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

[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.

If I had to paraphrase your comment into what you actually meant, it would be something like this:

"Wow, you've stepped up and provided exactly what I was asking for and buried me in evidence. Of course, I can't admit that. Giving an inch equals failure in my eyes. Instead, I'll ignore what you've presented and ask you to reinvent the wheel and spoon feed this to me a line at a time, in the hopes that I can draw the argument out long enough that you throw up your hands in frustration and quit, at which point I will declare victory."

Does that about cover it?

 

[HSienzant]

Yes it is easy to see if the weapon has been fired (soot)

However, there is no way to tell WHEN it was fired, it could be 10 minutes, ten days, ten hours, ten weeks... because 10 minute old soot looks, smells and feels the same as 10 hour old soot, or ten day old soot.....

IF you find a rifle with hot or a warm barrel, THEN, and ONLY THEN can you make a determination that the rifle was fired "recently", but you cannot quantify that down to an exact time. If the barrel is cold or back to room temperature at the time you find it, your opportunity to determine it has been fired recently has expired.

Can you wrap your head around this!?

And it doesn't matter because we know the rifle was used in the assassination from the six ballistic items of evidence.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

I’m claiming that they did not check if the rifle had NOT been fired.

But you intend that to be a reason to suspect the investigation.

The common sense is that it would have been so easy to check. 10 seconds and it is done.

That something would be easy to do is irrelevant. It applies to your theory only if you can make the case that it's a salient omission not to have done it. You can't do that. You're still relying on an appeal to intuition to disguise a begged question.

This is to me very puzzling. Not.

No, you're just trying to amplify any cobbled-up notion of impropriety. It's not a salient omission just because you really really want it to be.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh, dear. What does it say?

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

Coincidents? The exact same wording?

What this literally says is that you don't have to name a specific bank, and that any bank will be accepted as a place to deposit or bank the funds.

Your failure to comprehend straightforward English language isn't my problem its yours!

 

[manifesto]

It's not just manifesto, however, who buys into this nonsense. It's also his cited expert Homer Simpson Sandy Larsen, and every other CT who accepts any claim without evidence simply because another CT made that assertion. In manifesto's case, he's accepting the claims of Sandy Larsen and repeating them here.

Why are you lying, Hank? I’m citing Larsen because he is the one who did the actual research, citing and sourcing it in the Ed.Forum thread you runned away from when overwhelmed by the evidence. You disappeard like a puff of bad air, never to be seen again.

In this forum you are surrounded by likeminded who lets you get away with anything, documented federal regulations be damned.

Well, as long I’m here this is not going to happen. No way.

I’m here to tell you the truth, Hank.

 

[JayUtah]

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

So it's not therefore the quid pro quo you started with. You just don't like skeptics and feel justified in being rude to them as a group regardless of how they individually treat you. Is that a fair summary?

Maybe you should think through your associates?

No, I don't think I'll accept responsibility for what you think of others.

 

[Major Major]

No, I have no weapons of any kind. But I did a year mandatory military service and was asigned a weapon with which I was supposed to kill human beings with in the case war broke out.

And yes, it is easy to see if a weapon has NOT been fired since the last cleaning.

Use a finger.

The officer who found the Carcano didn't stick his finger "up the pipe" because that would be contaminating the evidence.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, proof of firing does not indicate when the rifle was fired. Other proofs show that it was fired at the time (for example, three people on the fifth floor hearing someone fire shots -- even the ejected rounds falling to the floor), then abandoned by the shooter in his flight from the building, to where he went to get his pistol, and wandering around shot a Dallas policeman, and had to be restrained from shooting others.

I realize that Juror Number Eight has alternative explanations for every one of these facts and all the others raised in this thread. But we aren't in a hot jury room just wanting to wind up the trial and go home. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to Juror Number Eight, he has to back up his alternative explanations with facts.

By the way, 6.5 mm is about a third of an inch. How big were your officer's fingers, anyway, Juror Number Eight?

 

[manifesto]

What this literally says is that you don't have to name a specific bank, and that any bank will be accepted as a place to deposit or bank the funds.

Your failure to comprehend straightforward English language isn't my problem its yours!

So, why is this stamp not on the Hidell PMO?

