THE WEAK CASE AGAINST OSWALD
Gil Jesus
in the case against Oswald.
1. The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and only Oswald.
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial # C2766, was manufacured by ten different
manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same serial
numbers. To say that THIS PARTICULAR Carcano was the EXACT ONE ordered by A.J.
Hidell from Klien's Sporting Goods in Chicago in January 1963 is stretching it.
Especially when there were 9 more in the world with the exact same serial
number.
2. The bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally and the limousene could
not be traced to Oswald's rifle. Let's get something straight first : bullet
FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to
weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
This is why the FBI first did a spectrographic analysis on the fragments. The
tests came back inconclusive, so Hoover then opted for a Neutron Activation
Analysis, which showed that the composition of the fragments removed from the
limousene and Governor Connally DID NOT MATCH the composition of "the magic
bullet", CE 399.
The fact that bullet fragmented at all suggests that it was not the normal
copper jacketed military ammunition. Instead, it may well have been a "soft
load" or unjacketed lead bullet, the kind they use for hunting game. The FBI
investgated this after the assassination and found that there were only two gun
shops in the Dallas area that had THAT TYPE of ammunition for the MC rifle.
But because both gun shop owners denied selling ammo to Oswald, the FBI never
pursued the matter, despite one of them (the Minuteman John Thomas Masen) being
investigated by the ATF for illegal gun sales. Masen is covered in Dick
Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked.
A very interesting character indeed.
And another point on CE # 399, "the magic bullet", it had NO traces of blood
on it despite the fact that it had passed through the bodies of two men and
lodged itself in the leg of the second victim.
3. The rifle itself was "well-oiled" when it came into the possession of the
Dallas Police. Well-oiled meaning that the rifle HAD NOT BEEN FIRED ! The
police knew that it hadn't been fired and so they never tested it to see if it
had.
4. Oswald's fingerprints were never found on the rifle. There were some partial
prints found on the trigger guard, but there were not enough similarities
between the partial prints and Oswald's prints to get a conviction in a court
of law. There was confusion between the Dallas Police and the FBI on the night
of the assassination over whether or not a palm print had been lifted by the
DPD.
5. The brown paper sack that Oswald allegedly used to bring the rifle into the
TSBD had NO traces of oil on it, despite having carried a well-oiled rifle that
had been broken down into pieces.
6. The parafin test given to Oswald's cheeks as was normal in a long gun
shooting, indicated that he had not fired a rifle or a shotgun in the last 24
hours.
When Henry Wade was asked if the parafin test showed that he had fired a rifle,
he responded, "a gun". The test on the hands was positive, indicating that he
may have fired a handgun. Or the nitrates on his hands could have come from his
urinating and not washing his hands afterwards.
I believe that the Dallas cops knew that Oswald didn't pull the trigger, but
they were suspicious about his leaving the TSBD, going home, getting a handgun
and going to the movies. It just didn't make sense to them. Beside that, he had
been seen acting suspiciously shortly after one of their own had been gunned
down.
To top it all off, he worked in the building where they believed the President
had been assassinated from, the building where they found the shells.
He may not have pulled the trigger on JFK, but they felt he knew something.
And he wasn't cooperating.
In addition, they believed that he was the one who gunned down Tippit, but in
order to nail him on that charge, they had to find a motive. That motive was
the killing of JFK. If they couldn't prove he killed JFK, they couldn't get a
conviction on the Tippit murder. Cops don't like it when you kill one of their
own.
Maybe because they realized how weak their case was against Oswald, they
decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to execute
Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
Something to think about.
Mark The Shark
>decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to execute
>Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
I am with you in that I do not believe Oswald shot JFK or Tippit. But one thing
puzzles me...why would Oswald go into a theatre without paying, risking arrest
and more trouble? And why did he have a pistol? Granted that his actions
suggest it had started to dawn on him that he was about to be framed...wouldn't
having a gun on him tend to incriminate him? And pulling a gun on the cops in
the theatre was virtual suicide...it's amazing that he wasn't killed right
there in the theatre.
Walt
"Mark The Shark" <marksh...@cs.comedy> wrote in message
news:20021024211201...@mb-mr.news.cs.com...
> > Maybe because they realized how weak their case was against Oswald, they
> >decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to
execute
> >Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
Gil.... "IF" Oswald entered the theater without paying then why did Fritz
and Hosty write reports that fail to mention that ??? Fritz merely says
that Oswald left his place of employment and went to the movies.... His
notes and his official report sound like he thought Oswald had bought a
ticket.
The DPD knew Oswald wasn't the killer......Some of them were involved in the
plot.....
> I am with you in that I do not believe Oswald shot JFK or Tippit. But one
thing
> puzzles me...why would Oswald go into a theatre without paying, risking
arrest
> and more trouble? And why did he have a pistol? Granted that his actions
> suggest it had started to dawn on him that he was about to be
framed...wouldn't
> having a gun on him tend to incriminate him? And pulling a gun on the cops
in
> the theatre was virtual suicide...it's amazing that he wasn't killed right
there in the theatre.
It's not "amazing"..... Oswald DID NOT pull a gun on the cops..... (That's
Warren Commission B.S.) It was in his belt.... Read what the witnesses said.
Walt
Ted Gittinger
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021024174007...@mb-da.aol.com...
> In this installment I would like to highlight what I feel were the weak
parts
> in the case against Oswald.
>
> 1. The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and only
Oswald.
> The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial # C2766, was manufacured by ten
different
> manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same
serial
> numbers. To say that THIS PARTICULAR Carcano was the EXACT ONE ordered by
A.J.
> Hidell from Klien's Sporting Goods in Chicago in January 1963 is
stretching it.
> Especially when there were 9 more in the world with the exact same serial
> number.
And your next step is to show how some conspirators managed to get hold of
one of the other MCs with the same serial number, and use it to suit their
evil purpose.
Yais?
Heh.
>
> 2. The bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally and the limousene
could
> not be traced to Oswald's rifle. Let's get something straight first :
bullet
> FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to
> weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
> This is why the FBI first did a spectrographic analysis on the fragments.
The
> tests came back inconclusive, so Hoover then opted for a Neutron
Activation
> Analysis, which showed that the composition of the fragments removed from
the
> limousene and Governor Connally DID NOT MATCH the composition of "the
magic
> bullet", CE 399.
