The forensic evidence is exactly as we would expect it to be if Oswald killed JFK and Tippit

[John Corbett]

This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
murders of JFK and Tippit.

1. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a clear
paper trail and photographs establishing his ownership of the rifle. His palm
print was on the underside of the barrel and fibers matching the shirt he
wore were on the butt plate of the rifle. In addition there were partial
fingerprints on the trigger guard were consistent with Oswald's prints but
lacked the sufficient number of points for the FBI to say they were a positive
match. Three spent shells were found at the window were the witnesses
placed the shooter and they were positively matched to Oswald to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world. The only two bullets recovered
from the shooting also were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
all other weapons in the world. Oswald's fingerprints were found on top of
the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and were oriented as
they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St. A bag large enough to
hold the disassembled rifle was found near the window with Oswald's finger
and palm print and fibers matching the blanket Oswald had used to store
his rifle.

In the case of the Tippit murder, the .38 Special bullets had been fired from a
gun with a slightly larger diameter barrel that prevented consistent enough
markings to positive match them to any firearm. However, the bullets had
the same twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver. Two different makes
of bullets were recovered from Tippit's body and Oswald had those same
two makes of bullets in his possession when arrested a little more than a
half hour later. Four shells were recovered from the place where the Tippit
shooter was seen dumping them and those shells were positively matched
to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

All of this forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if
Oswald had killed JFK and Tippit. There is nothing we should expect to find
that is not there and everything that is there fits with the narrative that
Oswald was the shooter in both murders.

It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's inncence that
takes into account all of the above forensic evidence. If it were possible,
somebody would have done so by now. Instead, those who want to argue
for Oswald's innocence are forced to invent excuses to dismiss each and
every piece of the forensic evidence which all points to Oswald as the killer.
When one has to invent so many excuses, the arguments for Oswald's
innocence become laughable. There is no way the forensic evidence could
be as it is if Oswald was innocent.

Chuck has presented the term "consilience" which I had been unfamiliar with
but which is certainly appropriate in this case. This is how the term is
defined by Wikipedia:

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will probably not be a strong scientific consensus.

This is exactly what I have said about the forensic evidence for decades.
While no single piece of evidence on its own proves Oswald as the shooter,
the fact that all of the forensic evidence converges on that conclusion
establishes Oswald as the shooter. One can plausibly offer alternative
scenarios for any one piece of evidence but once cannot offer a plausible
alternative for ALL the evidence. Oswald as the shooter is the only scenario
that meets that criteria. If someone disputes that, prove me wrong. Present
an Oswald-innocent scenario the incorporates all the known evidence rather
than one that presents one excuse after another for dismissing each and
every piece of that evidence.

Prediction: No CT will even try.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You really expect the Lurker to read that? Looks like you're taking your Shits & Giggles Hobby a little too seriously, Little Fella. But it is a riot that you still try, so thanks for the laughs on this side!

[John Corbett]

What Lurker would that be? The voice in your head?

> Looks like you're taking your Shits & Giggles Hobby a little too seriously, Little Fella. But it is a riot that you still try, so thanks for the laughs on this side!

I never considered it a possibility that you would attempt to provide an alternative scenario that
is compatible with the forensic evidence. I doubt any of your fellow CTs will either.

[Greg Parker]

Geeze. Just wehen I thought there was hope for you.

I would have expected

Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.

A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together

A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards

OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.

ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.

What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be shitloads of it, we have ourselves a red flag that it was planted. For instance, a drop of blood from the victim found on clothing of a suspect - despite the nature of the crime indicating that suspect should have been covered in blood. That is what we see with the cartons and the paper bag. Much less forensic evidence than their should be. Red flag.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:38:47 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
> murders of JFK and Tippit.
>
> 1. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a clear
> paper trail and photographs establishing his ownership of the rifle.

Clear paper trail ? The shipping documents the FBI provided had neither the serial number of the rifle ( C 2766 ) nor the
number of the carton it was in ( 3376 ) on them.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside520-1.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside170.jpg
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/rupp-1.jpg

> His palm print was on the underside of the barrel and fibers matching the shirt he wore were on the butt plate of the rifle.

But the FBI said that when they received the rifle on the evening of the assassination, there was no palm print.
The FBI agent who travelled with the rifle from Dallas to Washington, Vincent Drain, was never called to testify.
Why not ?
And your star witness, Howard Brennan, testified that the clothes Oswald wore at the police lineup were not the same clothes the man
he saw with the rifle on the 6th floor wore. ( 3 H 161 )

So how did the fibers from Oswald's arrested shirt get on the rifle when there's no evidence that he was wearing that shirt
prior to or at the time of the shooting ?

> In addition there were partial fingerprints on the trigger guard were consistent with Oswald's prints
>but lacked the sufficient number of points for the FBI to say they were a positive match.

So what are you trying to say ?

> Three spent shells were found at the window were the witnesses
> placed the shooter and they were positively matched to Oswald to the
> exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

> The only two bullets recovered
> from the shooting also were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
> all other weapons in the world.

Could one of those be the famous "stretcher bullet" which the four people who handled couldn't identify ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol24_412.jpg

> Oswald's fingerprints were found on top of
> the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and were oriented as
> they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.

How did Oswald lift those cartons from the top ?

>A bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle was found near the window with Oswald's finger
> and palm print and

How do you know the bag was on the sixth floor ? Was it photographed in place ?
Here's the crime scene photo. Where is it ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ce729.jpg

> fibers matching the blanket Oswald had used to store
> his rifle.

Were those fibers identified as having come from the blanket in the Paine garage ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WC_Vol4_88-stombaugh.gif

> In the case of the Tippit murder, the .38 Special bullets had been fired from a
> gun with a slightly larger diameter barrel that prevented consistent enough
> markings to positive match them to any firearm. However, the bullets had
> the same twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver.

You don't match bullets by primary characteristics ( grooves and twists ) any more than you match fingerprint because it's a whorl, a loop or an arch.
You match them from individual characterisitics. The individual chacteristics are the "fingerprint".
You obviously don't know anything about firearms identification.

