Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[HSienzant]

And that's the exact opposite of what we're actually seeing. CTers are like mad scientists, trying to make uselessly-complex machines just for the hell of it, and refusing to explain how it works, just assuring us that it's way better than the regular stuff.

But it's not just for the hell of it... it's the only way to keep the conspiracy afloat. They have to add these complexities to keep explaining the issues with their theory, so the theory grows larger and more unwieldy.

The evidence indicates all three hulls, two large fragments found in the limo, and one nearly whole bullet points to Oswald's weapon?

-- they were all planted! [So we get Barry Krusch's and John Hunt's nonsense posted here by 'Manifesto'].

The evidence indicates Oswald's weapon was recovered from the Depository?

-- It was planted!
-- The paperwork indicating Oswald owned it is forged!

The evidence indicates all the shots came from above and behind the President?

-- The body was altered!

The evidence indicates Oswald possessed the rifle because his fingerprints and palmprint were found on it?

-- The fingerprints and palmprint were added later!

The evidence indicates Oswald physically held that very rifle in his hand as shown in the backyard photos?

-- Those photos are forged!

The evidence indicates the Imperial-Reflex camera owned by the Oswalds was used to take the backyard photos?

-- The photos were forged as above, then re-photographed with the Oswald's camera so microscopic edge markings along the negative would match the Oswald's camera!

Marina remembers taking photos of her husband in the backyard?

-- She's thinking of other photos, those were destroyed and these substituted!
-- She was intimidated into saying that so she could stay in the country!

(I'm not making any of these up; these are all arguments advanced by CTs over the years to explain away the evidence pointing to Oswald).

Etc. etc. etc.

Whatever evidence points to Oswald CANNOT be accepted, and must be part of the conspiracy. Because otherwise some insignificant nobody stuck his rifle out a window and killed the most powerful man on the planet, and that's unacceptable! There must be some deeper meaning!

So the accepted canon of conspiracy theory just keeps growing and growing like a cancer.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

No, that's wrong. The problem is a bullet can be matched to a specific gun due to microscopic markings that are randomly laid down in the barrel as a result of the machining necessary to get each working part into specification.

Because these are microscopic differences, if three bullets were recovered, and only one weapon, but two of the three bullets didn't match that weapon on a microscopic level, you know you have a second shooter.

Having multiple gunmen is just plain stupid if you intend to frame a lone nut; having multiple gunmen shooting from three or four or more different locations is insane. Even if no bullet survives the shooting with enough lands and grooves to match back to the "patsy's" weapon, the trajectories of the bullet wounds would reveal the multiple shooters.

If you intend to frame a patsy, you frame him for owning a good weapon (not a war-surplus weapon that was two decades old at the time) and then you just shoot JFK with that weapon.

And that's all you need to do.

Period. Cut and dry.

Everything else added onto the conspiracy (swapping of shells, or the rifle, or alteration of the body, killing of witnesses, etc.) is just post-facto justifications because they can't keep the conspiracy theory alive otherwise.

Hank

Yup.

The multiple gunman thing vanished for me the day I went to Dallas.

My failure as a CT-loon was that I assumed the people who'd written all of those books knew what they were talking about, or had bothered to check. I can't tell you how many times I'd watched Stone's "JFK", and re-read Jim Mars' fantasy action thriller. So when I was actually there the first thing that went through my mind was how stupid I was to buy into something that the ground-truth couldn't support.

To be clear, there is no way someone fired from behind the fence - period. The shooter would be as obvious as an elephant with the runs. The shots all lined up with the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. It was just an easy shot that most people could have made.

I still have an open mind, but it's just now an informed mind.

 

[manifesto]

It's a shell game by Krusch.

I just looked at the video and saw a whopper of a lie.

At the 8:22 mark he says "... and when we turn the shell around we see no markings at all..."

That is untrue. The "Q" from the "Q6" FBI marking is there. Note where the dent in the lip is -- facing the camera. He then shows you an image that he says is a quarter turn (@8:35), then another quarter turn (at the 8:44 mark). He says "And here's our final quarter turn of the shell".

NOTE WHERE THE DENT IN THE LIP IS.