 

[abaddon]

But that's not all you're saying. You're claiming that this is a test that should have been done at the crime scene at the time the rifle was discovered. And that because this test was not done, the crime scene investigation is suspect. The only foundation you've laid for this is "common sense." You haven't show that this is actually something law enforcement does. You have to do that before you can claim it to be a standard that was violated in this case. Your "common sense" does not establish actual, documentable, practical law enforcement procedure.



I have, and I have shown how it is irrelevant. Your argument fails by subversion of support.

And this is why I find manifesto amusing. In the manifesto world, it is normal forensic that a sniff test is evidence of something and it is normal procedure to forensically test how recently a weapon was fired by shoving a finger into it at random. Those are normal forensic procedures in whatever world manifesto inhabits.

 

[Whip]

Just as a point of order, the smileys are yellow when viewed on TapaTalk.

see-----conspiracy

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Translation: If they disagree with you, they are wrong!

 

[smartcooky]

So, why is this stamp not on the Hidell PMO?

DOH!

Because they banked at First National Bank of Chicago, and they wanted their money order banked into their account.... that's why their stamp is on the PMO


Where's the Anybank manifesto?

 

[HSienzant]

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

Sorry, no. I talk to you more in one day than I've spoken with McAdams in my life.

No soot = clean weapon = not been fired.

Now you just need to establish this applies to C2766 / CE139.

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?

You can straw man with the best of them.

What I'm saying is this is much ado about nothing. Nothing. You haven't shown this is a known criminology technique. You haven't shown it was used in the 1960s, or even today. You made up a test and suggested it should have been used. Based on? Your wishes. And you're prepared - apparently - to discard the hard evidence of the rifle because the accused name is Oswald.

Wow.

Wow indeed.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

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.

You don't get to dictate terms here.

You asked for evidence, I have provided the documents.

You fail by choice

 

[manifesto]

The officer who found the Carcano didn't stick his finger "up the pipe" because that would be contaminating the evidence.

Lt. Day was the officer in charge of the evidence as chief of DPD’s criminal lab. He went over it with fingerprint powder on the crime scene and after that handed it over to Capt. Fritz who unloaded a cartridge left in the chamber. To stick the tip of a finger in the pipe and chamber after that rather unceremonial handling would not have made any difference.

I strongly suspect that they actually checked it for soot but didn’t detect any and kept quiet about it. Otherwise they would have been shouting the finding of soot over the rooftops as another ”proof” of Oswald killing JFK.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly, proof of firing does not indicate when the rifle was fired.

And as have been pointed out repeatedly, the only proof potentially available is of the rifle NOT being fired.

No soot = not fired = no murder weapon.

Soot = fired = possible murder weapon.

Other proofs show that it was fired at the time (for example, three people on the fifth floor hearing someone fire shots -- even the ejected rounds falling to the floor),

If so, did they hear that the fired gun fired above them was a Carcano? That the rounds falling on the floor were Carcano shells? Experts?

No one is arguing that no gun was fired from the TSBD.

then abandoned by the shooter in his flight from the building, to where he went to get his pistol, and wandering around shot a Dallas policeman, and had to be restrained from shooting others.

Do you see how your reasoning magically transforms to proof of Lone Nut Oswald narrative? Almost invisible?

Spooky.

I realize that Juror Number Eight has alternative explanations for every one of these facts and all the others raised in this thread. But we aren't in a hot jury room just wanting to wind up the trial and go home. And as has been repeatedly pointed out to Juror Number Eight, he has to back up his alternative explanations with facts.

Is this ”Juror Number Eight” some kind of fixation you are stuck in, compulsively repeating in the hope something tangible sticks?

Can I help you out?

By the way, 6.5 mm is about a third of an inch. How big were your officer's fingers, anyway, Juror Number Eight?

Tip of the finger is enough. And, don’t forget the chamber. Much bigger.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

So they didn't do something that's NOT standard procedure, and that's questionable to you.

This is to me very puzzling. Not.

From the above, where they didn't do something that wasn't standard procedure (or even, from what you've provided in the way of evidence, was even non-standard procedure, or any kind of procedure whatsoever), I gather your above statement reduces to you find this suspicious for some reason.