> The fact that bullet fragmented at all suggests that it was not the
normal
> copper jacketed military ammunition.
Pay attention. In the last few days we have been furnished abundant
evidence that full metal jacketed bullets, or to use your phrase, "copper
jacketed military ammunition," may indeed fragment.
Instead, it may well have been a "soft
> load" or unjacketed lead bullet, the kind they use for hunting game.
What in the hell is a "soft load?" Do you mean "soft point?"
There is not a particle of evidence (irony intended) to suggest that
anything but a military FMJ bullet was involved.
ted
balance of bullshit deleted
Robert
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote
>Let's get something straight first : bullet
> FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be >traced
to weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
Not true.
"One of the biggest problems in making an identification is that few
evidence bullets are submitted intact. Most are badly distorted, wiped
and/or fragmented. The fragment seen below may not look like much but even
small fragments and badly damaged bullets can still retain sufficient marks
for an identification to be made."
See: http://www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm
> 3. The rifle itself was "well-oiled" when it came into the possession of
the
> Dallas Police. Well-oiled meaning that the rifle HAD NOT BEEN FIRED !
Uhm, that's not true, either.
Gil Jesus
got a hold of a MC rifle with same serial number.
But I'll address that in a minute.
My point is, that the fact that there were 10 such rifles made with the same
serial number, would cast reasonable doubt in a court of law over whether THIS
PARTICULAR rifle was the one ordered by A.J. Hidell from Klien's Sporting
Goods.
Shortly after the assassination, a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial # C
2766 was found in a Terre-Haute, Indiana motel room. According to the police
chief, it was turned over to the FBI, who then notfiied the WC that more than
one gun existed with the same serial number.
Is that proof enough for you ?
The copper-jacketed or metal-jacketed ammunition is used my the military for
humane purposes. After the damage done to wounded soldiers from fragmenting
bullets in WWI, the countries of the world agreed in Geneva to use this type of
ammunition which was designed to go clean through the human body without
fragmenting. By soft-load, I am referring to an unjacketed, or regular lead
bullet.
There were two gun dealers in the Dallas area who sold such bullets for the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
Gil Jesus
to the exclusion of all others (ballistically), I doubt the FBI would have gone
to the extreme of having done first a Spectrographic Analysis and then a
Neutron Activation Analysis. If they could have matched the striations on the
bullet fragments to a test bullet, the connection would have ended right there.
They would have proven that the MC was in fact the murder weapon.
But that did not happen. They could not ballistically match the fragments
because the bullets had fragmented so badly as to make such a comparison
impossible.
As far as the rifle goes, well-oiled means it had been soaked with cleaning
oil. The purpose of cleaning a gun with oil is to remove the gunpowder residue
from inside the barrel of the gun. This is how me and my dad used to clean our
shotguns. When someone says that a gun is "well-oiled" to me, they are saying
that the gun is clean and has not been fired since it's last cleaning.
If you think that they gun was well-oiled and had been fired, then let me ask
you this :
If the rifle HAD been fired, then normal police procedure would have been to
test the rifle to determine if it had been fired in the last 24 hrs.
This was never done.
If the Dallas PD knew the rifle had been fired, then why didn't they test it ?
My contention is that they looked down the inside of the barrel of the rifle,
saw that it was "well-oiled" and that there was no residue inside of it, and
knew that it had not been fired in the last 24 hrs.. That's why they never
tested it. They didn't have to. They could see it was clean.
A fired rifle would have required testing.
A clean one didn't.
Vern Pascal
bullet can remain virtually intact, i.e, CE 399, after creating seven
wounds in two men, including striking a rib and smashing the head of the
radius, a bone which is denser than the cranium, yet another FMJ bullet,
presumably of the same type, penetrates one cranial bone, the occipital,
then mysteriously fragments, depositing a veritable "duststorm" of
minute particles in the soft brain, before exiting the skull in at
least five separate fragments, three small, and two large, one of which
is composed completely of copper jacketing from the base end of the
bullet. So much for NAA on the latter fragment.
According to Frazier of the FBI lab, the five fragments found in the
limo, and the two recovered from the head (allegedly) at autopsy, could
NOT be proven to be from the same bullet, but only determined to be
of "similar composition".-----------Vern
Ted Gittinger
I dunno where you got the above load of nonsense, but it is wrong. All of
it.
Example: "After the damage done to wounded soldiers from fragmenting
> bullets in WWI,"
Somebody was shooting wounded soldiers with fragmenting bullets? Heh.
I doubt anybody in the world was making unjacketed "soft-load" (where in
hell did you get that term?) bullets for the MC.
Full metal jacketed bullets may well fragment, by the way, viz. the recent
example furnished by the victims of the D.C. sniper.
You said:
Shortly after the assassination, a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial # C
> 2766 was found in a Terre-Haute, Indiana motel room. According to the
police
> chief, it was turned over to the FBI, who then notfiied the WC that more
than
> one gun existed with the same serial number.
> Is that proof enough for you ?
Asssuming that you got it right, which is open to question, what does it
prove? That more than one weapon had the same serial #? And what does that
prove?
get a grip.
ted
Gil Jesus
Yeah I know. Everything I post is wrong, but I don't see you posting what's
right.
The part about the two gun shops in Dallas handling the ammo came from Sylvia
Meagher's Accessories After the Fact. Chapter 4 : The rifle
"In March 1964 the FBI found two gun shops that had ever handled the Western
cartridge ammo for the MC rifle and that one gun shop in Dallas had, in fact,
purchased about ten boxes of 6.5 MC ammunition that had been reloaded with a
SOFT hunting bullet (CE 2694)"
The fact that ten rifles had the same serial number comes from CE 2562,dated
4/30/64, a memo from Hoover to the WC.
The fact that the rifle was part of a shipment of defective rifles is
mentioned in CE 1977.
Example: "After the damage done to wounded soldiers from fragmenting
> bullets in WWI,"
Somebody was shooting wounded soldiers with fragmenting bullets? Heh.
