prove "malfeasance" - it's **YOUR BURDEN** to make your
case. Gil and I are showing why you're failing.

>You have to find the answers and show how those answers prove
>a cover up was going on.

You're lying again, Corbutt. It's **YOU** that has the burden here,
not critics.

>> If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
>> Period.
>
>Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why do
>you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?

The "silly assumption" is true for ordinary folk. But not for trolls,
cowards, and liars.

>> The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
>
>You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.

You have no idea how despicable you appear to the average person...
playing games with the killing of a President.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 08:50:45 -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.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
> >>>
> >>> Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
> >> Of course not.
> >> The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
> >> the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
> >>
> >> You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> Or are you that fucking stupid ?
> >
> >I'm smart enough...
>
>
> Clearly not.
> >> The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
> >
> >You have done nothing ...
>
>
> Yet you can't refute what Gil has pointed out. Using the very thing
> that terrifies you - the evidence.

It`s available online.

> >> Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
> >
> >Your questions...
>
>
> Nope. These are FACTS that Gil is pointing out. That they take the
> *FORM* of questions that you can't answer validates these facts as
> true.
>
> You lose!
> >> Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
> >
> >I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.
> Chickenshit will run too.

I responded. Predictably Gil fled.

Conspiracy folks can`t tell their crackpot assumptions from facts.

*Judges* rule on chain of custody issues. Judges, not crackpots.

> He points it
> out in the *FORM* of a question - to which you have no answer - and
> thus you've AGREED that these photos have no chain of custody, and
> therefore wouldn't be admitted in a court of law.
> > You never bother trying to find answers.
> Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
> these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
> with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.
>
>
> > Questions prove nothing.
>
>
> But *UNANSWERED* questions do.

You`re a troll who removes the answers people give.

We play games with the people playing games with the death of the president.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:30:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

You’re echoing conspiracy author nonsense. For a long time, I believed it as well, until I actually read the law about it.

See this quote on the second page here:
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

That means, as explained in the accompanying text, that the evidence is admissible and the jury in a jury trial gets to decide how much weight to put on that evidence, even if the record is unclear on exactly when and where the photos were first discovered.

But it’s not unclear. The photographs were validated in testimony (as Gil notes) and that is more than enough to make them admissible. The jury would see these photos, beyond any doubt.

CT authors would have you believe the jury would never see that photographic evidence, but that is untrue. They would see it and they would decide how much weight to give it. The claims of inadmissibilty are rife in this case, extending to almost every piece of evidence pointing to Oswald — like the nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland Hospital, the two large fragments found in the limo, and the three shells found at the sniper’s nest window.

They have to argue that falsehood, because the evidence points to Oswald.

I've pointed out the correct rule of law before, you continue to misstate it.

Gil (and you) would be better off conceding the admissibility of the photos and claiming instead those photos don't establish Oswald shot the President, they merely establish he possessed the weapon used to kill the President. That would be true. But maybe that is his (and your) fallback position, after he (and you) are done arguing a Mauser was found, rather than Oswald’s Carcano, and after he (and you) are through arguing Oswald’s weapon wasn't accurate enough to make the shots, and Oswald wasn't a good enough shot to make the shots.

[Hank Sienzant]

Chain of custody established right here:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stovall.htm
— quote —
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
— unquote —

Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.

> > You never bother trying to find answers.
> Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
> these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
> with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.
>
>
> > Questions prove nothing.
>
>
> But *UNANSWERED* questions do.
> >Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there was
> >some nefarious conduct going on.
> Let's rephrase that to be more accurate: "Because I DON'T KNOW the
> answer to your questions, and I CANNOT offer any legitimate solutions,
> the only remaining answer is that some nefarious conduct was going
> on."

No, that’s still the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.”

>
> That's more accurate. Do try to be accurate in the future.
> >If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do better
> >than just raising questions.
> Don't have to prove "malfeasance" - it's **YOUR BURDEN** to make your
> case. Gil and I are showing why you're failing.
> >You have to find the answers and show how those answers prove
> >a cover up was going on.
> You're lying again, Corbutt. It's **YOU** that has the burden here,
> not critics.
> >> If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
> >> Period.
> >
> >Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why do
> >you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?
> The "silly assumption" is true for ordinary folk. But not for trolls,
> cowards, and liars.
> >> The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
> >
> >You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.
> You have no idea how despicable you appear to the average person...
> playing games with the killing of a President.