Got it. It explains a lot about how you became convinced in a conspiracy and why you remain one, actually.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

You don't get to dictate terms here.

You asked for evidence, I have provided the documents.

You fail by choice

I dictate what I’m doing, and I’m not going to search an archive for support of your wild proclamations.

Either you show it or you fail.

It’s that simple.

 

[Major Major]

Lt. Day was the officer in charge of the evidence as chief of DPD’s criminal lab. He went over it with fingerprint powder on the crime scene and after that handed it over to Capt. Fritz who unloaded a cartridge left in the chamber. To stick the tip of a finger in the pipe and chamber after that rather unceremonial handling would not have made any difference.

I strongly suspect that they actually checked it for soot but didn’t detect any and kept quiet about it. Otherwise they would have been shouting the finding of soot over the rooftops as another ”proof” of Oswald killing JFK.

And as have been pointed out repeatedly, the only proof potentially available is of the rifle NOT being fired.

No soot = not fired = no murder weapon.

Soot = fired = possible murder weapon.

If so, did they hear that the fired gun fired above them was a Carcano? That the rounds falling on the floor were Carcano shells? Experts?

No one is arguing that no gun was fired from the TSBD.

Do you see how your reasoning magically transforms to proof of Lone Nut Oswald narrative? Almost invisible?

Spooky.

Is this ”Juror Number Eight” some kind of fixation you are stuck in, compulsively repeating in the hope something tangible sticks?

Can I help you out?

Tip of the finger is enough. And, don’t forget the chamber. Much bigger.

To quote Smartcooky:

Yes it is easy to see if the weapon has been fired (soot)

However, there is no way to tell WHEN it was fired, it could be 10 minutes, ten days, ten hours, ten weeks... because 10 minute old soot looks, smells and feels the same as 10 hour old soot, or ten day old soot.....

IF you find a rifle with hot or a warm barrel, THEN, and ONLY THEN can you make a determination that the rifle was fired "recently", but you cannot quantify that down to an exact time. If the barrel is cold or back to room temperature at the time you find it, your opportunity to determine it has been fired recently has expired.

Can you wrap your head around this!?

As for Oswald narrative:

The three viewers heard someone shooting from the sixth floor, directly above them.

The Carcano was found on the sixth floor.

I suppose, in Juror Number Eight's world of alternative explanations therefore reasonable doubt therefore not guilty, one conspirator could have decamped with the real rifle while another planted Oswald's rifle, ordered by him, with his fingerprints on it.

But we aren't in the hot jury room, wanting to close up the case and go home. You have to provide proof for your assertions, not "well it could have happened this way".

If you say, "well the officer should have stuck his finger into the rifle muzzle to see if it had been fired", you have to show that this was a standard police procedure, not whatever procedure of whatever military you served in. You don't run the zoo. You have to provide evidence for your alternative explanations, Juror Number Eight.

 

[JayUtah]

I dictate what I’m doing...

But you don't get to dictate that it's the right and honorable thing to do. You demanded evidence be produced, probably expecting that it wouldn't be. Your bluff was called, and now you're on the hook to answer it. Sure, you can ignore it. But you can't thereafter credibly claim to have addressed your critics.

 

[HSienzant]

Why are you lying, Hank?

What did I lie about? Be specific, quote my language and then cite the evidence that establishes I'm wrong. Then show I knew all that, and told a knowing untruth. Good luck with that.

I’m citing Larsen because he is the one who did the actual research, citing and sourcing it in the Ed.Forum thread

So you're back to saying he's something of an expert on this subject after denying you were citing him as an expert. Curious.

you runned away from when overwhelmed by the evidence. You disappeard like a puff of bad air, never to be seen again.

What evidence? You have none and Sandy Larsen has none. You make a lot of claims you can't back up.

In this forum you are surrounded by likeminded who lets you get away with anything, documented federal regulations be damned.

I'm the one citing the documented federal regulations back to you. You keep ignoring the plain language therein.

Well, as long I’m here this is not going to happen. No way.

What's not going to happen?

I’m here to tell you the truth, Hank.

You've said that before. I've seen no evidence of that intent. You simply repeat CT claims and cite CT claims from websites.

Hank