> Two different makes of bullets were recovered from Tippit's body and Oswald had those same
> two makes of bullets in his possession when arrested a little more than a
> half hour later.

Those cartridges were allegedly found on Oswald outside the lineup room for the 4:05pm lineup.
But Oswald was searched twice before those cartridges were found and there was nothing in his pockets.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png
So here we have two different Dallas policemen, one a detective and the other a uniformed officer, who searched suspect Oswald prior to the escort by Sims,
Boyd and Hall to the lineup room and both reported that Oswald’s pockets were empty.

> Four shells were recovered from the place where the Tippit
> shooter was seen dumping them and those shells were positively matched
> to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Were those shells ever identified by the witnesses who found them ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

>It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's inncence that
>takes into account all of the above forensic evidence. If it were possible,
>somebody would have done so by now. Instead, those who want to argue
>for Oswald's innocence are forced to invent excuses to dismiss each and
>every piece of the forensic evidence which all points to Oswald as the killer.

It's not excuses, it's called evidence.
And you should learn it.

[John Corbett]

Why?

> A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together
>

It was shown that the rifle could be reassembled using a dime as a screwdriver. There weren't
that many parts to reassemble.

> A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards
>
> OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.

I've fired guns often. Your hands don't get that oil. Neither would the bag.

>
> ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.
>

How does that exonerate Oswald?

> What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be shitloads of it, we have ourselves a red flag that it was planted. For instance, a drop of blood from the victim found on clothing of a suspect - despite the nature of the crime indicating that suspect should have been covered in blood. That is what we see with the cartons and the paper bag. Much less forensic evidence than their should be. Red flag.

Yet you can't tell us what those shitloads of forensic evidence are that should be there.

You also haven't attempted to present an alternative scenario that explains the existing
evidence. There is only on explanation that fits that evidence and that is that Oswald was
a double murderer. Don't feel bad. None of your compadres will either. It's just not possible.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:35:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:38:47 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
> > murders of JFK and Tippit.
> >
> > 1. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a clear
> > paper trail and photographs establishing his ownership of the rifle.
> Clear paper trail ? The shipping documents the FBI provided had neither the serial number of the rifle ( C 2766 ) nor the
> number of the carton it was in ( 3376 ) on them.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside520-1.jpg
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside170.jpg
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/rupp-1.jpg

As expected, Gil is not trying to offer an alternative explanation for the existing evidence but
instead offers excuses for dismissing it. CTs have no evidence on their side so they choose
to throw out what is there to give them a blank slate for their fingerpainting.

> > His palm print was on the underside of the barrel and fibers matching the shirt he wore were on the butt plate of the rifle.
> But the FBI said that when they received the rifle on the evening of the assassination, there was no palm print.

Are you really that ignorant, Gil, or are you just pretending to be. If you are as knowledgeable
of the evidence as you claim to be, you know that Lt. Day lifted that palm print off the rifle
before turning it over to the FBI. Once the print is lifted, it won't be there anymore.

> The FBI agent who travelled with the rifle from Dallas to Washington, Vincent Drain, was never called to testify.
> Why not ?

Why would he be called? What would he have to offer? Just another red herring argument.

> And your star witness, Howard Brennan, testified that the clothes Oswald wore at the police lineup were not the same clothes the man
> he saw with the rifle on the 6th floor wore. ( 3 H 161 )

Funny how you impeach Brennan's ID of Oswald yet you accept his description of the shooter's
clothing as gospel. The intelligent approach is to measure what a witness has told us to
the body of evidence as a whole to determine what a witness has got right and what he has
got wrong. Brennan's ID of Oswald as the shooter is corroborated by all the forensic evidence
found on the 6th floor.

>
> So how did the fibers from Oswald's arrested shirt get on the rifle when there's no evidence that he was wearing that shirt
> prior to or at the time of the shooting ?

The fibers on the rifle are the evidence he was wearing that shirt when he fired the rifle. Are you
going to write off as coincidence the fibers on the rifle matched the shirt Oswald was wearing
when arrested.

> > In addition there were partial fingerprints on the trigger guard were consistent with Oswald's prints
> >but lacked the sufficient number of points for the FBI to say they were a positive match.
> So what are you trying to say ?

The partial prints on the rifle matched Oswald but without sufficient points to meet FBI
standards. It would be highly significant if those prints didn't match Oswald because that
would mean someone else had touched that trigger guard. While not conclusive, the partial
match is siginificant.

> > Three spent shells were found at the window were the witnesses
> > placed the shooter and they were positively matched to Oswald to the
> > exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
>
> > The only two bullets recovered
> > from the shooting also were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
> > all other weapons in the world.
> Could one of those be the famous "stretcher bullet" which the four people who handled couldn't identify ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol24_412.jpg

Still more excuses offered by Gil to dismiss evidence. No attempt to explain the existing
evidence.

> > Oswald's fingerprints were found on top of
> > the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and were oriented as
> > they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.

> How did Oswald lift those cartons from the top ?

Who said he did?

> >A bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle was found near the window with Oswald's finger
> > and palm print and
> How do you know the bag was on the sixth floor ? Was it photographed in place ?

More excuses. Lame ones at that. Let's just throw out all the evidence and then you can make
up any story you like. Oh, wait. That's what you guys have been doing for six decades.

> Here's the crime scene photo. Where is it ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ce729.jpg

Someplace nearby. Why would he have taken the bag into the nest?

> > fibers matching the blanket Oswald had used to store
> > his rifle.
> Were those fibers identified as having come from the blanket in the Paine garage ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WC_Vol4_88-stombaugh.gif

They matched the blanket. That is highly probative.

> > In the case of the Tippit murder, the .38 Special bullets had been fired from a
> > gun with a slightly larger diameter barrel that prevented consistent enough
> > markings to positive match them to any firearm. However, the bullets had
> > the same twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver.
> You don't match bullets by primary characteristics ( grooves and twists ) any more than you match fingerprint because it's a whorl, a loop or an arch.
> You match them from individual characterisitics. The individual chacteristics are the "fingerprint".
> You obviously don't know anything about firearms identification.