Watch Ben play games by deleting or ignoring all the points I made in this thread.

And calling me names. Ben is always good for that as a retort, if all else fails.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
> Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
> Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
> Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
> Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
> Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
> Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
> Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
> — unquote —
>
> Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.

I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.
Rose and Stovall testified before the Warren Commission.
Did either of them ever identify CE 133-A and 133-B as the photos they found in the Paine garage ?
Did either of them ever identify the negative of 133-B as the negative they found ?

Yes or No ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:20:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
>>>
>>>Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
>> I quite doubt if Corbutt bothered to read the cited text... he
>> certainly made no effort at all to refute it.
>>
>> The complete lack of any chain of custody is a fairly big thing in
>> legal circles, and would *CERTAINLY* invalidate the photos as
>> evidence.
>

>You’re echoing...


And you 're crying.

And proving your STUPIDITY by denying that chain of custody is quite
an established rule of law.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:44:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:03?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
>>>>>
>>>>> Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
>>>> Of course not.
>>>> The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
>>>> the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
>>>>
>>>> You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>> Or are you that fucking stupid ?
>>>
>>>I'm smart enough...
>>
>> Clearly not.

Huckster was TERRIFIED of defending Corbutt's stupidity here.

>>>> The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
>>>
>>>You have done nothing ...
>>
>> Yet you can't refute what Gil has pointed out. Using the very thing
>> that terrifies you - the evidence.
>>
>>>> Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
>>>
>>>Your questions...
>>
>> Nope. These are FACTS that Gil is pointing out. That they take the
>> *FORM* of questions that you can't answer validates these facts as
>> true.
>>
>> You lose!

So too does Huckster... terrified of trying to defend the
indefensible.

>>>> Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
>>>
>>>I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.
>> Chickenshit will run too. And Huckster is too smart to get involved.

And, as shown above, he ran as I expected hiim to.

>>>> #1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
>>>> But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the second negative ?
>>>
>>>Let us know when you find out the answer.
>> It's your burden.
>>>> #2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
>>>
>>>They didn't need him.
>> That would be a lie. The photos could not have been admitted in
>> court.
>>>Keep those questions coming that don't prove anything.
>> "to YOU"... they don't prove anything to YOU. Always remember to add
>> that.

And Huckster ran again...

>>>> #3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
>>>
>>>What about this? What about this?
>>>
>>>Is this really the best you can do?
>> It's quite devastating. Who cares that you aren't honest enough to
>> see it.

Huckster ran again.

>>>> #4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
>>>
>>>What about this? What about this?
>> Not devastating by itself, but the entirety of the evidence Gil is
>> showing is devastating indeed.

Huckster ran again.

>>>> #5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "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" ever listed on the evidence list ?
>>>
>>>You're starting to sound desperate with your inane questions.
>> You're starting to sound desperate with your denials...

Huckster ran again...

Gil didn't "concede" anything - you're lying again.

Nor does your cite answer even so much as a SINGLE question you ran
from above.

>>> You never bother trying to find answers.
>> Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
>> these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
>> with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.
>>
>>> Questions prove nothing.
>>
>> But *UNANSWERED* questions do.

Huckster MUST run from this one...

>>>Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there was
>>>some nefarious conduct going on.
>> Let's rephrase that to be more accurate: "Because I DON'T KNOW the
>> answer to your questions, and I CANNOT offer any legitimate solutions,
>> the only remaining answer is that some nefarious conduct was going
>> on."
>

>No...


Yes.

>> That's more accurate. Do try to be accurate in the future.
>>>If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do better
>>>than just raising questions.
>> Don't have to prove "malfeasance" - it's **YOUR BURDEN** to make your
>> case. Gil and I are showing why you're failing.

And all Huckster could do is run.

>>>You have to find the answers and show how those answers prove
>>>a cover up was going on.
>> You're lying again, Corbutt. It's **YOU** that has the burden here,
>> not critics.

Huckster has the burden too...

>>>> If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>>Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why do
>>>you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?
>> The "silly assumption" is true for ordinary folk. But not for trolls,
>> cowards, and liars.
>>>> The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
>>>
>>>You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.
>> You have no idea how despicable you appear to the average person...
>> playing games with the killing of a President.
>

>Watch ...