Are you serious ? You mean you didn't understand what i was saying ? Let me
make it idiot proof then : the soldiers were wounded by bullets that fragmented
once they entered the body. The fragmentation was so serious that it caused
extensive internal bleeding. After the end of World War One, the nations of the
world agreed that from that point on that all military ammunition would be
jacketed, to prevent the kind of massive fragmentation from ever happening
again.
I doubt anybody in the world was making unjacketed "soft-load" (where in
hell did you get that term?) bullets for the MC.
scroll up, please.
Full metal jacketed bullets may well fragment, by the way, viz. the recent
example furnished by the victims of the D.C. sniper.
You said:
Shortly after the assassination, a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial # C
> 2766 was found in a Terre-Haute, Indiana motel room. According to the
police
> chief, it was turned over to the FBI, who then notfiied the WC that more
than
> one gun existed with the same serial number.
> Is that proof enough for you ?
Asssuming that you got it right, which is open to question, what does it
prove? That more than one weapon had the same serial #? And what does that
prove?
How do you know that the rifle in Indiana wasn't the one he ordered? The only
way to trace ownership is through the serial number. If more than one rifle has
the same serial number, how do you know that the murder weapon is the one he
ordered ?
You REALLY can't see the problem of proving ownership in the case against him
?
get a grip.
Get a grip ? I'm posting information and citing factual sources and I'M out in
left field ?
I like guys like you. You always try to point out weaknesses in the other guys
argument, while you offer NO substantial information or feasible explanation
yourself. This is the last time I'll respond to your posts. You can die an
ignorant smart-ass for all i care. Or you can do some research before you open
your mouth and make a fool out of yourself.
I hope you choose the right thing.
Gil Jesus
Analysis nor the Neutron Activation Analysis showed that the fragments matched
either CE 399 or the unspent cartridge that was in the MC chamber when the
rifle was found.
Hoover said that the compostition was "similar" but they were not exact.
Vern Pascal
keep on posting the good stuff, but don't forget your flame retardant
outfit to shield you from the blasts of hot air from certain
quarters---Vern
Rule
Mark The Shark <marksh...@cs.comedy> wrote in message
news:20021024211201...@mb-mr.news.cs.com...
> >decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to
execute
> >Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
>
> I am with you in that I do not believe Oswald shot JFK or Tippit. But one
thing
> puzzles me...why would Oswald go into a theatre without paying, risking
arrest
> and more trouble?
Perhaps because it seemed a nice dark place in which to hide while he tried
to sort things out and decide his next move, and he wasn't thinking clearly?
And why did he have a pistol? Granted that his actions
> suggest it had started to dawn on him that he was about to be framed...
And also, if he had one single brain is his head, wouldn't it dawn on him
that the only way for the frame to work would be if he was silenced -- and
quickly? I think it reasonable to postulate that he may have wanted a
weapon with which to "fight back", if it came to that and he could bring
himself to do it. Not everyone can, in spite of what happens in fiction.
Besides, carrying gives some slight sense of security, like picking up a
stick when a strange dog approaches you. He might have needed every
emotional crutch he could find right about that time.
wouldn't
> having a gun on him tend to incriminate him?
Yup. But if he realized he was definitely to be the patsy, then he also
knew that he was already "incriminated", gun or not.
And pulling a gun on the cops in
> the theatre was virtual suicide...it's amazing that he wasn't killed right
> there in the theatre.
It's not definite that he ever did pull his gun. In any case, he didn't
shoot it. (One cop claimed he tried, during the struggle in which he was
"disarmed".) And apparently, judging from the way the (non-cop) witnesses
present described the scene, he had plenty of time to do so.
And who's to say what might have happened in that theater if there hadn't
been a score or so of civilian witnesses present? "I'm not resisting
arrest! I'm not resisting arrest!" Oswald is reported to have shouted.
Funny... You're a cop, going into a dark place, with other cops, against a
man you (supposedly) suspect has killed a fellow officer, is armed, and who
could be hiding anywhere. Being human, you don't much like the idea of
getting shot. But according to the witness accounts I've read, the cops
apparently walked in like they owned the place, had the house lights turned
up, and approached him directly. I've never been a cop, but I don't think
I'd do it like that...
I wonder why they apparently did? Standard Dallas police procedure? I
think I'd try to find a job on some other police force in a hurry if that
was the case.
Just speculation I admit. But I don't think the speculation contradicts any
"facts" in evidence.
Rule (Note please, Barb; NOT "caeruleo".)
Gil Jesus
the types I've been up against the last few days, I think I may have to coat
myself with Preparation H !
Sam McClung
Gil Jesus
was not normal police procedure IF they thought him to be armed and dangerous.
Unless they knew that his pistol had a defective firing pin.
Robert
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote
>By soft-load, I am referring to an unjacketed, or regular lead bullet.
You'll be hard-pressed to find unjacketed bullets used in
center-fire rifles. And "soft-load" refers to percieved recoil, as in "Try
this Umpty-Scratch ammo, it's a nice soft load, easy to shoot." Has nothing
to do with bullet jacketing.
Robert
"Vern Pascal" <lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19810-3DB...@storefull-2312.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Let's be clear on something here, Vern - I'm no nutter. I'm also not
gullible and prefer to deal in verifable facts or, at worst, rational
speculation. Have you visited the link I provided?
http://www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm
Mr. Jesus has made an outrageously false statement, easily proven to
be false, and (apparently) stands by it. He's made other statements that are
highly questionable. His logic is utterly flawed in a number of areas, and
simply because he reaches the same destination as you or I (that JFK was the
victim of some sort of conspiracy) you'll heap praise on him?
I'm seriously beginning to consider as fact the notion that many
"buffs" might actually be disinformation agents, because the concepts some
of you people sign onto are fraggin' nuts. As Mr. Jesus says:
"Only whole bullets can be traced to weapons. Don't believe me ?
As(k) a criminal investigator."
Apparently acquiring a degree in Criminal Justice doesn't involve
much exposure to forensic science.
Robert
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote
> Get a grip ? I'm posting information and citing factual sources and I'M
out in
> left field ?
Well, you've got at least 2 easily verifiable problems with facts
you need to deal with.
> I like guys like you. You always try to point out weaknesses in the other
guys
> argument, while you offer NO substantial information or feasible
explanation
> yourself.
Getting things completely wrong isn't a "weakness" in an argument.