Impossible to do when the bore has a large diameter than the bullets. The FBI couldn't even
match two bullets fired consecutively from the gun.

> > Two different makes of bullets were recovered from Tippit's body and Oswald had those same
> > two makes of bullets in his possession when arrested a little more than a
> > half hour later.
> Those cartridges were allegedly found on Oswald outside the lineup room for the 4:05pm lineup.
> But Oswald was searched twice before those cartridges were found and there was nothing in his pockets.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png

More excuses. No explanations for the evidence.

> So here we have two different Dallas policemen, one a detective and the other a uniformed officer, who searched suspect Oswald prior to the escort by Sims,
> Boyd and Hall to the lineup room and both reported that Oswald’s pockets were empty.
> > Four shells were recovered from the place where the Tippit
> > shooter was seen dumping them and those shells were positively matched
> > to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
> Were those shells ever identified by the witnesses who found them ?
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

How the hell could they do that. Another lame excuse.

> >It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's inncence that
> >takes into account all of the above forensic evidence. If it were possible,
> >somebody would have done so by now. Instead, those who want to argue
> >for Oswald's innocence are forced to invent excuses to dismiss each and
> >every piece of the forensic evidence which all points to Oswald as the killer.

> It's not excuses, it's called evidence.
> And you should learn it.

You haven't offered one damn piece of evidence nor have you tried to explain the evidence
we have. You have done what I predicted you would do and what CTs have spent six decades
doing. You have offered excuses to dismiss the evidence because you all know you can't
offer an explanation that fits the evidence in which Oswald is innocent. That is simply not
possible and you know it. To argue for Oswald's innocence, you have to throw out all the
evidence we have because all the evidence points to his guilt.

Thank you fore demonstrating what I wrote in the OP.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:57:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Thank you fore demonstrating what I wrote in the OP.

You either have to be stupidest person on this planet or mentally ill.
It's not excuses, you fucking idiot, it's EVIDENCE using official documents and testimony.
The fact that you can't and WON'T accept it, says there's something wrong with you.
I can't have an intelligent debate with someone who, not only doesn't know the evidence in the case,
but doesn't know the difference between an excuse and evidence.

All you post is bullshit commentary. You're a total waste of time.
You're ignorance has been exposed by myself and others many times in this newsgroup.
You just don't get it and you never will.

So live in your fantasy world,
ignore the man behind the curtain,
the Emporer has such fine clothes,
and have a nice life.

But don't lie and say your "forensic evidence" has never been challenged.
It has been and you couldn't support it.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:38:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:57:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Thank you fore demonstrating what I wrote in the OP.
> You either have to be stupidest person on this planet or mentally ill.
> It's not excuses, you fucking idiot, it's EVIDENCE using official documents and testimony.

Is that so. Just what piece of evidence did you present that wasn't an excuse to dismiss the
evidence against Oswald or implicated someone other than Oswald?

> The fact that you can't and WON'T accept it, says there's something wrong with you.

I recognize the difference between evidence and arguments. You present arguments which
are not evidence. They are your reasons for not accepting evidence of Oswald's guilt. They
are also very pathetic reasons, i.e. excuses.

> I can't have an intelligent debate

You could have stopped right there.

> with someone who, not only doesn't know the evidence in the case,
> but doesn't know the difference between an excuse and evidence.

Again I ask you what evidence you produced. Give us three pieces of evidence. I doubt you'll
give us even one. Evidence can take the form of a physical piece of evidence or sworn testimony
by either an eyewitness or a recognized expert. None of what you have presented falls in any
of those categories. You have nothing.

>
> All you post is bullshit commentary. You're a total waste of time.
> You're ignorance has been exposed by myself and others many times in this newsgroup.
> You just don't get it and you never will.

Sound's like you are making excuses for your retreat.

>
> So live in your fantasy world,
> ignore the man behind the curtain,
> the Emporer has such fine clothes,
> and have a nice life.
>

I take this as your concession that you have no evidence to present.

> But don't lie and say your "forensic evidence" has never been challenged.

I never said it hadn't been challenged.

> It has been and you couldn't support it.

Evidence doesn't need support. It stands on its own merits. Since you have no evidence to
present, you wouldn't know that.

The simple fact is I have challenged you and your cohorts to offer forensic evidence that
doesn't point to Oswald's guilt or present an alternative explanation for the evidence that
doesn't conclude Oswald was the shooter of both JFK and JDT. You whiffed on both counts.
Now you are getting frustrated because I won't accept your lame excuses for dismissing
evidence as actually being evidence. It isn't just you. This is what your silly hobby has been
comprised of for six decades and you will all continue until you have followed all the other
silly hobbyists to your graves. You have accomplished nothing and you never will. You are
all shooting blanks.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Why? There are plenty of ways to move a box. For instance, what
would prevent anyone from grabbing the box from underneath
and flipping it over, to where the former bottom is now facing
upwards?

> A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together

You don't need a screwdriver to put it together. A dime, something
small made from sheet metal, or any number of other thin objects
can be pressed into service to do the job.

> A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards

The only part that was "well-oiled" was the firing pin and spring. Those
two parts are buried within the bolt, and wouldn't make contact with
the rifle's handler unless he were actually disassembling the bolt. The
rag you're on wouldn't be needed.

> OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.
>
> ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.

The Imperial Reflex camera was found on November 22 by Irving
Police Detective detective McCabe. It was found in a box of other
random Oswald belongings. McCabe said that the camera started
off as a cheap plastic thing, and was badly worn. McCabe figured
that it was probably inoperable, and didn't bear on the assassination
or Tippit's murder so didn't take it.

[...]

[Greg Parker]

Who lifts a carton of books from the just the top?

> > A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together
> >
> It was shown that the rifle could be reassembled using a dime as a screwdriver. There weren't
> that many parts to reassemble.

No it wasn;t. It was stated, not "shown". What actually was shown is someone trying to put it together. 12 parts with a screwdriver after finding that a dime did not fit the screws well enough.
https://youtu.be/HwayY6YqeQs

> > A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards
> >
> > OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.
> I've fired guns often. Your hands don't get that oil. Neither would the bag.