Indeed. See how many times Huckster proved his cowardice?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 03:19:36 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
>> Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
>> Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
>> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
>> Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
>> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
>> Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
>> Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
>> Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
>> Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
>> Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
>> Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
>> Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
>> Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
>> — unquote —
>>
>> Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.
>
>I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.

Huckster's no more honest than Corbutt.

All you can do is laugh at their antics...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 6:19:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
> > Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
> > Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
> > Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> > Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
> > Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> > Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph?
> > Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
> > Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
> > Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
> > Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
> > Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
> > Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
> > Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
> > — unquote —
> >
> > Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.
> I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.

What Stovall said: “He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand. … I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.”

That’s sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, whether you want to hold your breath and stamp your feet or not.

> Rose and Stovall testified before the Warren Commission.
> Did either of them ever identify CE 133-A and 133-B as the photos they found in the Paine garage ?
> Did either of them ever identify the negative of 133-B as the negative they found ?
>
> Yes or No ?

Not necessary. Read the law citation I provided.

[Hank Sienzant]

And in reporting what they said, you conceded the point, merely arguing they should have done it differently:
“Police claimed that they were listed under, "miscellaneous photographs and maps". (7 H 194) 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, and you list those photos in your evidence list under "miscellaneous"?

If those photographs were found in the garage on Saturday, one would think that they would be the first item noted on the list. After all, this was the most significant find of the Saturday search. And they're not listed in detail?“

You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:11:22 -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?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:20:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

We note with some amusement that you deleted almost everything I said and merely repeated your original claim.

Tell me what is stupid about citing the actual document written by a law professor at an actual law school summarizing the law on admissibility of evidence.

It's entitled “CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE”.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications

Again:

“The witness’ uncertainty in identifying the object affects the weight, NOT THE ADMISSIBILITY, of the evidence” [emphasis added].

The evidence is admitted and the jury gets to decide how much weight to give it. You offer nothing in rebuttal except your own opinion (gleaned from conspiracy books, which you should know by now, are not truthful).

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben RUNS from the subject under discussion once more, and attempts to change the subject once more. Why is Ben attempting to change the subject and unwilling to discuss the actual subject in so many threads?

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben is still desperately running from the subject of evidence admissibility and still desperately attempting to change the subject.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:36:57 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Ok, it's clear you have no interest in actually supporting your claims concerning evidence admissibility and won't go near a reasoned discussion concerning same. It's also clear your only option is to attempt to change the subject as quickly as possible and to call me a coward.

You lost, Ben. You can't argue the facts and you can't support your opinions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben must believe his constant avoidance of the subject matter here and his single-minded repeated attempts to change the subject here and elsewhere appears rational to disinterested readers.

Why does Ben RUN so much?

Another thread where he is doing precisely the same thing:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/w9ZjBAL5AgAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 12:04:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.

As are your opinions.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
is indeed an expert.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:11:22 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
> As are your opinions.
> I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
> I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
> That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
> Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.

You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?

What's your proof?

It's one thing to allege the photos wouldn't be allowed to be used as evidence in a trial (silly, but whatever), and it's entirely another thing to allege the cops were involved in framing Oswald with faked or altered photos of him handling the rifle and pistol.

> And that carries a LOT of weight.
> In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.

The people who worked the case in 1963/1964 were experts in the field, too.

> Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?

Your logical fallacy here is called an Argument from Authority. You're asking people to rely on your status as a former cop as a substitute for the validity of the idea that the cops framed Oswald with incriminating photos.

Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 07:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:11:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
>> As are your opinions.
>> I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
>> I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
>> That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
>> Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
>
>You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?

You actually think they didn't?


>What's your proof?


Can't read?

> It's one thing to allege the photos wouldn't be allowed to be used
> as evidence in a trial (silly, but whatever)

So you don't believe in the American justice system...

> and it's entirely another thing to allege the cops were involved in
> framing Oswald with faked or altered photos of him handling the rifle
> and pistol.

Figured that out all by yourself?

>> And that carries a LOT of weight.
>> In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
>
>The people who worked the case in 1963/1964 were experts in the field, too.

BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM!!!

Such as every single doctor involved who testified AFTER seeing
CE399...

>> Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
>
>Your logical fallacy here is called an Argument from Authority.

You mean the same fallacy you used above?

It's a fallacy when Gil uses it, but not when you do?

Such cowardice!!!

> You're asking people to rely on your status as a former cop as a
> substitute

There you go lying again...

Run away, coward... run away...

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?
>
> What's your proof?

The police lineups weren't fair.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png

Witnesses were harassed and threatened.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/

19 "patsies" were convicted on the watch of your EXPERT DA, Henry Wade.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Your EXPERT DA Wade also convinced a jury to send an innocent man to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Yeah, they were real experts, Chuck.
They couldn't tell a white jacket from a tannish grey one.
They couldn't tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 special.

They couldn't find a rapist inside a state prison.

Speaking of the photos, where are the negatives for CE 133-A and the Geneva Dees photos ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.

Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
>
>Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
>You don't know shit about this case.

I've been saying this for years... Chuckles doesn't know enough about
the evidence in this case.

Huckster does... this is why Huckster runs more frequently than
Chuckles does.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:11:22 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
> As are your opinions.
> I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.

People on the internet can claim expertise in plenty of fields.

> I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
> That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.

Now you’re a lawyer too?

> Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
> And that carries a LOT of weight.

I don't put any weight on your opinion because you're not a valid expert. Show me one case where you testified as an expert.

> In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.

Yawn. In your own mind, perhaps. But not elsewhere. And calling people idiots does not make you look smarter.

> Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?

Only self-taught by reading hundreds of true crime books and general reading of forensics and law.
But I'm not the one citing my own opinion as valid. You are. My opinion is meaningless to you and I recognize that. For that reason, I don't cite it — and you don't seem to realize that your supposed expertise is likewise meaningless to me, but you keep telling us what you think, instead of what the recognized experts think.

I'm citing law books and the actual testimony and documents by active law enforcement officers. You? “Gil thinks this should be done differently”.

Meaningless.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.

[Hank Sienzant]

Gish Gallop logical fallacy. And a change of subject besides.
We were talking about the photos.
Suddenly, we're playing “What About This, What About That”?

Let’s get back to the subject YOU brought up, do you remember what it was?
Hint: “Another look at the "Backyard Photographs”

[Chuck Schuyler]

I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.

I do understand who has the burden of proof here, and that's YOU, or more broadly, Team Oswald. And you're incapable or unwilling (or whatever) of actually putting something forward that we can compare to the historical case against Oswald. You can only say that some people did something. You claim the mechanics of the conspiracy doesn't interest you and that your focus is on showing Oswald would've have been found not guilty at trial. You've written that the key evidence would be tossed after you made your Johnny Cochrane arguments in front of a Dallas judge. Dunning, call Kruger.

I think you are coy about what you really feel happened on 11/22/63 because deep down, you know how laughable it is, but you're so addicted to the idea of a JFK conspiracy that you just can't let it go. Changing your mind at this point would involve a long look in the mirror with the uncomfortable truth that you wasted decades of your adult life isolated from friends and family on an investigooglng snipe hunt of epic proportions.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and JDT. You disagree, but that's history's conclusion: Oswald alone, no KNOWN help. To upend this, YOU NEED TO DO BETTER. You need to put out a more compelling case, invite criticism, provide proof for your allegations, and on and on. Simply claiming you'd get a judge to toss the evidence against Oswald at some hypothetical murder trial doesn't cut it. You need to explain what happened on 11/22/63, and your explanation needs to have less problems than the case against Oswald you criticize. You are not to be held to a lower burden of proof.
.

[Hank Sienzant]

Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?

It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.

Two logical fallacies.

No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben, you've been ducking a reasoned discussion with me on topics you bring up for YEARS. You are the one running.

When I respond, you delete my points, attempt to change the subject, and call me names. We see you doing all three in this thread, and a multitude of others.

That’s the sum and substance of your “contributions” to moving this case forward over the past decade or more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:34:16 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:47:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
>
>> Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
>> You don't know shit about this case.
>
>I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.

You don't even know what happened that day...


>I do understand who has the burden of proof here..


No you don't. You PROVABLY don't.

[Hank Sienzant]

By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.

You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)

Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical fallacy I just committed!

Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.