You've completely synthesized a term, the "soft-load" bullet. You've uttered
a complete falsehood, that only intact bullets can be ballistically linked
to a gun. You've opined on the manufacture and availability of unjacketed
rifle bullets.
I've provided one source that demonstrates your claim about forensic
matching to be false. Regarding the other two things above, providing a
source in rebuttal would be tantamount to finding an authority who bothers
to clearly state that fairy dust doesn't exist, so it'll be up to you to
provide confirmation of the use of the term soft-load regarding bullets and
the existence of unjacketed 6.5 ammo.
But you keep on - you're a big help to the LN side.
Robert
> First of all, IF the bullet fragments WERE able to be traced to Oswald's
weapon
> to the exclusion of all others (ballistically), I doubt the FBI would have
gone
> to the extreme of having done first a Spectrographic Analysis and then a
> Neutron Activation Analysis. If they could have matched the striations on
the
> bullet fragments to a test bullet, the connection would have ended right
there.
That's all well and good, but it's completely irrelevant to your
stated claim:
">Let's get something straight first : bullet FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED >to
weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to weapons."
Look, I'm far more on the Buff side of this than a Nutter, but when
you make this sort of outrageously false blanket claim and then start doing
the sort of dance you're doing now, you do the cause a grave disservice.
It's a ridiculous claim and instead of doing the usual a.c.jfk two-step, why
don't you just retract it and move on?
> As far as the rifle goes, well-oiled means it had been soaked with
cleaning
> oil.
"Soaked"?
>The purpose of cleaning a gun with oil is to remove the gunpowder residue
> from inside the barrel of the gun.
_Most_ people don't clean their guns with oil. They clean them with
various types of solvents (which tend to remove any oils), and _then_ oil
them to lubricate the moving parts and preserve the metal surfaces.
>This is how me and my dad used to clean our
> shotguns. When someone says that a gun is "well-oiled" to me, they are
saying
> that the gun is clean and has not been fired since it's last cleaning.
Yes, and there's also a whole bunch of people around here who, if
you say to them "Carcano" they take that to mean "junk gun". Doesn't make
them right, does it?
> If you think that they gun was well-oiled and had been fired, then let me
ask
> you this :
> If the rifle HAD been fired, then normal police procedure would have been
to
> test the rifle to determine if it had been fired in the last 24 hrs.
> This was never done.
> If the Dallas PD knew the rifle had been fired, then why didn't they test
it ?
> My contention is that they looked down the inside of the barrel of the
rifle,
> saw that it was "well-oiled"
OK, what exactly does a well-oiled bore look like?
Ted Gittinger
"Rule" <ruler...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:fMpu9.108442
>
> And pulling a gun on the cops in
> > the theatre was virtual suicide...it's amazing that he wasn't killed
right
> > there in the theatre.
>
> It's not definite that he ever did pull his gun. In any case, he didn't
> shoot it. (One cop claimed he tried, during the struggle in which he was
> "disarmed".) And apparently, judging from the way the (non-cop)
witnesses
> present described the scene, he had plenty of time to do so.
>
> And who's to say what might have happened in that theater if there hadn't
> been a score or so of civilian witnesses present? "I'm not resisting
> arrest! I'm not resisting arrest!" Oswald is reported to have shouted.
Good thinking. The conspirators obviously realized that it would be better
to wait a few days and have Ruby kill Oswald with coverage by national
television.
ted
Ted Gittinger
"gene" <private@no_reply.com> wrote in message >
I must have missed this. I'm not being a wiseass, I'm serious. Where can
> the reports be found that the jacketed bullets fired by the sniper
> fragmented inside his victim's bodies?
>
> Also, do they state if bone was hit, or were they shots in soft body
> parts?
>
> dukane
Try CNN
ted
Gil Jesus
that if I were in a CONSPIRACY newsgroup, then the LNers wouldn't attack me. I
was wrong.
I will not argue points of the case due to health reasons. I am recently
recovering from a heart attack, which has given me a new urgency to post what
I've found and what I believe before it's my time to move on from this life. I
have dedicated over 35 years of my life to studying this case and now I feel
the need to express what I believe and why I believe it in hopes that it will
help someone else, some day, find the truth.
Let me first say that I don't believe that I've been doing any DANCING, that
I've basically backed up what I've said in regards to specifics of this case
with documented evidence. When i say that a gun is "oiled" i mean cleaned. To
me it's a generic term, like "Mauser" was to the Dallas cops. What's the point
of oiling a gun if it hasn't been cleaned? That's why i relate the two. An
oiled barrel is a clean barrel. You wanna know what it looks like ? Look down
the barrel of a cleaned gun sometime. (Just make sure the safety is off) I have
since been corrected on my OPINION that whole bullets are the only ones that
can be ballistically matched. Some fragments can too, but in this case, that
was not possible.
Now I will try to explain, in the most simple terms, for the most simple
minds, the truth about the bullet fragments and WHY I BELIEVE A CONSPIRACY
EXISTED.
The bullet fragments that were removed from the limousine and the fragments
that were removed from Governor Connally were too mangled to be ballistically
compared. As a result, the FBI did a Spectrographic Analysis, which found that
the composition of the fragments, when matched to CE 399, were not the same,
(Same as EXACTLY the same, as they should have been had the bullets been part
the same lot of Western Cartridge ammo as the FBI said they were) only
"similar". When the test failed to prove identity, it automatically proved lack
of identity. Not satisfied with a result that did not support his conclusions
of a single gun/ single gunman (much like you LNers), Hoover asked the Atomic
Energy Commission to do a Neutron Activation Analysis. That test, also showed
that the fragments and CE 399 were not the same, essentially destroying the
single bullet theory by proving that CE 399 was not the bullet that left
fragments in Governor Connally and hence did not strike Governor Connally. But
Hoover, still sticking to his guns (pardon the pun) and bent on proving his
foregone conclusion that Oswald did it, reported that the fragments and CE 399
were similar. Which was true. He did not mention, of course, that only an exact
match proved that the ammo was the same.
Neil Coburn
rifle.The number has been altered. Neil Coburn
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Hey you-all,look closely at the pictures of the serial number on the
> rifle.The number has been altered. Neil Coburn
How do you think it shows that it was altered? And what would be the
purpose of altering the serial number?
