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

[manifesto]

Easy-peasy. As easy as 3-2-1 in fact..

Three shell discovered shortly after the assassination at the sniper's nest window were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

So, why are there TWO chains of custody and no tags on the shells from any of those in possession of the shells, Lt. Day included (DAY)?

Two large fragments discovered the night of the assassination in the Presidential limousine were ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Chain of custody?

One nearly whole bullet discovered in the hospital near Connally's stretcher on the afternoon of the assassination was ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS IN THE WORLD.

Chain of custody?

Now you'll quibble over the claims and pretend the evidence isn't admissible because [whatever you can think of the moment] but all that evidence is admissible and all of it establishes Oswald's rifle was fired not only on the day of the assassination, but at the time of the assassination and at the Presidential limousine. To the EXCLUSION OF ALL PLACES AND TIMES.

Hank

What you call ”quibble”, the rest of western civilisation calls evidence with secured chain of custody and provenance. Without that, its pretty much worthless.

These concepts was well established in the USA 1963 going decades back from that point in time.

Quibble, the new null?

 

[HSienzant]

If they would had put the rifle in the bag, it would show that if conformed.

So show they didn't put it in the bag.

That would eliminate the nay-sayers who say the presented bag was either too small or too large.

Well, the bag can't be too big to contain the rifle, can it? The dimensions of the bag were measured. It was 38 inches by 8 inches, as I recall. The rifle, when disassembled, was 36 inches long and less than five inches wide.

I think you're conflating the found bag (which is large enough to contain the rifle) with the recollection of Wes Frazier, who recalled the bag he saw was smaller in length and width than the found one.

Rifles have oil to keep them lubricated, oil in rifles are always escaping.

Always? Can you cite for that?

The smallest amount of residue could be matched.

Could it? Is it like DNA? Can you cite for that?

This reason (darkened) you just provided is not a reason to NOT show the evidence.

Sure it is. It no longer looks like the bag that was seen or found.

If you don't know why it wasn't shown...just say so but don't make up an excuse.

Hilarious. You'll learn. I don't make up stuff.

If this the reason that the FBI provided to the WC... then show it.

Hilarious. I will. But show me your source for the claim 'oils are always escaping' and the oil residue could be matched to the rifle if any was found.

You were asking for this testimony?

Mr. CADIGAN. Do you want me to discuss this replica sack yet?
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned a replica bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you explain what that is?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this is Commission Exhibit 364. It is a paper sack similar to Commission Exhibit 142. It was made at the Texas School Book Depository on December 1, 1963, by special agents of the FBI in Dallas to show to prospective witnesses, because Commission's Exhibit 142 was dark and stained from the latent fingerprint treatment and they thought that this would--it wouldn't be fair to the witness to ask "Did you see a bag like that?" So they went to the Texas School Book Depository and constructed from paper and tape a similar bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was made December 1?
Mr. CADIGAN. December 1, of 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Or some 9 or 10 days after the assassination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was the paper obtained from the same source?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; from the same room.​

Now, your two claims about the oil? Can you cite for those?

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

It is very much possible to prove that it was not fired.

No it isn't without additional information.

If a firearm has been used infrequently, and it was first fired, and then scrupulously cleaned inside, i.e. pulling-through the barrel with oiled flannel cleaning cloth, dismantling and cleaning all the parts of the mechanism, and thoroughly wiping down the whole gun (gunmetal parts with gun oil, a wooden stock with linseed oil), then it would be very difficult to tell whether it had been recently fired (I can dismantle, thoroughly clean and reassemble my Savage M12 in about 20 minutes). Detecting a hint of cordite smell might indicate it has been fired, not detecting it would not prove it hasn't.

I do agree with you in that it is extremely difficult to pinpoint a time when it was fired.

Its not extremely difficult to pinpoint a time, it impossible. All you can say is "recently".

If I found a rifle, with a barrel too hot to touch I would be reasonably sure it was fired in the last few minutes, if it was warm to touch, maybe a several minutes to an hour. All this will, of course, depend on how many shots and how quickly they were fired (the more rapidly the shots are fired, the hotter the barrel will get), then when you stop firing, the temperature the barrel has reached at the point is the starting point it cools down from.

A cold barrel will tell you nothing.

A strong cordite smell might tell you that the gun has been fired recently, or it might tell you a lot of shots were fired some time ago and the firearm wasn't cleaned, or was cleaned but not properly.

There is really no way to tell for certain.

 

[HSienzant]

How do you know that the fingerprints examined by the FBI are the same as those in the photographs?

Can you expand on exactly what you're asking here?

It's the C2766 rifle both Day photographed and the FBI examined.

It's the trigger guard of that C2766 rifle that's where the fingerprints were found.

