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

[HSienzant]

Wow, that appears to be suspect.

Hank said there were "fresh" prints found yet you are saying that latent prints are easy to plant... so I am a bit confused. Do those "fresh" prints over rule latent prints?

I can provide links to the evidence for my claim. What's the evidence for Manifesto's claim? He won't provide it.

The fresh prints on the trigger housing were photographed on the afternoon of the assassination by J.C.Day.

Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them.
...
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.
​

.

Years later, Vincent Scalise, a reputable fingerprint examiner, examined the photos on the trigger guard and determined there were sufficient points of identity on the trigger guard prints to identity them as Lee Harvey Oswald's prints, to the exclusion of all other persons in the world.

Photographed there on the afternoon of the assassination.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

Did anybody ever claim to smell gunpowder on the rifle or at the Sniper's Nest?

You wont smell gunpowder on a rifle, you would smell cordite or solonite.

Its irrelevant anyway. I can smell cordite on my Savage M12 and my Beretta 686 shotgun and I have not fired either of them in several weeks (and I always clean them after every use). The only viable test would be how hot the barrel is, and you would need to touch the the barrel within just a few minutes of firing it to determine that.

 

[manifesto]

Then your original post may be completely ignored as it does not meet the requirement of knowledge of the manner in which fingerprints are processed.

You don't get to rule how anyone posts or the questions that they might ask.

Are you disputing my statements about the alleged fingerprints? Explain why and provide supporting evidence if you have any.

 

[bknight]

When doing my military service we allways had to line up after a shooting session with our cleaned weapons. An officer went from soldier to soldier putting his index finger in the pipe and the chamber for traces of soot = fired weapon.

Are you saying this was done with the Carcano?

You said it yourself, it was a test of whether the weapon had been cleaned, not that it had been fired.

 

[manifesto]

You wont smell gunpowder on a rifle, you would smell cordite or solonite.

Which is the smell of, gunpowder, in the vernacular.

Its irrelevant anyway. I can smell cordite on my Savage M12 and my Beretta 686 shotgun and I have not fired either of them in several weeks (and I always clean them after every use). The only viable test would be how hot the barrel is, and you would need to touch the the barrel within just a few minutes of firing it to determine that.

Does it smell the same lets say an hour after been fired (no cleaning) as lets say a week after (and cleaning)?

 

[bknight]

Are you disputing my statements about the alleged fingerprints? Explain why and provide supporting evidence if you have any.

Yes I am, and Hanks has provided the evidence for your question.
Thanks Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I have no opinion because I haven't actually sighted a copy of the 1963 regulation (if in fact, regulations dated as such even exist)

However, I am well versed in the English language, so I do know with absolute certainty that "SHOULD" does not mean "MUST". From my own experience in business, I have seen numerous examples of financial instruments such as cheques, money orders, traveller's cheques and bank transfers that have NOT been endorsed or stamped by a bank despite the fact that they have been banked and the funds have been deposited into my account.

In fact, it you think about it (and idiots like Sandy Larsen obviously have not) is easy to understand why that might be. Why are money orders endorsed with a bank stamp in the first place? The answer is, that it is a confirmation that the person who is presenting the money order, is the person to whom the money order is addressed, i.e. the payee. When a person presents a money order for cashing (at a bank or a post office) or for banking into their own bank account (at a bank), they present the money order to a teller. The teller will ask the person for some form of identification (driver's licence, ID card) to show that they are the payee. When the teller is satisfied with their identification, they will stamp the money order, and that acts as an endorsement.