You do when you put a ewll-oiled one together. The authorities stated this rifle was well-oiled.

> > ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.
> >
> How does that exonerate Oswald?

Goes to support a frame up.

> > What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be shitloads of it, we have ourselves a red flag that it was planted. For instance, a drop of blood from the victim found on clothing of a suspect - despite the nature of the crime indicating that suspect should have been covered in blood. That is what we see with the cartons and the paper bag. Much less forensic evidence than their should be. Red flag.
> Yet you can't tell us what those shitloads of forensic evidence are that should be there.

I did in fact give two examples. Finger/palm prints on te bottom of cartons. Cloth or clothing with oil from the weapon assembly.

> You also haven't attempted to present an alternative scenario that explains the existing
> evidence.

FFS. He worked as someone who collected books from those cartons to fill school orders. The bag was never shown to even be there.

There is only on explanation that fits that evidence and that is that Oswald was
> a double murderer. Don't feel bad. None of your compadres will either. It's just not possible.

You sound like the soldiers in the Manchurian Candidate dutifully repeating the totally made up and implanted narrative of the heriocs of the "Candidate", never questioning the obvious flaws and discrepancies and ignoring all the evidence against it. Well done! I hope the nightmares eventually go away.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Who said he did?

> > > A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Just because the simple tool or dime or whatever that could've quickly reassembled the rifle wasn't present or accounted for doesn't mean the rifle wasn't reassembled by Oswald. Of course, if a screwdriver was found nearby and used as an extra tidbit pointing towards the rifle reassembly in the TSBD, you'd claim it was planted. Heads you win, tails I lose.

> > >
> > It was shown that the rifle could be reassembled using a dime as a screwdriver. There weren't
> > that many parts to reassemble.

> No it wasn;t. It was stated, not "shown". What actually was shown is someone trying to put it together. 12 parts with a screwdriver after finding that a dime did not fit the screws well enough.
> https://youtu.be/HwayY6YqeQs

Having conspiracist Ian Griggs in your video attempt to assemble the Carcano is like asking OJ Simpson to try on the bloody glove he left at the murder scene of his ex and the waiter he stabbed to death.

> > > A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards
> > >
> > > OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.
> > I've fired guns often. Your hands don't get that oil. Neither would the bag.
> You do when you put a ewll-oiled one together. The authorities stated this rifle was well-oiled.

No, you don't. I fire rifles and pistols recreationally and it's rare that I ever get any lubricants on me.

> > > ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.
> > >
> > How does that exonerate Oswald?

> Goes to support a frame up.

Please detail the frame-up you claim occurred.

> > > What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be shitloads of it, we have ourselves a red flag that it was planted. For instance, a drop of blood from the victim found on clothing of a suspect - despite the nature of the crime indicating that suspect should have been covered in blood. That is what we see with the cartons and the paper bag. Much less forensic evidence than their should be. Red flag.
> > Yet you can't tell us what those shitloads of forensic evidence are that should be there.

> I did in fact give two examples. Finger/palm prints on te bottom of cartons. Cloth or clothing with oil from the weapon assembly.

Logical fallacy from hindsight. Hindsight bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias#:~:text=Hindsight%20bias%2C%20also%20known%20as,more%20predictable%20than%20they%20were.

"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they were."

Trapped by the prospect that Oswald's prints were on the boxes, you use your biases to shift the burden that someone must explain why prints were not found where you think they should've been found in hindsight, and if they can't provide what your biases demand, you hand-wave away the very damning evidence that his prints were on the boxes. Don't do this.

> > You also haven't attempted to present an alternative scenario that explains the existing
> > evidence.
> FFS. He worked as someone who collected books from those cartons to fill school orders. The bag was never shown to even be there.
> There is only on explanation that fits that evidence and that is that Oswald was
> > a double murderer. Don't feel bad. None of your compadres will either. It's just not possible.

> You sound like the soldiers in the Manchurian Candidate dutifully repeating the totally made up and implanted narrative of the heriocs of the "Candidate", never questioning the obvious flaws and discrepancies and ignoring all the evidence against it. Well done! I hope the nightmares eventually go away.

Please provide your very own JFK conspiracy theory. Do not ask us to explain what puzzles you, because you will never be satisfied with the answers you receive.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Your very reason for not wanting Parker to ask you to explain what puzzles Parker, that Parker will never be satisfied with your answer, is the same reason Parker should not answer your question; you will never be satisfied with his answer. This is what happens when you play Dugout Baseball.

But, you're in for a treat if Parker decides to play, because Parker mixes Bonnie and Clyde with Star Wars to come up with his Anti-Conspiracy Theory of what happened! Yes, it's wild and wacky, but because it does not address what happened to JFK, Parker says it is not a conspiracy theory. For Parker it's okay to speculate like a rabid wallaby about what happened to Tippit, just so long as Tippit's murder has nothing to do with the President's. Parker will not allow the two to be connected. They are both completely unrelated events which, by pure happenstance, occurred on the same day. And the other Parker Rule is that Oswald was set up for both of these random events. And the Third Parker Rule is that no theories are allowed about how JFK was murdered. That's right, the only topic that anybody should be interested in is off limits to Parker. So, just as long as these three rules are followed, any batshit insane theory can be true, according to Parker.

[Bud]

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

Your expectations aren`t evidence.

You ignore or dismiss what is in evidence and give more weight to what is not.

> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.

You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.

> A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together

There was a toolbox in the vicinity of of the SN.

> A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards

It would be a strange world if there were no rags in the TSBD. But he could have assembled the rifle and any time, and then washed his hands.

> OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.

I`d love to see the FBI process the bag using todays techniques. Would a tiny hair stuck to the tape holding the bag together that was DNA matched to Oswald get you to drop this silly hobby, or would it just be one more piece of evidence to explain away?

> ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex.

Obviously the All Powerful, All Seeing Massive Omnipotent Conspiracy told them to take the one camera and leave the other.

> Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.
>
> What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be

What are the rules for "should be"? Who determines it?

I think you get what you get when it comes to evidence. If the large amount of incriminating evidence against Oswald, coming from all directions isn`t enough (even though it is more than I have ever seen in any other case), and small amounts aren`t good enough then what bed is just right for Goldilocks to sleep in?

[John Corbett]

Who said the fingerprints were left there when he lifted that carton?

> > > A screw driver to be found in the area used to put thye rifle together
> > >
> > It was shown that the rifle could be reassembled using a dime as a screwdriver. There weren't
> > that many parts to reassemble.
> No it wasn;t. It was stated, not "shown". What actually was shown is someone trying to put it together. 12 parts with a screwdriver after finding that a dime did not fit the screws well enough.
> https://youtu.be/HwayY6YqeQs

Your demonstrator also only stated you couldn't reassemble the rifle with a dime. He didn't show
it either. Yet you are willing to believe him but not the FBI agent who said it could be done. All of
that is academic. Nobody knows what Oswald used to reassemble his rifle. It could have been
a dime, a screwdriver that wasn't found near the nest, or some other makeshift device. It isn't
necessary to prove how he reassembled the rifle. We have forensic evidence that he brought
his disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a bag he constructed and the rifle was found assembled.
That would indicate he assembled the rifle after smuggling it into the TSBD. If you have a better
explanation for how the assembled rifle got into the TSBD, by all means present it and your
supporting evidence for that explanation. Nothing in your video precludes Oswald from having
brought his rifle into the TSBD in his paper bag and reassembling his rifle before the assassination.

> > > A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards
> > >
> > > OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.
> > I've fired guns often. Your hands don't get that oil. Neither would the bag.
> You do when you put a ewll-oiled one together. The authorities stated this rifle was well-oiled.

The firing mechanism was well oiled. Not the outer surface.

> > > ALL of the cameras and photos to have been found and taken in the first sweep of the Paine home - not all EXCEPT the one used to take incriminating photos. I am still scratching my head as to how the Stereo Realist was taken and not the Imperial Reflex. Funny how the Paines only claimed ownership of that Stereo Realist AFTER the Imperial Reflex they'd allegedly given Robert, was turned in and it was now being claimed as Lee's All-American camera. Because at the time of the first search, that Imperial Reflex was allegedly with all the other camera gear.
> > >
> > How does that exonerate Oswald?
> Goes to support a frame up.

An assumption in search of supporting evidence. Conspiracy hobbyists have a conditioned
reflex to assume every anomaly, no matter how mundane is evidence of a conspiracy. They
never both to consider any other plausible explanations.

> > > What cases from the Innocence Project teach us is that where there small amounts of forensic evidence are found where there should be shitloads of it, we have ourselves a red flag that it was planted. For instance, a drop of blood from the victim found on clothing of a suspect - despite the nature of the crime indicating that suspect should have been covered in blood. That is what we see with the cartons and the paper bag. Much less forensic evidence than their should be. Red flag.
> > Yet you can't tell us what those shitloads of forensic evidence are that should be there.

> I did in fact give two examples. Finger/palm prints on te bottom of cartons. Cloth or clothing with oil from the weapon assembly.

Prints were found on the top of the cartons. That was sufficient to establish Oswald's presence
at the sniper's nest window.

> > You also haven't attempted to present an alternative scenario that explains the existing
> > evidence.
> FFS. He worked as someone who collected books from those cartons to fill school orders. The bag was never shown to even be there.

Another asinine excuse for dismissing a key piece of evidence. The cops found the bag near
the sniper's nest and were photographed carrying it out of the TSBD. How do you suppose that
happened?

> There is only on explanation that fits that evidence and that is that Oswald was
> > a double murderer. Don't feel bad. None of your compadres will either. It's just not possible.
> You sound like the soldiers in the Manchurian Candidate dutifully repeating the totally made up and implanted narrative of the heriocs of the "Candidate", never questioning the obvious flaws and discrepancies and ignoring all the evidence against it. Well done! I hope the nightmares eventually go away.

The discrepancies and flaws you allege exist only in your feeble minds. They are absurd
excuses you assclowns have dreamed up to dismiss all the compelling evidence of Oswald's
guilt. If you don't like the narrative presented by the WCR, present a better one. You won't
because you can't. The only plausible explanation for the evidence is that Oswald was a double
murderer. Since conspiracy hobbyists can't offer a plausible alternative, they have spent six
decades dreaming up inane excuses to dismiss each and every piece of evidence because it
all points to Oswald and nobody else. If we were to accept those inane excuses and throw out
all the evidence, what would we be left with. Absolutely nothing. With no evidence available,
what point is there to even discussing the assassination? Do you think that 60 years later
somebody is going to find some real evidence or is it just going to suddenly pop up out of thin
air?

[recip...@gmail.com]

In the video, Griggs only states that he couldn't get the rifle together
with a dime. He doesn't actually show that. You're in the same boat.

> > > A rag or something.. anything... on which he wiped his oily hands afterwards
> > >
> > > OIl and scratches on.in the bag, not just fibers which were most likely caused by contamination.
> > I've fired guns often. Your hands don't get that oil. Neither would the bag.
>
> You do when you put a ewll-oiled one together. The authorities stated this rifle was well-oiled.

[...]

No, they --really Hoover-- only said that the firing ping
and spring were oiled.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hoover also said that he told the Attorney General that Oswald had been to Cuba several times, but refused to tell the FBI why. Just for your Hoover file you've got going there.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>
> > Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.

The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:

1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)

I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.

[recip...@gmail.com]

One of the boxes with a palm print was sitting on the floor.
That is, it wasn't lifted. The other box was the top box of
the two stacked next to the window. The window where
Euins, Brennan, and Couch saw a rifleman taking shots.
Odd coincidence, eh?

[Chuck Schuyler]

He's making the extraordinary claim, not me. He's shifting the burden. The things that puzzle him (and you) have been EXPLAINED, but never to your standards.

