• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
The reason I keep asking, manifesto, is that you never provide what I’m asking you to do: When did Roger Craig first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Depository?

Hank
Click to expand...
Why is the exact date important for you to know? Time of the day? Minutes? Seconds?

Tell me.
 
manifesto said:
The same round that originally was identified as steel jacketted bullet?
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that the bullet was identified as steel jacketed? How do you know the people making the claim about the bullet were correct?

Ranb
 
manifesto said:
Why is the exact date important for you to know? Time of the day? Minutes? Seconds?

Tell me.
Click to expand...

And we're not supposed to notice you didn't answer the question? You just asked another question? We're not supposed to notice that?

Never asked for the exact date. The year will do. Or the decade. Sometime in the 1970s? If you think it's earlier than 1970, I want a citation for the claim.

Hank

EDIT: Meanwhile, you have no problem asking for the exact date of the backyard photos showing Oswald with the rifle:
manifesto said:
What day were they taken?
Click to expand...

Why is the exact date important for you to know? Time of the day? Minutes? Seconds?
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
And like CTs everywhere, you get the vast majority wrong.

Right now, your cross-examination of J.C.Day is pending.

Any questions for J.C.Day?

Hank
Click to expand...
I know that you are trying to impress your following, Hank, but I do not care. I care of you providing evidence of your claim of Oswald killing JFK. This has gone on for a couple of days now, but still no show.

Are you EVER going to provide such evidence?
 
HSienzant said:
And we're not supposed to notice you didn't answer the question? You just asked another question? We're not supposed to notice that?

Never asked for the exact date. The year will do. Or the decade. Sometime in the 1970s? If you think it's earlier than 1970, I want a citation for the claim.

Hank
Click to expand...
After 1970 is by me. Why do you ask?

EDIT: Meanwhile, you have no problem asking for the exact date of the backyard photos showing Oswald with the rifle:


Why is the exact date important for you to know? Time of the day? Minutes? Seconds?
Click to expand...
Implicit in my question is: How do you know what day it was?
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
I know that you are trying to impress your following, Hank, but I do not care.
Click to expand...

You cited Roger Craig as one of your witnesses. I'm asking a simple question, when did he first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Depository. As I noted above, it doesn't even have to be exact. The year would do. Can you document when the evidence you cited was made?

Suddenly you don't care when your witness said what you're citing?

Isn't that a small but important detail?



manifesto said:
I care of you providing evidence of your claim of Oswald killing JFK. This has gone on for a couple of days now, but still no show.

Are you EVER going to provide such evidence?
Click to expand...

I already started. We're waiting for you to cross-examine J.C.Day, remember? Do you have any questions for him or shall I move on to my next witness?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
You cited Roger Craig as one of your witnesses. I'm asking a simple question, when did he first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Depository. As I noted above, it doesn't even have to be exact. The year would do. Can you document when the evidence you cited was made?

Suddenly you don't care when your witness said what you're citing?

Isn't that a small but important detail?





I already started. We're waiting for you to cross-examine J.C.Day, remember? Do you have any questions for him or shall I move on to my next witness?

Hank
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Day in his WC testimony provide evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Where? Cite. Argue. Make your point, Hank.
 
HSienzant said:
You cited Roger Craig as one of your witnesses. I'm asking a simple question, when did he first mention seeing a Mauser on the sixth floor of the Depository. As I noted above, it doesn't even have to be exact. The year would do. Can you document when the evidence you cited was made?

Suddenly you don't care when your witness said what you're citing?

Isn't that a small but important detail?
Click to expand...
You wrote:
Sometime in the 1970s? If you think it's earlier than 1970, I want a citation for the claim.​
I answered that after 1970 is ok by me. Why do you ask?
 
manifesto said:
Are you saying that Day in his WC testimony provide evidence of Oswald killing JFK? Where? Cite. Argue. Make your point, Hank.
Click to expand...

Argument, not evidence. I thought you had counter evidence. You said you did.

Do you have any questions for J.C.Day, Manifesto?

Argument comes at the end of the trial, in the summation phase. Not after every witness.

Right now all the jury has heard is that the weapon is an Italian rifle manufactured in 1940, firing 6.5mm ammo, and with the serial number of C2766.