How could they be examining different prints?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I thought someone had finally tried to post a snippet of evidence everyone's been waiting for and the forum software couldn't handle it.

Hank

 

[No Other]

So, why are there TWO chains of custody and no tags on the shells from any of those in possession of the shells, Lt. Day included (DAY)?

<snip>

What you call ”quibble”, the rest of western civilisation calls evidence with secured chain of custody and provenance. Without that, its pretty much worthless.

These concepts was well established in the USA 1963 going decades back from that point in time.

Quibble, the new null?

This is spot on; the challenge to the one's who feel that a lone gunman is the one who shot and killed our President is to make sure that when you cite "evidence" that it will withstand the scrutiny regarding the secured chain of custody. What most forget is that the WC was like a Grand Jury, they had no investigative body besides the FBI and they had the luxury of working autonomously without interference with the public and sometimes the facts. J. Edgar already had LHO as the lone gunman by the second day after JFK died, so what are the chances that a Field Agent is going to go Rogue and contradict JEH? The WC was working more on a deadline than obtaining the truth (this was admitted by default when the WC said that certain elements could not be in the Report due to the "need" to get this out prior to the elections.

 

[smartcooky]

Rifles have oil to keep them lubricated, oil in rifles are always escaping.

This simply is not true. Oil only escapes the firearm if you over oil the mechanism.

My Beretta 686 shotgun was a replacement for my old 1957 Browning Superposed. That Browning never leaked a drop of oil; I could leave it on the floor or on the carpet or on a white bedsheet, and there would be no stain left behind. That is what happens when you clean a firearm properly!

 

[HSienzant]

You were 100% correct when you said you were not a Lawyer. You continue to support that comment. What you have provided is:

A LHO fingerprint was found on the trigger guard.
A LHO palm print was found.
A bag was made up by the FBI to replicate the real bag. You have not explained why the real bag was not provided.

Provided to whom? the real bag was tested and determined to have Oswald's print on it.

"Ballistics" show that the bullets were at one-time fired from the rifle.

Not only at 'one time'. Based on the evidence of where those six pieces of ballistic evidence were found - at the sniper's nest window, in the limo, and near Connally's stretcher in the hospital - the evidence establishes the rifle was used in the assassination.

What you have failed to do is to establish that LHO shot that rifle and killed JFK.

You asked that we put the rifle in his hands. We did. Remember?
If you have a better candidate, I'd love to hear about it.

There are enough dueling experts on both sides to create F.U.D. and frankly I don't think either side has a monopoly on the truth.

No, the only experts are those whose testimony would be valid in court. You don't think because Mark Lane wrote a book questioning some of the conclusions of the Warren Commission, he's suddenly an expert on ballistics, do you? You don't think all those posters on internet forums are experts, do you? I'm not. I just know the evidence provided by the experts.

If you want to restrict this to expert testimony, I can do that. I did that with Manifesto (search for Day, Waldman and Holmes) when Manifesto was questioning whether Oswald ordered and received the C2766 rifle. He ignored every opportunity to present any contrary expert testimony.

But to provide partial answers and to think that is sufficient is reckless and disingenuous.

What partial answers did I provide? Strong charge. Back it up.

And how did you determine they are partial answers? If you already know the answers, or profess to (as Manifesto does) then start providing the evidence to support your claims, instead of JAQing off.

Hank

 

[No Other]

No it isn't without additional information.

If a firearm has been used infrequently, and it was first fired, and then scrupulously cleaned inside, i.e. pulling-through the barrel with oiled flannel cleaning cloth, dismantling and cleaning all the parts of the mechanism, and thoroughly wiping down the whole gun (gunmetal parts with gun oil, a wooden stock with linseed oil), then it would be very difficult to tell whether it had been recently fired (I can dismantle, thoroughly clean and reassemble my Savage M12 in about 20 minutes). Detecting a hint of cordite smell might indicate it has been fired, not detecting it would not prove it hasn't.



Its not extremely difficult to pinpoint a time, it impossible. All you can say is "recently".

If I found a rifle, with a barrel too hot to touch I would be reasonably sure it was fired in the last few minutes, if it was warm to touch, maybe a several minutes to an hour. All this will, of course, depend on how many shots and how quickly they were fired (the more rapidly the shots are fired, the hotter the barrel will get), then when you stop firing, the temperature the barrel has reached at the point is the starting point it cools down from.

A cold barrel will tell you nothing.

A strong cordite smell might tell you that the gun has been fired recently, or it might tell you a lot of shots were fired some time ago and the firearm wasn't cleaned, or was cleaned but not properly.

There is really no way to tell for certain.

I find no argument with your wording. I do want to highlight that it is quite possible to determine if it was NOT fired within a couple of hours. Knowing if that rifle was NOT fired was equally, if not more important, than finding if the rifle WAS recently fired. Since we both agree that it is next to impossible if not impossible to determine when it was fired... then finding out if it was not fired is a route to go. We all know that this was not conducted.

 

[Hans]

Wait, is it a river in Egypt?

Well there is that but there is also Denial bay on the coast of Australia.

Many a CT has dropped anchor or been driven onto the rocks of reality there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_Bay

 

[No Other]

You were 100% correct when you said you were not a Lawyer. You continue to support that comment. What you have provided is:

A LHO fingerprint was found on the trigger guard.
A LHO palm print was found.
A bag was made up by the FBI to replicate the real bag. You have not explained why the real bag was not provided.

Provided to whom? the real bag was tested and determined to have Oswald's print on it.




Not only at 'one time'. Based on the evidence of where those six pieces of ballistic evidence was found - at the sniper's nest window, in the limo, and near Connally's stretcher in the hospital - the evidence establishes the rifle was used in the assassination.




You asked that we put the rifle in his hands. We did. Remember?




No, the only experts are those whose testimony would be valid in court. You don't think because Mark Lane wrote a book questioning some of the conclusions of the Warren Commission, he's suddenly an expert on ballistics, do you?

If you want to restrict this to expert testimony, I can do that. I did that with Manifesto (search for Day, Waldman and Holmes) when Manifesto was questioning whether Oswald ordered and received the C2766 rifle. He ignored every opportunity to present any contrary expert testimony.




What partial answers did I provide? Strong charge. Back it up.

And how did you determine they are partial answers? If you already know the answers, or profess to (as Manifesto does) then start providing the evidence to support your claims, instead of JAQing off.

Hank

Great answer Hank... JAQing off?????????

Edited by zooterkin: 

<snip>
Edited for civility.

 

[Hans]

This simply is not true. Oil only escapes the firearm if you over oil the mechanism.

My Beretta 686 shotgun was a replacement for my old 1957 Browning Superposed. That Browning never leaked a drop of oil; I could leave it on the floor or on the carpet or on a white bedsheet, and there would be no stain left behind. That is what happens when you clean a firearm properly!

Yeah I have eleven fire arms and have never had one 'dripping'. If your weapon is doing that you aren't cleaning it right or somebody is hiding fried fish in the receiver.

 

[No Other]

No it isn't without additional information.

If a firearm has been used infrequently, and it was first fired, and then scrupulously cleaned inside, i.e. pulling-through the barrel with oiled flannel cleaning cloth, dismantling and cleaning all the parts of the mechanism, and thoroughly wiping down the whole gun (gunmetal parts with gun oil, a wooden stock with linseed oil), then it would be very difficult to tell whether it had been recently fired (I can dismantle, thoroughly clean and reassemble my Savage M12 in about 20 minutes). Detecting a hint of cordite smell might indicate it has been fired, not detecting it would not prove it hasn't.



Its not extremely difficult to pinpoint a time, it impossible. All you can say is "recently".

If I found a rifle, with a barrel too hot to touch I would be reasonably sure it was fired in the last few minutes, if it was warm to touch, maybe a several minutes to an hour. All this will, of course, depend on how many shots and how quickly they were fired (the more rapidly the shots are fired, the hotter the barrel will get), then when you stop firing, the temperature the barrel has reached at the point is the starting point it cools down from.

A cold barrel will tell you nothing.

A strong cordite smell might tell you that the gun has been fired recently, or it might tell you a lot of shots were fired some time ago and the firearm wasn't cleaned, or was cleaned but not properly.

There is really no way to tell for certain.

I am referring to evidentury findings regarding oil. There is always some trace form with any firearm regarding oils. My sons father-in-law had 30 years as a Law Enforcement Officer, he owns one of the top 10 firearms collection in the state of Arizona and he says without any qualification that all firearms will leave a footprint via oils. It may not appear very much to you and me but to a ballistic forensics expert, it is a gusher of evidence.

 

[HSienzant]

So, why are there TWO chains of custody and no tags on the shells from any of those in possession of the shells, Lt. Day included (DAY)?

#78 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Chain of custody?

What exactly are you arguing here?

#79- Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Chain of custody?

What exactly are you arguing here?

#80 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

What you call ”quibble”, the rest of western civilisation calls evidence with secured chain of custody and provenance. Without that, its pretty much worthless.

Can you cite where the word 'quibble' is defined as synonymous with ' evidence with secured chain of custody and provenance'?

#81 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

These concepts was well established in the USA 1963 going decades back from that point in time.

What concepts? Chain of custody? If you think the chain of custody is flawed well, you know what to do:

#82 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Quibble, the new null?

No, you apparently still don't understand what the null is. Or why it is.