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
AnthonyMarsh
I don't know if this will help, but there might be a solution to his
incorrect statements.
Maybe he is thinking about hand loading different bullets into the WCC
cartridges. Of course that can be done, but there was no indication that
Oswald had done so.
When he talks about unjacketed 6.5 ammo, almost all modern 6.5 bullets
are jacketed, but not all are full metal jacket like the WCC ball ammo.
Some are open tip hunting bullets. Maybe that is what he means.
I suppose that if you dug back far enough you could find an unjacketed
lead 6.5 mm bullet, but it is precisely the higher muzzle velocities
being introduced in such Mauser types of rifles which necessitated
jacketing the bullets with metal such as copper or steel.
None of this contradicts your points, but it might help explain his
apparent mistakes.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> First of all, I don't think that it's up to me to PROVE that any conspirators
> got a hold of a MC rifle with same serial number.
> But I'll address that in a minute.
> My point is, that the fact that there were 10 such rifles made with the same
> serial number, would cast reasonable doubt in a court of law over whether THIS
> PARTICULAR rifle was the one ordered by A.J. Hidell from Klien's Sporting
> Goods.
But the point is that Oswald's rifle was the only one of its type with
that serial number. The only one with that particular length barrel made
at Terni. You can find a longer barreled rifle with the same serial
number if you dig long enough. John Lattimer bought one of the carbines
with the same serial number. You might find another short rifle with the
same serial number, but it would be manufactured at a different plant.
> Shortly after the assassination, a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle serial # C
> 2766 was found in a Terre-Haute, Indiana motel room. According to the police
> chief, it was turned over to the FBI, who then notfiied the WC that more than
> one gun existed with the same serial number.
> Is that proof enough for you ?
Proof of what? The Italian intelligence service told the WC that several
different weapons can have the same serial number, but the WC kept it
off the record. That does not mean that there can be a duplicate of
Oswald's rifle out there somewhere.
> The copper-jacketed or metal-jacketed ammunition is used my the military for
> humane purposes. After the damage done to wounded soldiers from fragmenting
Hunting ammo is also copper-jacketed or metal-jacketed. The WCC ammo
Oswald bought is called ball ammo, full metal jacketed. And indeed the
Hague convention specified that such ammo be used by signatories to the
convention to be more humane. In earlier wars and conflicts some
militaries had designed open tip bullets to inflict horrible wounds. See
the Dum-Dum bullet invented by the British for one such example.
> bullets in WWI, the countries of the world agreed in Geneva to use this type of
> ammunition which was designed to go clean through the human body without
> fragmenting. By soft-load, I am referring to an unjacketed, or regular lead
> bullet.
You'd have a very time finding lead-only bullets to be used in the 6.5
mm rifles. Muzzle velocities of modern military rifles had gotten so
high just before the turn of the century that they had to coat the lead
with hard metals such as steel or copper.
> There were two gun dealers in the Dallas area who sold such bullets for the
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
There may have been some gun shops in the Dallas area who sold hunting
bullets for the M-C, but I don't think anyone had lead-only bullets for
sale.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> In this installment I would like to highlight what I feel were the weak parts
> in the case against Oswald.
>
> 1. The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and only Oswald.
> The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial # C2766, was manufacured by ten different
> manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same serial
> Hidell from Klien's Sporting Goods in Chicago in January 1963 is stretching it.
> Especially when there were 9 more in the world with the exact same serial
> number.
>
True only to a narrowly limited extent. In fact other weapons
manufactured at the same plant would have the same serial number, such
as the carbine and the long rifle. But I infer from everything I have
read that the source of the surplus rifles was the Terni plant. Add to
that the fact the Oswald's rifle was stamped with the date it was
manufactured, both in Roman numerals according to Fascist rise to power
and also in arabic numerals according to CE and that really narrows down
the range of possible duplicates. You might not even be able to find
rifles from another plant with the same serial number manufactured in
either the Mussolini years or the same CE date, but certainly not both
as Oswald's. Finding a C 2766 manufactured in 1938 would not qualify as
a duplicate of Oswald's rifle.
> 2. The bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally and the limousene could
> not be traced to Oswald's rifle. Let's get something straight first : bullet
> FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to
> weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
You are only talking about the bullet lead. The two large fragments
found in the front seat did ballistically match Oswald's rifle.
> This is why the FBI first did a spectrographic analysis on the fragments. The
> tests came back inconclusive, so Hoover then opted for a Neutron Activation
> Analysis, which showed that the composition of the fragments removed from the
> limousene and Governor Connally DID NOT MATCH the composition of "the magic
> bullet", CE 399.
You should also be aware of two facts that may have escaped you. First,
one of the fragments they found in the front seat was only the bullet
jacket without any lead whatsoever. So the NAA could not be used on
that, nor spectrographic analysis. Ballistic analysis compares the
pattern of scratches on the outer surface of a bullet jacket. Second,
the samples tested for the FBI in 1964 were destroyed, so we don't
actually know what bullet fragments we have left now are genuine.
> The fact that bullet fragmented at all suggests that it was not the normal
> copper jacketed military ammunition. Instead, it may well have been a "soft
Fragmenting of ball ammo is not uncommon. It happens under some
circumstances.
> load" or unjacketed lead bullet, the kind they use for hunting game. The FBI
Hunters do not use unjacketed lead bullets. They are not supposed to use
ball ammo in which the tip of the bullet is jacketed, but they use
jacketed bullets where the tip is open. Both types of bullets were
available for the 6.5 mm M-C. In the old days FMJ ball ammo was the most
popular for hunting big game to penetrate tough hide.
> investgated this after the assassination and found that there were only two gun
> shops in the Dallas area that had THAT TYPE of ammunition for the MC rifle.
I don't think any gun shops sold unjacketed lead bullets for the 6.5 mm
M-C.
> But because both gun shop owners denied selling ammo to Oswald, the FBI never
> pursued the matter, despite one of them (the Minuteman John Thomas Masen) being
> investigated by the ATF for illegal gun sales. Masen is covered in Dick
> Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked.
I believe that Masen sold WCC ball ammo, but no one could ever prove
that he sold it to Oswald.