However, when a company or business is presenting the money order, it is likely to be just one among many being banked at the same time. Klein's Sporting Goods was a very big company that had been around since before WWII, and they didn't just sell guns. they dealt in sports equipment across the whole range of sports, leisure and pastimes; racquet & bat sports, ball sports, golfing equipment, fishing tackle, sports and hunting apparel, even musical instruments! They were a business that advertised in dozens of magazines and newspapers across the whole of the USA. A business that large is going to be banking hundreds of cheques, money orders, and charge card slips (as well as a large amount of cash) every day. They would have used a courier, or an armoured car service (or perhaps an employee) to deliver their cash and document bags to the bank for banking. Did the courier driver or the driver of the armoured car or his shotgun, have to wait while the teller individually hand-stamped hundreds of money orders and cheques? Of course not, and why? Because these financial instruments were already endorsed by the payee, and this was indicated by their stamp on the back of the instrument, in this case....

PAY TO THE ORDER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO
59-91144
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.​

... was all the endorsement that the bank (and ultimately, the Fed) needed to verify the identity of the payee. The reference number will be either an authorisation number for Klein's, or the last seven digits of their bank account number at that bank (my endorsement stamp had the last seven digits of my account number at the branch where I bank (plus a two-digit suffix to indicate which sub-account it is to be banked into)

I can therefore reasonably conclude that the Klien's endorsement stamp is sufficient proof that the money order was indeed processed.

Now, I don't expect an unreasonable CT such as you accept any of this. As is usual for your type, I expect you will merely handwave this all away. My sole purpose posting this in such detail is to inform the lurkers, and/or those who might be sitting on the fence, and/or those with an ounce of commonsense and who, unlike you, are capable of thinking and reasoning for themselves, and not be told how to think by the JFK-CT loony echo chambers people like you inhabit.

As you suggest, it's unacceptable to CTs because it means Oswald used the money order to purchase the rifle, that according to their arguments, WASN'T used in the assassination anyway.

So why would it matter if he had?

But anything that points to Oswald must be rejected. For that reason. It points to Oswald.

Hank

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

You bring up an interesting point in JFK and Walker. JFK and Walker were polar opposites YET Oswald attempts to take them both out. What is gained? If Oswald is successful in taking out Walker, how does that help any cause?

Politics was not necessarily Oswald's motive. He was a deranged nut case. He blamed JFK for his being unable to go to Cuba,

He may have killed JFK as an act of revenge, or perhaps he thought killing him might lead to a change in policy with regard to Cuba. Who know what a dead madman was thinking?

 

[manifesto]

You said it yourself, it was a test of whether the weapon had been cleaned, not that it had been fired.

Since the weapons were cleaned after every single firing session/day, soot was a sure sign of the weapon having been fired since the last check = same day since it was not allowed to firing it without superiors present.

There is also the issue of the freshness of the soot. Smell, color and dryness. It’s easy to see the difference between old and fresh soot if you are somewhat used to it.

 

[manifesto]

Politics was not necessarily Oswald's motive. He was a deranged nut case. He blamed JFK for his being unable to go to Cuba,

He may have killed JFK as an act of revenge, or perhaps he thought killing might lead to a change in policy with regard to Cube. Who know what a dead madman was thinking?

Lone Nut = adorn him in anything you like.

 

[No Other]

That has not been claimed, and in any case, would be impossible to prove one way or the other

Some feel different than you. Hank just listed some elements that he thought was convincing in putting the rifle in Oswald's hands and firing the rifle.

 

[manifesto]

As you suggest, it's unacceptable to CTs because it means Oswald used the money order to purchase the rifle, that according to their arguments, WASN'T used in the assassination anyway.

So why would it matter if he had?

But anything that points to Oswald must be rejected. For that reason. It points to Oswald.

Hank

Hank

You kind of disappeard from the thread in the Ed.Forum, Hank? Larsen was refuting yours, DVP’s & co’s efforts to disprove his documents, point by point by point, and after that, silence.

Why is that? Modesty?

 

[jeffas69]

What? Are you disputing LBJ forcing Warren to head the Commission with threats of nuclear war and 40 million American dead first hour?