Two quarter-turns should put the dent in the lip AWAY from the camera, but there it is again -- facing the camera. Note he says "Notice that the very beginning of the "Q" appears at the bottom of the picture..."

Note where it is, and now go back to the 8:22 mark (which is supposedly of the other side after two quarter turns). There's the "Q" in the same place!

What he's doing is showing you the same image twice, and pretending he's showing you both sides.

He's a huckster. You are not seeing both sides. He's hiding something.

Now, clearly he's lying to you. The only question is why?

To sell his book.

If you buy the book, you will get more of the same, while he lines his pockets with your money.

Hank

Hm ... I agree, when he says that there are no marks (dent facing camera), there is a "Q" visible (later highlighted in another clip from the same angle). When he highlights the "Q" and the dent is facing the camera, there is no pointer from the NARA-personel. Could it be that they only do it once as in "Q-6"?

I'm not sure what you are claiming. Is it that Krusch doesn't show as all of the possible angles and therefore (possibly) omitting to show photographs where NARA is using a pointer to show more markings besides "Q-6"?

 

[manifesto]

The most common method of marking evidence in that era would be by the use of an ink pen, and ink deteriorates over time, and metal doesn't absorb ink in any case.

The DPD used a diamond pen marking the hulls. Do you know sop for FBI during the same time period?

(I appreciate your expertise in this field, good to know.)

 

[HSienzant]

Hm ... I agree, when he says that there are no marks (dent facing camera), there is a "Q" visible (later highlighted in another clip from the same angle). When he highlights the "Q" and the dent is facing the camera, there is no pointer from the NARA-personel. Could it be that they only do it once as in "Q-6"?

I'm not sure what you are claiming. Is it that Krusch doesn't show as all of the possible angles and therefore (possibly) omitting to show photographs where NARA is using a pointer to show more markings besides "Q-6"?

Please compare the two images as I directed in my original email:

== quote ==
At the 8:22 mark he says "... and when we turn the shell around we see no markings at all..."

That is untrue. The "Q" from the "Q6" FBI marking is there. Note where the dent in the lip is -- facing the camera. He then shows you an image that he says is a quarter turn (@8:35), then another quarter turn (at the 8:44 mark). He says "And here's our final quarter turn of the shell".

NOTE WHERE THE DENT IN THE LIP IS.

Two quarter-turns should put the dent in the lip AWAY from the camera, but there it is again -- facing the camera. Note he says "Notice that the very beginning of the "Q" appears at the bottom of the picture..."

Note where it is, and now go back to the 8:22 mark (which is supposedly of the other side after two quarter turns). There's the "Q" in the same place!

What he's doing is showing you the same image twice, and pretending he's showing you both sides.
== unquote ==

Do you see that the images at 8:22 & 8:44 are *identical* in all respects?

Not just the "Q6" but all random marks, like the dented lip, the rust spots, the two near-parallel lines where the hull widens, the little gouge at the bottom of the hull?

He's saying he's showing us the bullet before and after two quarter turns (which would mean he's showing us the other full side), but he's not. He's showing us the same image twice, and pretending he's showing us both sides. On one of those two images he says note the "Q6", but on the other identical image he says there are no markings. One side is as concealed as the far side of the moon was before we sent missions to photograph it. He never shows one quarter of the bullet. At all.

Now, why do you *think* he did that - conceal one side, show us the same side twice, while pretending to show us both sides?

He's saying he's got photographic evidence that Oswald is framed, he says he's going to show us that photographic evidence that proves that, and then he doesn't. Yet there he is, claiming these photographs are "conclusive proof" that the hull doesn't have the markings it should, and therefore Oswald is framed.

Do you think that's a coincidence? Or just inadvertent? Or is that deliberate misdirection?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the link also references the info that you can *purchase* his book?

And did you figure out what's wrong with his *Five Bullets* claims yet?

He's concealing something there as well.

Do you know what it is?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Ink-pen or diamond-pen?

If ink was used for marking custody by the FBI 1963, it could explain why there are signatures missing on the three hulls and the CE-399 bullet archived as evidence in NARA.

I'll look around for an answer to this, meantime if anyone here knows, please let us know.

 

[HSienzant]

If ink was used for marking custody by the FBI 1963, it could explain why there are signatures missing on the three hulls and the CE-399 bullet archived as evidence in NARA.