> A very interesting character indeed.
> And another point on CE # 399, "the magic bullet", it had NO traces of blood
> on it despite the fact that it had passed through the bodies of two men and
> lodged itself in the leg of the second victim.
>
Only according to the WC theory.
> 3. The rifle itself was "well-oiled" when it came into the possession of the
> Dallas Police. Well-oiled meaning that the rifle HAD NOT BEEN FIRED ! The
> police knew that it hadn't been fired and so they never tested it to see if it
> had.
>
Being well oiled has nothing to do with whether it had been fired or
not.
> 4. Oswald's fingerprints were never found on the rifle. There were some partial
> prints found on the trigger guard, but there were not enough similarities
> between the partial prints and Oswald's prints to get a conviction in a court
> of law. There was confusion between the Dallas Police and the FBI on the night
> of the assassination over whether or not a palm print had been lifted by the
> DPD.
>
> 5. The brown paper sack that Oswald allegedly used to bring the rifle into the
> TSBD had NO traces of oil on it, despite having carried a well-oiled rifle that
> had been broken down into pieces.
>
> 6. The parafin test given to Oswald's cheeks as was normal in a long gun
> shooting, indicated that he had not fired a rifle or a shotgun in the last 24
> hours.
That type of test is inaccurate and unreliable. The pattern on the casts
suggests to me that Oswald either fired or handled a recently fired
handgun.
> When Henry Wade was asked if the parafin test showed that he had fired a rifle,
> he responded, "a gun". The test on the hands was positive, indicating that he
> may have fired a handgun. Or the nitrates on his hands could have come from his
> urinating and not washing his hands afterwards.
>
Wrong pattern.
> I believe that the Dallas cops knew that Oswald didn't pull the trigger, but
> they were suspicious about his leaving the TSBD, going home, getting a handgun
> and going to the movies. It just didn't make sense to them. Beside that, he had
> been seen acting suspiciously shortly after one of their own had been gunned
> down.
> To top it all off, he worked in the building where they believed the President
> had been assassinated from, the building where they found the shells.
> He may not have pulled the trigger on JFK, but they felt he knew something.
> And he wasn't cooperating.
> In addition, they believed that he was the one who gunned down Tippit, but in
> order to nail him on that charge, they had to find a motive. That motive was
> the killing of JFK. If they couldn't prove he killed JFK, they couldn't get a
> conviction on the Tippit murder. Cops don't like it when you kill one of their
> own.
You don't need motive to prove murder.
> Maybe because they realized how weak their case was against Oswald, they
> decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to execute
> Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
> Something to think about.
Hank Sienzant
….
> 4/30/64, a memo from Hoover to the WC.
Ten rifles all bearing the serial number C2766? I could find no such language in that document. Please quote the precise phraseology and cite the specific page where this claim is made.
> The fact that the rifle was part of a shipment of defective rifles is
> mentioned in CE 1977.
How do you reconcile that with your claim above that there were TEN such rifles?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0010b.htm
It doesn’t say the rifles were defective. It says there is “a legal proceeding” where the shipper (Carlo Riva Machine Shop) is attempting to collect payment for the rifles shipped to the receiver of the rifles (Adams Consolidated). Adams *alleged* the rifles were defective, and that’s why they they *alleged* they refused to pay.
Please advise what was the resolution of this legal proceeding. Did Adams pay the bill? Did Carlo Riva admit the rifles were defective?
Further, please show that this applied specifically to the C2766 rifle, not just some of the rifles in that shipment (rather than all the rifles).
Your claim that “The fact that the rifle was part of a shipment of defective rifles” is unproven without citing for the judgment for Adams in the Riva v. Adams case.
It’s been over 20 years since you put forward these allegations. Do you still believe these claims, or has your viewpoint changed on either or both in the past two decades?
David Von Pein
> The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and only Oswald. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial # C2766, was manufacured by ten different manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same serial numbers.
Why on Earth would anyone think that there were TEN Carcano rifles manufactured with the *exact same* serial number of C2766 (or any other serial number)? Such a belief is foolish. Plus, it totally defies the whole *reason* for distinct "serial numbers" being placed on products in the first place, which is to give each individual item its own unique and singular identity. Otherwise, what's the point of putting *any* serial number on any product?
And, of course, we've never once seen any conspiracy theorist actually provide any proof that there were multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles produced at the various Italian manufacturing plants with the same identical serial number of C2766. That ludicrous belief resides only in the vivid imaginations of many conspiracy believers.
David Von Pein
Gil Jesus
> THE VERY STRONG CASE AGAINST OSWALD:
>
> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
www.gil-jesus.com
Sky Throne 19efppp
> In this installment I would like to highlight what I feel were the weak parts
> in the case against Oswald.
> manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same serial
> Hidell from Klien's Sporting Goods in Chicago in January 1963 is stretching it.
> Especially when there were 9 more in the world with the exact same serial
> number.
> not be traced to Oswald's rifle. Let's get something straight first : bullet
> FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to
> weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
> tests came back inconclusive, so Hoover then opted for a Neutron Activation
> Analysis, which showed that the composition of the fragments removed from the
> limousene and Governor Connally DID NOT MATCH the composition of "the magic
> bullet", CE 399.
> copper jacketed military ammunition. Instead, it may well have been a "soft
> shops in the Dallas area that had THAT TYPE of ammunition for the MC rifle.
> pursued the matter, despite one of them (the Minuteman John Thomas Masen) being
> investigated by the ATF for illegal gun sales. Masen is covered in Dick
> Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked.
> And another point on CE # 399, "the magic bullet", it had NO traces of blood
> on it despite the fact that it had passed through the bodies of two men and
> lodged itself in the leg of the second victim.
> Dallas Police. Well-oiled meaning that the rifle HAD NOT BEEN FIRED ! The
> police knew that it hadn't been fired and so they never tested it to see if it
> had.
> prints found on the trigger guard, but there were not enough similarities
> between the partial prints and Oswald's prints to get a conviction in a court
> of law. There was confusion between the Dallas Police and the FBI on the night
> of the assassination over whether or not a palm print had been lifted by the
> DPD.
> 5. The brown paper sack that Oswald allegedly used to bring the rifle into the
> TSBD had NO traces of oil on it, despite having carried a well-oiled rifle that
> had been broken down into pieces.