Yeah, we are mirror images.

That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:25:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben responds to my points by attempting to change the subject five more times (four in succession, then another after another post of mine).

You can't make this up, folks!

[Hank Sienzant]

Make that SIX times attempting to change the subject! (soon to be even, no doubt).

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Huckster responds to Huckster to run from this:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:05:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

LOL! I think I said what I mean. But, as usual, you twist it into meaning something else.

[Hank Sienzant]

What exactly did you mean by “mirror images”, if not the differences I listed?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You taught me not to answer questions.

[Hank Sienzant]

Right, it's my fault you can't explain what you meant by ‘mirror image’ when you claimed “Ben is your mirror image”.

[Hank Sienzant]

EIGHT attempts by Ben to change the subject in the last hour!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Everything is your fault here because you poison discussion...just like Holmes. Mirror image. Maybe we should ask J. Edgar Hoover what he thinks!

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
> >
> >> Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
> >> You don't know shit about this case.
> >
> >I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.

> You don't even know what happened that day...

Aldous Huxley died?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldous_Huxley

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
>>>
>>>> Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
>>>> You don't know shit about this case.
>>>
>>>I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
>
>> You don't even know what happened that day...
>
>Aldous Huxley died?

Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Make a stupid claim, you'll get a stupid answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:25:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>>>>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
>>>>>> You don't know shit about this case.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
>>>
>>>> You don't even know what happened that day...
>>>
>>>Aldous Huxley died?
>
>> Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
>
>

>Make a stupid claim...

It's your claim.

[Chuck Schuyler]

You claimed I don't know what happened that day, stupid. I gave you a stupid answer in response.

Try and follow your own bullshit.

Can someone help Ben out? He's struggling again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:58:29 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:53:13?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:25:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
>>>>>>>> You don't know shit about this case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even know what happened that day...
>>>>>
>>>>>Aldous Huxley died?
>>>
>>>> Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
>>>
>>>Make a stupid claim...
>>
>> It's your claim.
>

>You claimed ...

All of my claims are supported and cited for.

Unlike you, I have a scenario supported by the evidence...

You lose.

[Hank Sienzant]

Tenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion — the bonafides of the back yard photos.

Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.

[John Corbett]

Why do you think I stopped responding to him. He never discusses substance. All he wants to
do is play his chickenshit games. It's futile to try to get him to address the points you make. He's
never going to do that. He is the epitome of an internet troll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:21:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:32:37 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:21:55?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:43:14?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -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?
>> Tenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion — the bonafides of the back yard photos.
>>
>> Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.
>
>Why do you think I stopped responding to him.

Because I kept posting unanswerable evidence of your cowardice &
dishonesty.

Of course, *YOU* can't answer this either.

[Hank Sienzant]

I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time, even in topics he himself started.

And how, when challenged to support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[John Corbett]

It's a dirty job but I guess somebody has to do it. I'm glad it's not me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And how, when challenged to support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..
>
>It's a dirty job but I guess somebody has to do it. I'm glad it's not me.

Believers rarely deign to support their claims.

Which is why most of America accepts a conspiracy in this case...

[Hank Sienzant]

As noted here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ

All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:24:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[NoTrueFlags Here]

It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.

[BT George]

Hard to see much else that can be done when responding to a master of that ad hominem like Holmes. ...Especially when he constantly avoids honest interaction, but loves to claim he has proven something.

[Hank Sienzant]

Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing out his methodology.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.

[Bud]

<snicker> The idiots sure do get upset when Hank pisses on their sandcastles.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ad hominem logical fallacies.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

I'm just critiquing your methodology.

[Hank Sienzant]

Then you don't understand the difference between a critique of a methodology and an ad hominem attack. Point out the supposed lies, point out the supposed weaseling. Show how you know they are lies, which are deliberate untruths. Cite the evidence supporting your claims.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

It is useless to discuss anything with a weaseling liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 04:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 06:30:11 -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, 22 Sep 2023 19:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination...

Not convincing coming from the coward who keeps running from this:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 18:43:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Is that why you resort to ad hominem in your responses to my points so frequently?

Just asking…

[Hank Sienzant]

Not convincing coming from the same guy who consistently runs away from any discussion of the evidence in this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:21:56 -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?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -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?