I'll look around for an answer to this, meantime if anyone here knows, please let us know.

Ink wasn't used, except on the paper label. And the paper label is a Warren Commission designation (CE543 is the Warren Commission's designation for the hull under discussion).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0134a.htm
(see the bottom half of the page)

There are no signatures established as missing by Barry Krusch. He's lying to us by not showing us the entire bullet - while claiming he is.

Note the "Q6" ("Q" is for "Questioned Item") is an FBI designation. They used a diamond stylus back then to mark bullets and hulls as well - as you should know from the "Q6" designation inscribed on the hull. This designation is pointed out by Krusch.

Krusch conceals one-quarter of the bullet from us and pretends he's showing us the entire bullet.

Why do you think he does that?

And did you figure out the problem with his claims about the five hulls yet?

Or why John Hunt doesn't show us the whole bullet?

Hank

PS: If you're claiming *ink was used* as an out, you're basically invalidating the claims of Barry Krusch and John Hunt entirely. Their claims are that the missing initials are evidence of a swap of evidence, and hence, of a frame-up of Oswald. But if ink was used, and now worn away, their claims are moot. So which was it? Ink was used, and the claims of Krusch and Hunt don't withstand scrutiny; or a diamond stylus was used, and both men did not show us the complete surface of the bullet or the three hulls, and therefore their claims are unproven?

 

[HSienzant]

If ink was used for marking custody by the FBI 1963, it could explain why there are signatures missing on the three hulls and the CE-399 bullet archived as evidence in NARA.

I'll look around for an answer to this, meantime if anyone here knows, please let us know.

Do you see that Krusch is showing us the same image twice, while pretending to show us both sides after two quarter-turns of the bullet?

Do you see that Hunt is only showing us the top half of the recovered bullet?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

PS: If you're claiming *ink was used* as an out, you're basically invalidating the claims of Barry Krusch and John Hunt entirely. Their claims are that the missing initials are evidence of a swap of evidence, and hence, of a frame-up of Oswald. But if ink was used, and now worn away, their claims are moot. So which was it? Ink was used, and the claims of Krusch and Hunt don't withstand scrutiny; or a diamond stylus was used, and both men did not show us the complete surface of the bullet or the three hulls, and therefore their claims are unproven?

I'm not claiming ink was used as "a way out". BStrong wrote this:

The most common method of marking evidence in that era would be by the use of an ink pen, and ink deteriorates over time, and metal doesn't absorb ink in any case.

And I agree, if FBI sop for initialing bullets/hulls for custody 1963 was ink, this could explain why the signatures are missing.

You are sure the sop was diamond stylus?

 

[HSienzant]

I'm not claiming ink was used as "a way out". BStrong wrote this:

And I agree, if FBI sop for initialing bullets/hulls for custody 1963 was ink, this could explain why the signatures are missing.

You are sure the sop was diamond stylus?

Please re-read what I already explained. The "Q6" is the FBI designation, and it's with a diamond stylus.

Instead of asking more and more questions, why not answer a few of mine?

Are the claims of Krusch and Hunt unproven at best, and bogus at worst?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Please re-read what I already explained. The "Q6" is the FBI designation, and it's with a diamond stylus.

Yes, but what was the FBI sop for signing custody? Was it ink as BStrong claims, or was it diamond, or was it both ... or something else?

Instead of asking more and more questions, why not answer a few of mine?

Are the claims of Krusch and Hunt unproven at best, and bogus at worst?

Hank

You can download all the HD photographs on Kuschs homepage (bottom):
http://www.krusch.com/jfk/
Still unsure?


If the custody marks were made in ink, that could be the reasonable explanation for the (alleged) missing signatures, yes.

If you ask me if I believe that Krusch and Hunt are lying about their observations, I say no. A look att the rest of the 'evidence' in this two cases is very telling.

 

[manifesto]

And did you figure out the problem with his claims about the five hulls yet?

No?

 

[abaddon]

Please re-read what I already explained. The "Q6" is the FBI designation, and it's with a diamond stylus.

Instead of asking more and more questions, why not answer a few of mine?

Are the claims of Krusch and Hunt unproven at best, and bogus at worst?