> 6. The parafin test given to Oswald's cheeks as was normal in a long gun
> shooting, indicated that he had not fired a rifle or a shotgun in the last 24
> hours.
> he responded, "a gun". The test on the hands was positive, indicating that he
> may have fired a handgun. Or the nitrates on his hands could have come from his
> urinating and not washing his hands afterwards.
> they were suspicious about his leaving the TSBD, going home, getting a handgun
> and going to the movies. It just didn't make sense to them. Beside that, he had
> been seen acting suspiciously shortly after one of their own had been gunned
> down.
> To top it all off, he worked in the building where they believed the President
> had been assassinated from, the building where they found the shells.
> He may not have pulled the trigger on JFK, but they felt he knew something.
> And he wasn't cooperating.
> In addition, they believed that he was the one who gunned down Tippit, but in
> order to nail him on that charge, they had to find a motive. That motive was
> the killing of JFK. If they couldn't prove he killed JFK, they couldn't get a
> conviction on the Tippit murder. Cops don't like it when you kill one of their
> own.
> decided to opt for some early justice. They simply got Jack Ruby to execute
> Oswald for killing Tippit, before the case ever went to trial.
> Something to think about.
Hank Sienzant
> In the end you will know why Ruby killed Oswald: to prevent him from going to trial and exposing this fake evidence.
Or Ruby was a vigilante just as he said. Have you considered that?
> It will show how the Warren Commission used reports, testimony and documentation acquired by the FBI in a blatant and deliberate attempt to deceive the world and “prove” that Oswald purchased and used the rifle to murder President Kennedy.
Let's grant for the purpose of argument they did all that.
> And you will ask yourself: if Oswald was as guilty as charged, why would they do this ?"
Maybe the conspirators wanted to help a fellow conspirator get a "not guilty" verdict?
And a vigilante Ruby ruined their great plan? Have you considered that?
No, of course not. The conspirators did all the above to *frame an innocent Oswald* and then killed him anyway. What's the point? Why was killing Oswald necessary? Wouldn't the prosecutors in a murder trial rely on the Dallas Police and the FBI to get the hard evidence like the rifle into the record anyway? Wouldn't the same evidence the Commission considered be available to and considered by a jury of Oswald's peers? Wouldn't they reach the same common-sense and reasonable conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy?
How does killing Oswald change any of that?
recip...@gmail.com
"1. The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and only Oswald.
manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII and they all used the same serial
Hidell from Klien's Sporting Goods in Chicago in January 1963 is stretching it.
Especially when there were 9 more in the world with the exact same serial
number."
numbers." in fact, the memo notes that some manufacturers used alpha prefixes, and others didn't. Further, once you've looked at enough of these, you'll notice that some of the alpha prefixes use one character, and others use two.
The worst-possible-case scenario is that there might be ten Carcano 91/38s out there "C2766" out of hundreds of thousands of rifles produced. That's assuming that every plant used an A#### serial number format, which overstates the case, as I've already mentioned. 10 out of hundreds of thousands == better than a 1 in 100,000 chance that the the C2766 rifle is the same c2766 that Ozzie ordered from Klein's. Those are still very good odds.
"2. The bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally and the limousene could
not be traced to Oswald's rifle. Let's get something straight first : bullet
FRAGMENTS CANNOT BE TRACED to weapons. Only whole bullets can be traced to
weapons. Don't believe me ? As a criminal investigator.
This is why the FBI first did a spectrographic analysis on the fragments. The
tests came back inconclusive, so Hoover then opted for a Neutron Activation
Analysis, which showed that the composition of the fragments removed from the
limousene and Governor Connally DID NOT MATCH the composition of "the magic
bullet", CE 399."
As for NAA, the FBI came to the determine that the NAA data was inconclusive. Guinn, in his testimony to the HSCA, explained the flaws in the FBI's methodology. While Guinn's own analysis turned out to be less conclusive than he thought, this was due to his control data set not being large enough to get the required confidence level. It was not because of the 1964 data on the fragments nor because of the data on Guinn's own testing on the fragments in the late 70's.
"[2a] The fact that bullet fragmented at all suggests that it was not the normal
load" or unjacketed lead bullet, the kind they use for hunting game."
"[2c] The FBI investgated this after the assassination and found that there were only two gun
But because both gun shop owners denied selling ammo to Oswald, the FBI never
pursued the matter, despite one of them (the Minuteman John Thomas Masen) being
investigated by the ATF for illegal gun sales. Masen is covered in Dick
Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much, and the LaFontaine's Oswald Talked.
A very interesting character indeed."
"[2d] And another point on CE # 399, "the magic bullet", it had NO traces of blood
lodged itself in the leg of the second victim."
"3. The rifle itself was "well-oiled" when it came into the possession of the
Dallas Police. Well-oiled meaning that the rifle HAD NOT BEEN FIRED ! The
police knew that it hadn't been fired and so they never tested it to see if it
had."
"4. Oswald's fingerprints were never found on the rifle. There were some partial
prints found on the trigger guard, but there were not enough similarities
between the partial prints and Oswald's prints to get a conviction in a court
of law. There was confusion between the Dallas Police and the FBI on the night
of the assassination over whether or not a palm print had been lifted by the
DPD."
"5. The brown paper sack that Oswald allegedly used to bring the rifle into the
TSBD had NO traces of oil on it, despite having carried a well-oiled rifle that
had been broken down into pieces."
"6. The parafin test given to Oswald's cheeks as was normal in a long gun
shooting, indicated that he had not fired a rifle or a shotgun in the last 24
hours. When Henry Wade was asked if the parafin test showed that he had fired a rifle,
he responded, "a gun". The test on the hands was positive, indicating that he
may have fired a handgun. Or the nitrates on his hands could have come from his
urinating and not washing his hands afterwards."
Scrum Drum
Ben Holmes
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, October 24, 2002 at 4:40:07?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> The alleged murder weapon could not be connected to Oswald and
>> only Oswald. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial # C2766, was
>> manufacured by ten different manufacturing plants in Italy during WWII
>> and they all used the same serial numbers.
>
> The above is a ridiculous (and flat-out wrong) statement that
> continues to be regurgitated year after year by desperate conspiracy
> theorists.