>
> But, you're in for a treat if Parker decides to play, because Parker mixes Bonnie and Clyde with Star Wars to come up with his Anti-Conspiracy Theory of what happened! Yes, it's wild and wacky, but because it does not address what happened to JFK, Parker says it is not a conspiracy theory. For Parker it's okay to speculate like a rabid wallaby about what happened to Tippit, just so long as Tippit's murder has nothing to do with the President's. Parker will not allow the two to be connected. They are both completely unrelated events which, by pure happenstance, occurred on the same day. And the other Parker Rule is that Oswald was set up for both of these random events. And the Third Parker Rule is that no theories are allowed about how JFK was murdered. That's right, the only topic that anybody should be interested in is off limits to Parker. So, just as long as these three rules are followed, any batshit insane theory can be true, according to Parker.

Yes, he's a nut. You're a nut, too, but at least you're entertaining. Sometimes.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's the same. That which bothers you has been explained, but never to your standards. You simply accept the Official Story version and will never entertain a challenge to it.

[Bud]

This reminds me of trying to catch grasshoppers as a kid, they would always flit away somewhere else.

[Bud]

Post your challenge. Or STFU. You`ll do neither.

[Bud]

He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I have no burden to post a challenge to your inanity. I am content to sit back and watch you drown halfway between the dugout and first base.

[David Healy]

falling on your sword and adoration for .johnny mcmadman here Bunky? 20 years you've been here and YOU still need adult supervision

But that's alright, lurkers are well aware of you failings. If you're gonna play the game here, make your case for the 1964 WCR conclusions, dolt.... <smooches from the farside> lmfao!

[Bud]

I`ve been at the finish line for decades. It is clearly marked with neon signs, makes you wonder why people would go offroad into the weeds and stop dead in their tracks, making no discernable progress.

[David Healy]

sit Chuck... Gil just swept the floor with Corbutt.... show a bit of grace for embarrassed cohort Corbutt...

The way you guys run from the '64 WCR conclusions makes one wonder why you waste your time here... is the stipend that good these days? its certainly not lone neuter writing competence, that's for sure...

[Bud]

You forget something at the White House, stoner?

[David Healy]

sure you're not DVP? He sure loooooovvvvvves baseball, to this day.... it's what brought him to the USENET boards in the first place... the above is a great line anyway....

[David Healy]

of course you have.... and STILL can't get the loon neuter deal across the finish line... carry on... lmao!

[John Corbett]

Actually I've only been here for 15 years and then it was off and on. More off than on. I know
that because a visit to Dallas in 2008 rekindled my interest in the subject.

>
> But that's alright, lurkers are well aware of you failings. If you're gonna play the game here, make your case for the 1964 WCR conclusions, dolt.... <smooches from the farside> lmfao!

I always get a chuckle at how you guys imagine there is an army of lurkers out there who give
a shit what any of us have to say on the subject. We might get the occasional drive by viewers
who ends up here on a google search about some related topic, but I find it hard to believe that
there is anyone out there who regularly views these discussions and chooses not to participate.

[John Corbett]

Looks like Healy is already brain dead.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Are YOU sure you're not Holmes?

[David Healy]

to the best of my knowledge Ben Holmes, myself and Gil Jesus are the ONLY ones here of late that don't hide behind aliases -- as do most of the loons, buffs and nutters that post here... last nutter that had an appearance of honesty on JFK associated USENET boards was John McMadman McAdams... now he's doing time in Purgatory.... comments?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I fail to see the superiority of the "appearance of honesty" displayed by using actual names. If each person uses just one name, then what the fuck does it matter? Sure, if one person is using a dozen different names, then the appearance of honesty doesn't mean much. But, then again, a liar using one name, be it genuine or an alias, doesn't mean much either. In fact, very little that goes on here means anything at all other than that the human race sucks. That's my comment.

[John Corbett]

So you think John Corbett is an alias? Gil found out otherwise. I used to write under the screename
of "bigdog" because the first Usenet group I joined, everyone used a screenname. Gil, being
the sleuth that he is, used my registered email address to locate an organization I had been
president of and proudly "exposed" me. I told him if he wanted to know my real name, all he
had to do was ask.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're "bigdog?" I thought that was "Gallbraith." Anyway, every single one of you is actually David Von Penis, so I don't see what difference it makes. Though I can't understand what you get out of being Greg Parker. That's Nutters for you!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 03:35:18 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:38:47?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
>> murders of JFK and Tippit.
>>
>> 1. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a clear
>> paper trail and photographs establishing his ownership of the rifle.
>

>Clear paper trail ? The shipping documents the FBI provided had neither the serial number of the rifle ( C 2766 ) nor the
>number of the carton it was in ( 3376 ) on them.
>
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside520-1.jpg
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside170.jpg
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/rupp-1.jpg

>
>> His palm print was on the underside of the barrel and fibers matching the shirt he wore were on the butt plate of the rifle.
>

>But the FBI said that when they received the rifle on the evening of the assassination, there was no palm print.
>The FBI agent who travelled with the rifle from Dallas to Washington, Vincent Drain, was never called to testify.
>Why not ?
>And your star witness, Howard Brennan, testified that the clothes Oswald wore at the police lineup were not the same clothes the man
>he saw with the rifle on the 6th floor wore. ( 3 H 161 )
>
>So how did the fibers from Oswald's arrested shirt get on the rifle when there's no evidence that he was wearing that shirt
>prior to or at the time of the shooting ?

>
>> In addition there were partial fingerprints on the trigger guard were consistent with Oswald's prints
>>but lacked the sufficient number of points for the FBI to say they were a positive match.
>

>So what are you trying to say ?

>
>> Three spent shells were found at the window were the witnesses
>> placed the shooter and they were positively matched to Oswald to the
>> exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
>
>> The only two bullets recovered
>> from the shooting also were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
>> all other weapons in the world.
>

>Could one of those be the famous "stretcher bullet" which the four people who handled couldn't identify ?
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WH_Vol24_412.jpg

>
>> Oswald's fingerprints were found on top of
>> the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest and were oriented as
>> they would be if Oswald were facing down Elm St.
>

>How did Oswald lift those cartons from the top ?