#83 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

This is spot on; the challenge to the one's who feel that a lone gunman is the one who shot and killed our President is to make sure that when you cite "evidence" that it will withstand the scrutiny regarding the secured chain of custody.

Like many CTs, you get your ideas about chain of custody and admissibility from conspiracy books. I used to believe that nonsense too. Feel free to cite from legitimate sources about what chain of custody is, and what is admissible in cases where the chain of custody is not established. Then, tie that back to the evidence in this case. We'll wait.

What most forget is that the WC was like a Grand Jury, they had no investigative body besides the FBI and they had the luxury of working autonomously without interference with the public and sometimes the facts.

Cite for the facts they ignored.

J. Edgar already had LHO as the lone gunman by the second day after JFK died, so what are the chances that a Field Agent is going to go Rogue and contradict JEH?

It's claimed CIA agents went rogue. Why not FBI agents? If you can conceive of the one, why not the other?

The WC was working more on a deadline than obtaining the truth

Show they are mutually exclusive. Please.

(this was admitted by default when the WC said that certain elements could not be in the Report due to the "need" to get this out prior to the elections.

Can you actually provide the source for this? A quote that links back to the Warren Commission?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

This is very illustrative of the ”investigation”. The most important murder weapon in the history of the USA, and no one is looking of it had been fired that day.

Like, lets interview ”25 000 witnesses”, but do not bother with putting your index finger in the pipe looking for fresh soot.

That is waaayyy over doing it.

Here's the problem with this claim.

There is no test to determine if a gun or rifle has been recently fired. Not in 1963 and not now.

Any cop, or anyone who has been used gun shopping knows this.

 

[Axxman300]

Or after the killing.

The rifle was flawn to FBI HQ’s lab in DC the night of the killing. Not a single fingerprint was detected. ”The most sophisticated crime lab in the world”.

A week later a palmprint was fond in a drawer by DPD’s Lt. Day and sent with an affidavit to the FBI. Problem was, no photo of the print before taped by Day and no signature by Day in the Affidavit.

Old, not latent fingerprints are very easy to plant.

The other set of finger prints was found during the HSCA up near the telescopic sight where they are still visible today.

Nice try, but fail.

 

[Axxman300]

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?

That's not how you tell if a weapon has been fired.

Also, most soldiers can tell if their weapon is clean, unless you ask their armorer, and then it's never clean enough, and you need to clean it again (unless it's Friday and you just roll up a $20 and slide it into the feed).

 

[Axxman300]

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?

Twice while he was in DPD custody he said:

"I guess everyone will know my name now."

All you need to know.

 

[Axxman300]

You were 100% correct when you said you were not a Lawyer. You continue to support that comment. What you have provided is:

A LHO fingerprint was found on the trigger guard.
A LHO palm print was found.
A bag was made up by the FBI to replicate the real bag. You have not explained why the real bag was not provided.
"Ballistics" show that the bullets were at one-time fired from the rifle.

This is the rifle photographed with a 24 inch ruler for scale:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305137

This is the bag with the same 24 inch ruler for scale:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305137

This is not rocket science, the rifle fits because the bag was a custom job by Oswald.

What you have failed to do is to establish that LHO shot that rifle and killed JFK. There are enough dueling experts on both sides to create F.U.D. and frankly I don't think either side has a monopoly on the truth. But to provide partial answers and to think that is sufficient is reckless and disingenuous.

No, there are not enough experts on the conspiracy side.

Conspiracy experts have been wrong about the rifle since day one:

They say there was no way Oswald could have made the shot from the 6th floor - WRONG.

They say there was no way the shots could have been fired in the time-frame -WRONG.

They said the Carcano was an unreliable weapon - WRONG.

Right off the bat the conspiracy "experts" have failed in their assessments of the rifle and it's capabilities along with Oswald's ability to fire it.

The police worked the crime scene starting minutes after the shooting. The search on the 6th floor was filmed by a local Dallas TV news crew because the DPD were just too busy to throw them out. The police searched every floor of the TSBD, not just the 6th floor, but the detectives focused on that floor because that's WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE WITNESSES SAID THE SHOTS CAME FROM.

After a roll call of the TSBD employees Oswald was the only one missing. The DPD sent out an APB for Oswald, and gave his description. They didn't know if he was the killer, but fleeing the scene of a crime is always suspicious.

Oswald shoots the first cop he encounters, and later attempts to kill a second officer during his apprehension.

So here's the evidence against Oswald:

His rifle, fired from his place of employment.
His prints and ONLY HIS PRINTS are on the weapon.
He flees the scene of the crime.
He kills Tippit.
He attempts to kill a second cop.
He makes inconsistent, and conflicting statements while in custody.

That is just the 11/22/63 action. This does not take into account his attempt on General Walker.