> Why on Earth would anyone think that there were TEN Carcano rifles
> manufactured with the *exact same* serial number of C2766 (or any
> other serial number)?
> Such a belief is foolish. Plus, it totally defies the whole
> *reason* for distinct "serial numbers" being placed on products in the
> first place, which is to give each individual item its own unique and
> singular identity. Otherwise, what's the point of putting *any* serial
> number on any product?
> And, of course, we've never once seen any conspiracy theorist
> actually provide any proof that there were multiple Mannlicher-Carcano
> Model 91/38 rifles produced at the various Italian manufacturing
> plants with the same identical serial number of C2766. That ludicrous
> belief resides only in the vivid imaginations of many conspiracy
> believers.
Hank Sienzant
If we exclude the rifle that was traced to him, the shells traced to his rifle, the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland that is traceable to his rifle, and the two large fragments traceable to his weapon, there’s hardly any evidence Oswald fired from the sixth floor at JFK.
At that point we just need to exclude the various witnesses that described the shooter (or the man in the window) in terms identical to Oswald, the paper bag found in the sniper’s nest corner with his print on it, and the fact that Oswald lied in custody about what he brought to work that morning - he told Wes Frazier he was making a special trip on Thursday to obtain curtain rods, but in custody denied bringing any long curtain rod package.
It then becomes a simple matter to exclude the other lies Oswald told in custody, like buying his revolver in Houston, or not owning a rifle, or the backyard photos showing him holding a rifle are forgeries to reach the point where we can claim that the evidence is “weak that he fired at JFK from the 6th floor window.”
Why anyone on the LNer side can’t see the weakness of that evidence is beyond me.
>Similarly with Tippit, the case is strong that Oswald was involved with what happened on 10th Street, but weak that he actually shot Tippit there.
> A reasonable jury would have to say that he was not guilty as charged.
> So, I guess that's a weak case, but the emphasis seems all wrong outside of a courtroom. Who really gives a frack what would happen in a courtroom? More important is what happened on Elm Street.
But that’s where I get stuck. If not Oswald, then who committed those murders, and what’s the evidence pointing to them?
I’m unable to come up with anyone else. What do you come up with here?
Any names? And what’s the evidence?
Ben Holmes
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> We agree on something at last!
>
> If we exclude the rifle that was traced to him, the shells traced to
> his rifle, the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland that is traceable
> to his rifle, and the two large fragments traceable to his weapon,
> there’s hardly any evidence Oswald fired from the sixth floor at JFK.
You need to be able to EXPLAIN it.
You can't have a patsy with no rifle.
> At that point we just need to exclude the various witnesses that
> described the shooter (or the man in the window) in terms identical to
> Oswald,
Lies cannot convince people.
Eyewitnesses corroborated each other on the assassin's clothing... and
this DID NOT MATCH Oswald.
> Why anyone on the LNer side can’t see the weakness of that evidence
> is beyond me.
lies?
Bud
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 07:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > We agree on something at last!
> >
> > If we exclude the rifle that was traced to him, the shells traced to
> > his rifle, the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland that is traceable
> > to his rifle, and the two large fragments traceable to his weapon,
> > there’s hardly any evidence Oswald fired from the sixth floor at JFK.
> Never a need to "exclude" evidence.
>
> You need to be able to EXPLAIN it.
>
> You can't have a patsy with no rifle.
> > At that point we just need to exclude the various witnesses that
> > described the shooter (or the man in the window) in terms identical to
> > Oswald,
> You're lying again, Huckster.
>
> Lies cannot convince people.
>
> Eyewitnesses corroborated each other on the assassin's clothing... and
> this DID NOT MATCH Oswald.
https://www.history.com/.image/c_fit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_620/MTU5OTc2ODk2NjMxNjc4NDk2/lee-harvey-oswald-jfk-assassination-gettyimages-1012208668.jpg
The physical description was a very good match to Oswald.
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 10:47:46?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 07:28:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We agree on something at last!
>>>
>>> If we exclude the rifle that was traced to him, the shells traced to
>>> his rifle, the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland that is traceable
>>> to his rifle, and the two large fragments traceable to his weapon,
>>> there’s hardly any evidence Oswald fired from the sixth floor at JFK.
>> Never a need to "exclude" evidence.
>>
>> You need to be able to EXPLAIN it.
>>
>> You can't have a patsy with no rifle.
>>> At that point we just need to exclude the various witnesses that
>>> described the shooter (or the man in the window) in terms identical to
>>> Oswald,
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>>
>> Lies cannot convince people.
>>
>> Eyewitnesses corroborated each other on the assassin's clothing... and
>> this DID NOT MATCH Oswald.
>
> You are simply lying, Oswald was wearing a white top on when he was arrested.
Anyone can do a simple Google search for Oswald's arrest at the
theater, and see that you're lying.
Or look for Baker's affidavit, where he describes Oswald wearing a
light brown jacket.
You're terrified of the ACTUAL evidence, and desperately lie to help
your faith.
>>> Why anyone on the LNer side can’t see the weakness of that evidence
>>> is beyond me.
>>
>> If the evidence is as strong as you believe it to be, then why all the
>> lies?
Bud
> Or look for Baker's affidavit, where he describes Oswald wearing a
> light brown jacket.
> You're terrified of the ACTUAL evidence, and desperately lie to help
> your faith.
"...Oswald was wearing a white top on when he was arrested."
This is the truth, and you hate the truth.
I posted evidence that proved what I wrote was true, which you removed the link to....
https://www.history.com/.image/c_fit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_620/MTU5OTc2ODk2NjMxNjc4NDk2/lee-harvey-oswald-jfk-assassination-gettyimages-1012208668.jpg
You hate the truth and you hate the evidence in this case, so much so that you constantly remove both.
Ben Holmes
wrote:
It's not possible for a photo showing Oswald's arrest to not be
relevant.
>> Or look for Baker's affidavit, where he describes Oswald wearing a
>> light brown jacket.
>
> Non sequitur.
>> You're terrified of the ACTUAL evidence, and desperately lie to help
>> your faith.
>
> You are terrified of what I actually wrote.
>
> "...Oswald was wearing a white top on when he was arrested."