Look at ”29 Nov 1963” and the phone call to Senator Richard Russel (last one that day):

In this amazing call, LBJ warned Russell about the possibility of 40 million dead Americans (in a nuclear exchange with the Soviets), and at the end told the story of how he had gotten Earl Warren to head the Commission, by telling him "something Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/LBJ_Phone_Calls.html​

That ”little incident in Mexico City” was the alleged interaktions Oswald had with the Cuban and Soviet consulats = the assassination was masterminded by them = third world nuclear war = truth Commission to put the public to rest = whitewash the FBI investigation saying Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself = no conspiracy.

What so ever.

No I will not dispute that. I never recalled hearing it before. So I humbly apologize.

It is still not evidence of a cover up. Now could you provide citations for the rest of the assertions you've made. I think Hank has a list.

 

[HSienzant]

Ouch! So the original bag was submitted as evidence to the WC... duly noted.

And it bore Oswald's fingerprint and it was recovered near the sniper's nest window. Further hard evidence that Oswald handled the rifle that day.

I do not understand.

MicahJava is fond of citing recollections from people from 30+ years after the fact. This was a dig at your false recollection and his penchant for putting too much weight on false recollections.

If the original bag was still around, why didn't the WC just slip the rifle into the bag to see if it fits and that the oils match?

The original bag was still around. I provided a link to a photograph of it. Did you click on the link and look at the bag? How do you know they didn't put the rifle into the bag? Can you cite for that failure to do so? Why would you expect to find oil in the bag?

Don't be so quick to say that... Why was a replica bag made and not the original presented?

Already told you. To show to witnesses because the original was darkened by the fingerprint testing.

I can't see where staining would take away from a form, fit or function of the bag?

Nobody said it would.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

Yes I am, and Hanks has provided the evidence for your question.
Thanks Hank

Has he? Where?

 

[bknight]

Since the weapons were cleaned after every single firing session/day, soot was a sure sign of the weapon having been fired since the last check = same day since it was not allowed to firing it without superiors present.

There is also the issue of the freshness of the soot. Smell, color and dryness. It’s easy to see the difference between old and fresh soot if you are somewhat used to it.

You are saying the same thing as I:
1. Fire weapon
2. Clean weapon(requirement)
3. Test whether it had been cleaned as per requirement.

Now whether there is a different odor between freshly shot and old shot. I have no opinion, since I have not had the pleasure of differentiating.

Yes I was the same officer doing the inspections, but not smelling the barrel.

 

[smartcooky]

Which is the smell of, gunpowder, in the vernacular.

If people are going to base arguments on knowledge of firearms, I expect them to use the correct terminology, not vernacular, or to put it in vernacular for you, if you don't know what you are talking about, shut the hell up!

Does it smell the same lets say an hour after been fired (no cleaning) as lets say a week after (and cleaning)?

No different as far as I can tell. Cordite smells like, well, cordite.

I imagine if it was left it outside, or in a place with really good ventilation, some of the odour might dissipate, but I have never tested that, and I don't know it that would even be quantifiable now, let alone in the 1960's

As far as I know, the sniff test only tells you if a firearm was discharged "recently" but it won't indicate a time-line, i.e., you can't sniff it and say "me think gun fired 54 minutes 18 seconds ago kemo sabe"

 

[HSienzant]

I see that you have shouldered some of your brother in faith, RoboTimbo’s responsibility, little blue idiot smileys included.

Do you have any idea why the most important alleged murder weapon in the history of the USA, was not checked right away (or later) for signs of having been fired that day?

Irrelevant? Trivial?

What's the name of the test that shows it's been fired within the last 24 hours?

As opposed to two weeks ago and not cleaned since?

Hank

 

[bknight]

Has he? Where?

Look it up I'm not spoon feeding you. its all in the thread.

 

[manifesto]

No I will not dispute that. I never recalled hearing it before. So I humbly apologize.

Apology accepted.

It is still not evidence of a cover up.

Yes it is. Why set up a Commission in order to prevent world war III and nuclear Armageddon if JFK was killed by a, Lone little Nut?

Now could you provide citations for the rest of the assertions you've made. I think Hank has a list.

I’m really doing my very best keeping up with your requests. Nice and easy.