>
>>A bag large enough to hold the disassembled rifle was found near the window with Oswald's finger
>> and palm print and
>

>How do you know the bag was on the sixth floor ? Was it photographed in place ?
>Here's the crime scene photo. Where is it ?
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ce729.jpg

>
>> fibers matching the blanket Oswald had used to store
>> his rifle.
>

>Were those fibers identified as having come from the blanket in the Paine garage ?
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WC_Vol4_88-stombaugh.gif

>
>> In the case of the Tippit murder, the .38 Special bullets had been fired from a
>> gun with a slightly larger diameter barrel that prevented consistent enough
>> markings to positive match them to any firearm. However, the bullets had
>> the same twist characteristics as Oswald's revolver.
>

>You don't match bullets by primary characteristics ( grooves and twists ) any more than you match fingerprint because it's a whorl, a loop or an arch.
>You match them from individual characterisitics. The individual chacteristics are the "fingerprint".
>You obviously don't know anything about firearms identification.

>
>> Two different makes of bullets were recovered from Tippit's body and Oswald had those same
>> two makes of bullets in his possession when arrested a little more than a
>> half hour later.
>

>Those cartridges were allegedly found on Oswald outside the lineup room for the 4:05pm lineup.
>But Oswald was searched twice before those cartridges were found and there was nothing in his pockets.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png
>So here we have two different Dallas policemen, one a detective and the other a uniformed officer, who searched suspect Oswald prior to the escort by Sims,
>Boyd and Hall to the lineup room and both reported that Oswald’s pockets were empty.

>
>> Four shells were recovered from the place where the Tippit
>> shooter was seen dumping them and those shells were positively matched
>> to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
>

>Were those shells ever identified by the witnesses who found them ?
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/discovery.png

>
>>It is impossible to construct a plausible scenario for Oswald's inncence that
>>takes into account all of the above forensic evidence. If it were possible,
>>somebody would have done so by now. Instead, those who want to argue
>>for Oswald's innocence are forced to invent excuses to dismiss each and
>>every piece of the forensic evidence which all points to Oswald as the killer.
>

>It's not excuses, it's called evidence.
>And you should learn it.

Notice folks, that Gil is referencing the actual evidence, while
Corbutt just *claims* what it is.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:46:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I never considered it a possibility that you would attempt to provide an alternative scenario that
>is compatible with the forensic evidence. I doubt any of your fellow CTs will either.

It's well detailed in Douglas Horne's five volume set. There's no
doubt WHATSOEVER that you'll refuse to address it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 07:38:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
>murders of JFK and Tippit.

But not a *single* citation to the actual evidence.

Despite being asked dozens of times...

Corbutt's a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 03:46:50 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Your demonstrator also only stated you couldn't reassemble the rifle with a dime. He didn't show
>it either. Yet you are willing to believe him but not the FBI agent who said it could be done. All of
>that is academic. Nobody knows what Oswald used to reassemble his rifle. It could have been
>a dime, a screwdriver that wasn't found near the nest, or some other makeshift device. It isn't
>necessary to prove how he reassembled the rifle. We have forensic evidence that he brought
>his disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a bag he constructed and the rifle was found assembled.

"forensic evidence" you refuse to cite, and logical fallacies you
cannot name.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 03:57:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:35:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:38:47?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> This is a short summation of the forensic evidence at the scene of the
>>> murders of JFK and Tippit.
>>>

>>> 1. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. There is a clear
>>> paper trail and photographs establishing his ownership of the rifle.
>> Clear paper trail ? The shipping documents the FBI provided had neither the serial number of the rifle ( C 2766 ) nor the
>> number of the carton it was in ( 3376 ) on them.
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside520-1.jpg
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/harborside170.jpg
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/rupp-1.jpg
>

>As expected, Gil is not trying to offer an alternative explanation...

Not needed. *YOU* refuse to offer any explanations at all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 07:43:48 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>He's making the extraordinary claim, not me.

Lie some more....

You're TERRIFIED of having to support your claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 03:43:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Your expectations aren`t evidence.

Neither are your beliefs.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:57:16?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> Thank you fore demonstrating what I wrote in the OP.
>
>You either have to be stupidest person on this planet or mentally ill.

Or simply a dishonest coward...

>It's not excuses, you fucking idiot, it's EVIDENCE using official documents and testimony.

>The fact that you can't and WON'T accept it, says there's something wrong with you.

>I can't have an intelligent debate with someone who, not only doesn't know the evidence in the case,

>but doesn't know the difference between an excuse and evidence.
>

>All you post is bullshit commentary.

Precisely correct!

> You're a total waste of time.
>You're ignorance has been exposed by myself and others many times in this newsgroup.
>You just don't get it and you never will.
>

>So live in your fantasy world,
>ignore the man behind the curtain,
>the Emporer has such fine clothes,
>and have a nice life.
>

>But don't lie and say your "forensic evidence" has never been challenged.

>It has been and you couldn't support it.

Nor cite it. Don't forget to mention that, Gil... Corbutt has not
*ONCE* cited the "forensic evidence" he keeps mentioning.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 21:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Please provide your very own JFK conspiracy theory. Do not ask us to explain what puzzles you, because you will never be satisfied with the answers you receive.

Why do you ask questions that *YOU* refuse to answer?

You admit you have no scenario - and are COMPLETELY unwilling to
defend what you believe.

Such cowardice!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 06:24:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>>
>> > Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
>
>The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
>
>1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
>4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
>
>I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.

This moron can't even come up with a good list...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:24:08?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
>>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
>> The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
>>
>> 1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>> 2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>> 3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
>> 4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
>>
>> I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.
>
> He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.

Tut tut tut, stupid!!!

This wasn't one of the choices given by Corbutt.

Corbutt's going to get mad at you for pointing out his stupidity.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 08:16:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:38:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 6:57:16?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Thank you fore demonstrating what I wrote in the OP.
>> You either have to be stupidest person on this planet or mentally ill.