Hank

I have never seen this before. Now, it's ziplocked baggies. Before, it was small paper envelopes, but diamond engraved? WTF?

 

[manifesto]

The Hunt article about CE399 makes this claim:

"Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Never?

That's not what this document (cited by Hunt in his article) says:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

See the first paragraph:

"On June 12, 1964, Darrell G. Tomlinson... was shown exhibit C1, a rifle slug... Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet...."

Do you see that? Was Hunt correct in saying "Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Hank

Yes, he was right, twice actually.

1. He's referring to the WC hearing by Specter and no, he was not asked to identify CE-399. You are referring to a report from FBI which says he was asked to identify the bullet.

2. The FBI report is stating that it was Dallas SA Bardwell Odum that made the interview but Odum is denying (to Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar) having anything to do with any bullet in the JFK case, and that he did not interview Thomlinson (or Wright) and no, he had never seen CE-399 before. He says that he would of course have remembered such an important event and he would also have filed a proper report on it, which is nowhere to be found in the archives.

http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html

 

[manifesto]

DPD used a diamond pen for marking custody.

I e-mailed Barry Krusch and he says DPD used a diamond pen for marking custody, showing me this interview from the WC Report: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Oswald_Chapter_09.pdf

Mr. Belin. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?
Mr. Day. On the small end where the slug would go.
Mr. Belin. And it has "Day" on it?
Mr Day. Scratched on there; yes, sir.
Mr. Belin. With what instrument did you scratch it on?
Mr. Day. A diamond point pencil.

Page 56, but I recommend reading the whole chapter free of charge, and if you find it compelling, read his three books. Compelling.

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, but what was the FBI sop for signing custody? Was it ink as BStrong claims, or was it diamond, or was it both ... or something else?


You can download all the HD photographs on Kuschs homepage (bottom):
http://www.krusch.com/jfk/
Still unsure?


If the custody marks were made in ink, that could be the reasonable explanation for the (alleged) missing signatures, yes.

If you ask me if I believe that Krusch and Hunt are lying about their observations, I say no. A look att the rest of the 'evidence' in this two cases is very telling.

I see what appears to be JDY on the first shell; right where that stylus is pointing.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/CE 543_DSC5467_Highlighted_Q6_Cropped.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/CE 543_DSC5467_Highlighted_Q6_CroppedA.jpg

The first image is the image as downloaded.
The second image is the image with the apparent initials highlighted... right where the silver stylus is pointing.

It's Krusch's claim that no other initials are on the shell. How hard did he look?
J.C.Day said he found his initials on this shell. And it appears to be his initials on the shell.

So, are you going to claim I need to establish these are J.C.Day's initials or is the proper burden of proof on Krusch, to show these are not J.C.Day's initials?

I say it's his claim; he needs to prove it.

We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I e-mailed Barry Krusch and he says DPD used a diamond pen for marking custody, showing me this interview from the WC Report: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Oswald_Chapter_09.pdf

Page 56, but I recommend reading the whole chapter free of charge, and if you find it compelling, read his three books. Compelling.

Yes, I already said that, except it's not from the Warren Report; it's from the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence.
Specifically, from volume 4, starting at page 249 (or 4H249).

His diamond reference in the actual printed testimony can be found here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0131b.htm

I quoted it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10707882#post10707882

Did you ask him why he's concealing one side of the first shell in the video?

Or why he's pretending there's evidence for five shells instead of three?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Please compare the two images as I directed in my original email:

== quote ==
At the 8:22 mark he says "... and when we turn the shell around we see no markings at all..."

That is untrue. The "Q" from the "Q6" FBI marking is there. Note where the dent in the lip is -- facing the camera. He then shows you an image that he says is a quarter turn (@8:35), then another quarter turn (at the 8:44 mark). He says "And here's our final quarter turn of the shell".

NOTE WHERE THE DENT IN THE LIP IS.

Two quarter-turns should put the dent in the lip AWAY from the camera, but there it is again -- facing the camera. Note he says "Notice that the very beginning of the "Q" appears at the bottom of the picture..."

Note where it is, and now go back to the 8:22 mark (which is supposedly of the other side after two quarter turns). There's the "Q" in the same place!