Shall I move to the next witness or do you have any questions of J.C.Day?

Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
You wrote:
Sometime in the 1970s? If you think it's earlier than 1970, I want a citation for the claim.​
I answered that after 1970 is ok by me. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Because you initially made an issue of the recantation of the Mauser IDs by Weitzman and Boone, and claimed one man didn't recant.

Remember?

manifesto said:
The crime of the century and three police officers get the brand of the rifle wrong? In written and signed affidavits? Then, after a good nights sleep, two of them suddely ”remember” much clearer that is was a Carcano rifle, while the third of them still remember a ”wrong” rifle? Come on ... you are kidding ... ?!?
Click to expand...

But Craig didn't claim the rifle was a Mauser until the 1970s, as you now concede. So he modified his original claims made in affidavits made on the weekend of the assassination in November of 1963 (when he didn't think to even mention a Mauser), he modified his claims in his testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. And he modified his claims in 1969 when he didn't mention the Mauser when he testified at the Clay Shaw trial.

So how many nights do we allow a witness 'to sleep on it' before their statements becomes questionable and worthy of note? Is less than a year questionable, as in the case of Boone and Weitzman? Why then is Craig's change of testimony not questionable, as he took at least six years plus to first mention the Mauser?

And you made an issue of why the Warren Commission didn't question him about the Mauser, but if he didn't mention the Mauser until the 1970s, how could they question him about something he never mentioned anywhere?

As I asked in an earlier post and you ignored - what if he first mentioned the Mauser in 2017 - would waiting that long to bring up a Mauser be questionable?

What's your criteria here?

If it points to a conspiracy is your criteria it's always acceptable?

And if it points to Oswald, it never is?

Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
I’m not primarily arguing that the officers actually saw a Mauser, I’m saying they made that identification, in writing and verbally, when they found the weapon. This leave room for doubt, still not resolved, 55 years later.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't leave room for doubt. They didn't handle the weapon, and they didn't enter it into evidence, so it doesn't matter what they thought they saw, it only matters what was physically recovered.

You believe Oswald to be not guilty, but it was his Carcano that killed him.

If they misslabel the murderweapon in the crime of the century, what else did they got right?
Click to expand...

And yet they didn't. Your doubts are unfounded.

For me, personally, it doesn’t really matter if they planted the Carcano on the 6th floor, or if they switched it later down the line.
Click to expand...

It should because it never happened, and you would have to prove the rifles were switched, and they were not.

What matters is the muddy identification.
Click to expand...

Only because you're fixated on it, not because it matters at all.

It’s a good example of how evidence was handled by investigators right from the start. No secured provinience. No secured chain of custody. No secured crime scene.
Click to expand...

No, it's an example of life in America in 1963.

Cops still beat suspects, and in many departments the qualification to be a cop was a pulse.

Unsecured crime scene? You bet, and this would make a conspiracy impossible since a TV News film crew got into the TSBD before it was secured, and they FILMED THE DISCOVERY OF THE CARCANO ON THE 6TH FLOOR.

In fact DPD's handling of evidence was above average for 1963, and somewhat better than the FBI's handling of evidence, which has been noted, and admitted to by the agents involved.

You can't measure what was done in 1963 against standards of today which didn't exist back then.
 
manifesto said:
I know that you are trying to impress your following, Hank, but I do not care. I care of you providing evidence of your claim of Oswald killing JFK. This has gone on for a couple of days now, but still no show.

Are you EVER going to provide such evidence?
Click to expand...

Not to your satisfaction because you're a CTist, and not interested in facts generated outside of CT circles.

It's your failure, not ours.
 
manifesto said:
You wrote:
Sometime in the 1970s? If you think it's earlier than 1970, I want a citation for the claim.​
I answered that after 1970 is ok by me. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Day will remain on the stand overnight here.

If you have no questions of Day, tomorrow I will call to the stand William Waldman, who will testify, among other things, that the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was shipped to the PO Box 2915.

In the future, after I conclude with a witness, if you post twice without having any questions of that witness, I will move on to my next witness.

By the time I get to my fifth or sixth witness, Oswald will be screaming for new counsel, and you'll be getting hammered in the newspapers for failing to give Oswald an adequate defense.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom