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

[RoboTimbo]

No, I’m claiming that they did not check if it had NOT been fired.

Are you claiming that this "check" is standard procedure and they were derelict in not performing it?

 

[manifesto]

I'm guessing you still haven't found any criminology textbook that mentions this suggested test, nor have you found any criminologist that endorses this suggested test.

I'm guessing you're still barking up the wrong tree because you desperately want there to be a squirrel up there.

Guess what? There isn't.

What you wish would have happened has no bearing on what did. Nor does your wishes call into question in any manner what was actually done.

Hank

You should stop barking along with your mentor, McAdams, Hank. Start using common sense.

No soot = clean weapon = not been fired.

Or, you are saying the Lone Nut had time to break down the rifle, clean it, put it together again, hide it, AND have time to run down four floors and cool as a cucumber have a rendezvous with Baker and Truly in the lunchroom drinking/not drinking Coke? In 90 seconds?

Wow.

 

[RoboTimbo]

A blood soaked sponge is used the world over in research of blood spatter from an incomming projectile.

The findings from this research is taught in courses in crimescene investigation all over the world and among them, courses held by the FBI.

So, Axxman, send your smileys to the FBI and see what response you get. I’ll bet they start looking through their registers for fitting profiles.

Just in case.

Can you provide citations for when blood spatter analysis is done? Maybe cite some cases where it was used?

 

[manifesto]

It was fired, they checked.

You fail Again

No they explicitly didn’t.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No they explicitly didn’t.

Yes, they explicitly did by comparing rifling and firing pin impressions. It was Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others in the world.

 

[JayUtah]

I answer in kind.

Since you're berating me and accusing me of being some sort of religious fanatic, then I must have treated you in a similar fashion in order to warrant that reciprocation. Therefore it should be easy for you to link to posts in which I've treated you the way you treat me.

Do that. Be specific.

 

[JayUtah]

...that lack of curiousity is somewhat, puzzling.

Again, general curiosity or "common sense" is not a substitute for actual police procedure. You're trying very hard to paint this part of the investigation as somehow improper, but all you can do is keep begging the question.

 

[manifesto]

I know exaclty what is going on here, and why it is going on.

Larsen and his JFK CT nutcase disciples in the Order of the Bleedin' Fruitcake are absolutely desperate to make that money-order a forgery, because they know that if they cannot, then Oswald is 100% proven to be A. Hidell, and therefore 100% proven to have paid for the gun he ordered from Klein's Sporting Goods, and therefore, he owns the gun that killed the President.

No. This is the sort of ranting you resort to when proven wrong. And no, even if the Hidell PMO would have been authentic regarding the stamps, there is still a number of problems with the alleged Oswald/Hidell purchase of the alleged murder weapon. This is just a start. One step at a time.

To that end, they will clutch at any straw, no matter how thin, right down to making up their own unique interpretations of Federal Regulations that they have no understanding of, or moving the goalposts by changing what they previously claimed when they find it insufficient to back their spurious claims. This includes, telling a lawyer of 30+ years experience that he doesn't now how to read Federal regulations, and telling a banker that he doesn't know about bank procedures. They are even claiming an interpretation that is the exact opposite of the wording of the regulations.

What lawyer? What banker? telling what?

Stop ranting and be specific.

And as for manifesto's very strange interpretation of the meaning of "any bank", well that is really unique, and totally out of left field... he reminds me of Homer Simpson...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/xp848f94aatrru9/HomerAnyKey.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

It is not my ”interpretation”. Here it is again:

Oh, dear. What does it say?

”PAY TO THE ORDER OF ANY BANK, BANKER OR TRUST CO.”​

Coincidents? The exact same wording?

 

[JayUtah]

I quoted Miriam Webster for the vernacular definition.

Which, you were told by an actual lawyer, is not the same as its definition in a legal context. In English, legally-binding declarations are written in very specific terms that have very specific meanings in a legal context irrespective of how they are used in the vernacular.

The fact that some member of the Mighty Church claims to be a Mighty legal expert claiming that the legal meaning is this and that does not impress no one outside your Church.

Actually it impresses anyone who must deal with the law in the United States, because actual liability hinges upon proper usage and understanding. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and your sudden disinterest in your error does not rehabilitate your broken answer. You need a more convincing argument than your standard accusations.

 

[manifesto]

Again, general curiosity or "common sense" is not a substitute for actual police procedure. You're trying very hard to paint this part of the investigation as somehow improper, but all you can do is keep begging the question.

I’m not necessary claiming that it was a breach in established procedure, I’m claiming that they did not check if the rifle had NOT been fired. The common sense is that it would have been so easy to check. 10 seconds and it is done.

This is to me very puzzling. Not.

 

[bknight]

I quoted Miriam Webster for the vernacular definition. The fact that some member of the Mighty Church claims to be a Mighty legal expert claiming that the legal meaning is this and that does not impress no one outside your Church.

And stop lying. You have been attacking me from your first post, popping now and then with a hit and run.

”... would have given manifesto a pass”, my ass.

You may have looked up the words but here in the US, legally they have the meaning the OKBob gave you. You may say he claims to be a legal expert, and he told all of us IIRC he teaches at a University legal classes. So there you have it. Continue with the snide comments, because that will ultimately end your existence on the forum.

OKBob, correct me if I didn't remember correctly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m not necessary claiming that it was a breach in established procedure, I’m claiming that they did not check if the rifle had NOT been fired. The common sense is that it would have been so easy to check. 10 seconds and it is done.

This is to me very puzzling. Not.

Oh, good. It isn't puzzling to anyone else either as it's idiotic to think it should have happened.

 

[manifesto]

Which, you were told by an actual lawyer, is not the same as its definition in a legal context. In English, legally-binding declarations are written in very specific terms that have very specific meanings in a legal context irrespective of how they are used in the vernacular.



Actually it impresses anyone who must deal with the law in the United States, because actual liability hinges upon proper usage and understanding. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and your sudden disinterest in your error does not rehabilitate your broken answer. You need a more convincing argument than your standard accusations.

I belive you did not understand what I was saying. That someone claims to be an expert and in the name of this alleged expertise claims this and that doesn’t impress me one bit. Add to that same someones membership in the Mighty Church and the level of impression is zero.

Null.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I belive you did not understand what I was saying. That some one claims to be an expert and the in the name of these expertise claims this and that doesn’t impress me one bit. Add to that the membership in the Mighty Church and the level of impression is zero.

Null.

Are you upset that a CTs opinion is of zero value?

 

[manifesto]

You may have looked up the words but here in the US, legally they have the meaning the OKBob gave you. You may say he claims to be a legal expert, and he told all of us IIRC he teaches at a University legal classes. So there you have it. Continue with the snide comments, because that will ultimately end your existence on the forum.

OKBob, correct me if I didn't remember correctly.

So, if a federal regulation states that something ”should” be done, exactly what does it mean to OKBob?

Should = if you feel like it?

 

[manifesto]

Are you upset that a CTs opinion is of zero value?

Not if it comes from a member in the (holy) Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters, no. That makes me happy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Not if it comes from a member in the (holy) Mighty Church of the Looney Nutters, no. That makes me happy.

That's one of those opinions .

 

[manifesto]

Lt. J.C. Day's affidavit on the confusion of the number of shells.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340467/?q=LT. J.C. Day

Chain of evidence of the shells:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339139/?q=LT. J.C. Day

DPD Property Clerk's Receipt of Items:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340438/?q=LT. J.C. Day

The hand written receipt of the rifle shells:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337332/?q=LT. J.C. Day

Statement by Fritz concerning the evidence found at the TSBD, and their handover to the FBI:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339538/?q=LT. J.C. Day

I can do this all day. Where are your documents?

This is a list of all the items collected by DPD, and given to the FBI Crime Lab:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339265/m1/1/?q=evidence

This is the FBI Crime Lab's Report back to DPD:

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337093/?q=evidence

Spoiler alert, Oswald's rifle fired the bullets that killed JFK.

You have nothing.

I’m not going to search through some documents for support of your assertions, Axxman. I have told you this so many times. You still don’t get it?

Cite. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

 

[manifesto]

Since you're berating me and accusing me of being some sort of religious fanatic, then I must have treated you in a similar fashion in order to warrant that reciprocation. Therefore it should be easy for you to link to posts in which I've treated you the way you treat me.

Do that. Be specific.

Sometimes it tends to ’spill over’ in a guilt by association kind of way.

Maybe you should think through your associates?

 

[traxy]

I’m not going to search through some documents for support of your assertions, Axxman. I have told you this so many times. You still don’t get it?

Cite. Explain. Argue for its veracity.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Where is the evidence?? Show me the evidence!"

... Okay, here are links to all the relevant items, nearly organized and referenced.

"I'm not reading all THAT!"

Oh man, you truly are a piece of work. I can't imagine how embarrassing it must be to debase yourself and set your credibility ablaze say in and day out like you do. Truly amazing.