>> It's not excuses, you fucking idiot, it's EVIDENCE using official documents and testimony.
>

>Is that so. Just what piece of evidence did you present...

Cowardice raises its head again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I`ve been at the finish line for decades.

And clearly can't figure out why most of America rejects his finish
line.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:03:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> This reminds me of trying to catch grasshoppers as a kid, they would always flit away somewhere else.

Last year?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:51:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Looks like Healy is already brain dead.

Logical fallacies merely prove that *YOU* know you lost.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 03:40:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 11:07:39?PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 12:09:10?PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 2:16:48?PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 10:08:06?AM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 1:04:58?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:24:08?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
>>>>>>>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
>>>>>>> The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>>>>>>> 2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>>>>>>> 3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
>>>>>>> 4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.
>>>>>> He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.
>>>>> I have no burden to post a challenge to your inanity. I am content to sit back and watch you drown halfway between the dugout and first base.
>>>> sure you're not DVP? He sure loooooovvvvvves baseball, to this day.... it's what brought him to the USENET boards in the first place... the above is a great line anyway....
>>> Are YOU sure you're not Holmes?
>> to the best of my knowledge Ben Holmes, myself and Gil Jesus are the ONLY ones here of late that don't hide behind aliases -- as do most of the loons, buffs and nutters that post here... last nutter that had an appearance of honesty on JFK associated USENET boards was John McMadman McAdams... now he's doing time in Purgatory.... comments?
>
>So you think John Corbett is an alias? Gil found out otherwise. I used to write under the screename

>of "bigdog"...

So you acknowledge previously lying. Yet wish us to believe your new
alias is the truth...

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Post your challenge. Or STFU. You`ll do neither.

The keyboard warrior throws down his challenge!

[Bud]

Don`t worry, it wasn`t accepted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:52:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:40:45?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:03:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Post your challenge. Or STFU. You`ll do neither.
>>
>> The keyboard warrior throws down his challenge!
>
> Don`t worry, it wasn`t accepted.

Why would you accept your own challenge?

[Bud]

No, I added it.

> Corbutt's going to get mad at you for pointing out his stupidity.

We were pointing out Parker`s.

[Bud]

I didn`t challenge myself, stupid.

[Bud]

How much effort did they put into looking for it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:40:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:24:08?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
>>>>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
>>>> The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>>>> 2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>>>> 3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
>>>> 4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
>>>>
>>>> I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.
>>>
>>> He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.
>> Tut tut tut, stupid!!!
>>
>> This wasn't one of the choices given by Corbutt.
>
> No, I added it.

Then you need to do it via email, and not publicly point out a fellow
believer's stupidity.

>> Corbutt's going to get mad at you for pointing out his stupidity.
>
> We were pointing out Parker`s.

No moron, the list was compiled by Corbutt. Stop lying!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:09:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:40:17?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:09:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> I`ve been at the finish line for decades.
>>
>> And clearly can't figure out why most of America rejects his finish
>> line.
>
> How much effort did they put into looking for it?

Some of them spent years. Others, no time at all.

But if you think you've refuted me, you failed.

Again.

[Bud]

If you think the public`s inability to find the finish line reflects on me, you failed.

> Again.

[Bud]

On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:02:41 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:40:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:24:08?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
> >>>>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
> >>>> The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
> >>>> 2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
> >>>> 3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
> >>>> 4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.
> >>>
> >>> He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.
> >> Tut tut tut, stupid!!!
> >>
> >> This wasn't one of the choices given by Corbutt.
> >
> > No, I added it.
> Then you need to do it via email,

Apparently not.

>and not publicly point out a fellow
> believer's stupidity.
> >> Corbutt's going to get mad at you for pointing out his stupidity.
> >
> > We were pointing out Parker`s.
> No moron, the list was compiled by Corbutt. Stop lying!

Can`t follow a discussion ,can you?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.

Notice "Bud" didn't cite a source ? There's a reason for that.
It's lie.

He didn't cite a source, but I will.
https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/finding-fingerprints/#:~:text=In%20this%20activity%2C%20students%20learn,patterns%2C%20on%20everything%20we%20touch.

[Bud]

https://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-10/1191456159.Ge.r.html

https://learning-center.homesciencetools.com/article/forensics-science/

But for the purpose of the discussion it is "recoverable" prints. This is the context...

You: Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.

Me : You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.

Your arguments is that recoverable prints of Oswald must exist on the bottom of the boxes if he moved them. If there are no prints on the bottom, does that mean they were never lifted from the bottom at any time in their existence? How many dozen of people must have touched these boxes in their lifetime, shouldn`t they be loaded with prints?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:35:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

To convince you? Yes.

To state a fact, no.


>> Again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 07:36:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:02:41?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:07:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:40:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:04:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 9:24:08?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> >>>> On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 6:43:59?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> >>>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:31:46?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Finger/palm prints of Oswald on the BOTTOM of cartons.
>> >>>>> You don`t leave fingerprints on every surface you touch.
>> >>>> The absence of fingerprints from the bottoms of the boxes indicated one of four things:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1. Oswald stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>> >>>> 2. Someone else stacked the boxes without leaving fingerprints.
>> >>>> 3. The DPD didn't dust the bottoms of the boxes for fingerprints.
>> >>>> 4. The boxes were stacked via PFM (Pure Fucking Magic)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I wonder which of these explanations Greg subscribes to.
>> >>>
>> >>> He also assume the boxes couldn`t be lifted without putting hands underneath.
>> >> Tut tut tut, stupid!!!
>> >>
>> >> This wasn't one of the choices given by Corbutt.
>> >
>> > No, I added it.
>> Then you need to do it via email,
>
> Apparently not.

Apparently you're too stupid to figure out the difference between
"should have" and "did."

>>and not publicly point out a fellow
>> believer's stupidity.
>> >> Corbutt's going to get mad at you for pointing out his stupidity.
>> >
>> > We were pointing out Parker`s.
>> No moron, the list was compiled by Corbutt. Stop lying!
>
> Can`t follow a discussion ,can you?

Apparently, you're too dishonest to admit that Corbutt compiled the
list.