What he's doing is showing you the same image twice, and pretending he's showing you both sides.
== unquote ==

Do you see that the images at 8:22 & 8:44 are *identical* in all respects?

Not just the "Q6" but all random marks, like the dented lip, the rust spots, the two near-parallel lines where the hull widens, the little gouge at the bottom of the hull?

He's saying he's showing us the bullet before and after two quarter turns (which would mean he's showing us the other full side), but he's not. He's showing us the same image twice, and pretending he's showing us both sides. On one of those two images he says note the "Q6", but on the other identical image he says there are no markings. One side is as concealed as the far side of the moon was before we sent missions to photograph it. He never shows one quarter of the bullet. At all.

Now, why do you *think* he did that - conceal one side, show us the same side twice, while pretending to show us both sides?

He's saying he's got photographic evidence that Oswald is framed, he says he's going to show us that photographic evidence that proves that, and then he doesn't. Yet there he is, claiming these photographs are "conclusive proof" that the hull doesn't have the markings it should, and therefore Oswald is framed.

Do you think that's a coincidence? Or just inadvertent? Or is that deliberate misdirection?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the link also references the info that you can *purchase* his book?

And did you figure out what's wrong with his *Five Bullets* claims yet?

He's concealing something there as well.

Do you know what it is?

Hank

Manifesto? Why did Krusch not show the flip side of the bullet in the video?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

I see what appears to be JDY on the first shell; right where that stylus is pointing.

http://simfootball.net/JFK/CE 543_DSC5467_Highlighted_Q6_Cropped.jpg
http://simfootball.net/JFK/CE 543_DSC5467_Highlighted_Q6_CroppedA.jpg

The first image is the image as downloaded.
The second image is the image with the apparent initials highlighted... right where the silver stylus is pointing.

It's Krusch's claim that no other initials are on the shell. How hard did he look?
J.C.Day said he found his initials on this shell. And it appears to be his initials on the shell.

So, are you going to claim I need to establish these are J.C.Day's initials or is the proper burden of proof on Krusch, to show these are not J.C.Day's initials?

I say it's his claim; he needs to prove it.

We'll wait.

Hank

From the WC hearing again:

Mr. Belin. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?
Mr. Day. (1)On the small end where the slug would go.
Mr. Belin. And it has (2)"Day" on it?
Mr Day. Scratched on there; yes, sir.
Mr. Belin. With what instrument did you scratch it on?
Mr. Day. A diamond point pencil.

(1) Your proposed initials are not "on the small end".

(2) Looks to me that he uses "Day", not "JCD" or "JDY".

But I agree, this doesn't prove 100% that no initials (from Day and one more, depending on shell) are on the hulls, but it shows that there is good reason to investigate it once and for all.

If the documents and the witnesses fail to show chain of custody, it's critical to look att the physical evidence and so far it doesn't look good, does it?

 

[HSienzant]

Ink wasn't used, except on the paper label. And the paper label is a Warren Commission designation (CE543 is the Warren Commission's designation for the hull under discussion).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0134a.htm
(see the bottom half of the page)

There are no signatures established as missing by Barry Krusch. He's lying to us by not showing us the entire bullet - while claiming he is.

Note the "Q6" ("Q" is for "Questioned Item") is an FBI designation. They used a diamond stylus back then to mark bullets and hulls as well - as you should know from the "Q6" designation inscribed on the hull. This designation is pointed out by Krusch.

Krusch conceals one-quarter of the bullet from us and pretends he's showing us the entire bullet.

Why do you think he does that?

And did you figure out the problem with his claims about the five hulls yet?

Or why John Hunt doesn't show us the whole bullet?

Hank

PS: If you're claiming *ink was used* as an out, you're basically invalidating the claims of Barry Krusch and John Hunt entirely. Their claims are that the missing initials are evidence of a swap of evidence, and hence, of a frame-up of Oswald. But if ink was used, and now worn away, their claims are moot. So which was it? Ink was used, and the claims of Krusch and Hunt don't withstand scrutiny; or a diamond stylus was used, and both men did not show us the complete surface of the bullet or the three hulls, and therefore their claims are unproven?

I've bolded the above point which you have yet to address.

You've yet to address most of my points, in fact.

Hank