The lies of the Warren Report

[Gil Jesus]

#1. ON FINDING THE JACKET UNDER THE CAR IN A PARKING LOT
 

The Report concluded:
"The jacket that was subsequently found in a parking lot and identified as Oswald’s was a light-gray one.“ ( pg. 653 )
 

But the evidence said:

 

 

The discovery of a white jacket is corroborated by the testimony of Officer Thomas Hutson.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/white-jacket-hutson.gif

 

#2. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:
 

The Report concluded:
"Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol3_513-nicol.gif

 

#3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:
 

The Report concluded:
The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle ....concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol4_97-cadigan.gif

 

#4. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:
 

The Report concluded:
"Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol7_6.gif

You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

[Mark Ulrik]

56 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

#2. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:

The Report concluded:
"Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol3_513-nicol.gif

Huh? The discussion on page 513 is about the Tippit bullets, not the Walker bullet. Your emphasis below.

Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on the other three bullets-- that is, did you definitely--find yourself definitely unable to identify those bullets [recovered from the body of Officer Tippit], or did you reach a "probable" conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.

What did Nicol say about the Walker bullet? My emphasis below.

Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have one of which we have also been calling K-l?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible. Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.

Wow, it seems that Nicol actually did conclude that there was a fair probability that CE 573 was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy!

WC 1 -- Gil 0

[Tom Gram]

35 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Huh? The discussion on page 513 is about the Tippit bullets, not the Walker bullet. Your emphasis below.

What did Nicol say about the Walker bullet? My emphasis below.

Wow, it seems that Nicol actually did conclude that there was a fair probability that CE 573 was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy!

WC 1 -- Gil 0

Nicol is blowing smoke and telling Eisenberg what he wants to hear. The FBI lab report indicates that the toolmarks on the Walker bullet actually were in good enough condition to be matched to a specific rifle, and that they did not match C2766. The lab requested that the FBI be on the lookout for any bullets fired from the rifle around the time of the Walker shooting because they thought the barrel markings might have changed in just seven months. @Lawrence Schnapf is a lot more familiar with this than I am, but apparently modern research suggests that toolmarks do not change anywhere remotely close to that rapidly, especially with how rarely Oswald allegedly practiced.

The lab was originally directed by FBI brass to turn the bullet back over to the DPD after the examination, but they decided to hang onto it in case any other bullets came in from the April ‘63 timeframe. The only thing the lab could say was that the bullet had similar class characteristics i.e. it was fired from a rifle with four lands and grooves.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=172

If test bullets known to have been fired near the date of 4/10/63, are subsequently located, it may be possible to further resolve this question. Efforts are being made to see if similar earlier known bullets can be located. 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Wow, it seems that Nicol actually did conclude that there was a fair probability that CE 573 was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy!

WC 1 -- Gil 0

I had the wrong page. It was 3 H 503, not 513.

And he never positively identified the bullet as coming from the CE 139 rifle.

BTW, you need to brush up on your math.

That's Gil 3, WC 1.

[Gil Jesus]

50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Nicol is blowing smoke and telling Eisenberg what he wants to hear. The FBI lab report indicates that the toolmarks on the Walker bullet actually were in good enough condition to be matched to a specific rifle, and that they did not match C2766. The lab requested that the FBI be on the lookout for any bullets fired from the rifle around the time of the Walker shooting because they thought the barrel markings might have changed in just seven months. @Lawrence Schnapf is a lot more familiar with this than I am, but apparently modern research suggests that toolmarks do not change anywhere remotely close to that rapidly, especially with how rarely Oswald allegedly practiced.

The lab was originally directed by FBI brass to turn the bullet back over to the DPD after the examination, but they decided to hang onto it in case any other bullets came in from the April ‘63 timeframe. The only thing the lab could say was that the bullet had similar class characteristics i.e. it was fired from a rifle with four lands and grooves.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264#relPageId=172

If test bullets known to have been fired near the date of 4/10/63, are subsequently located, it may be possible to further resolve this question. Efforts are being made to see if similar earlier known bullets can be located. 

If the Report contains ONE LIE, it has no credibility.

I cited three off the top of my head. I'm sure there were more.

[Paul Cummings]

The Warren Commission was nothing more than LBJ wrapping up the case before his next election. Eff the truth.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Paul Cummings

[Michael Griffith]

One of the WC's most brazen lies was its claim that the single-bullet theory was "not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission." A sixth-grader can quickly figure out that if JFK and Connally were not hit by the same bullet, four shots must have been fired.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Nicol's testimony would not be acceptable in a court of law today. "quite a few points"? how many? were they consecutive marks? A " fair probability" is a qualified opinion that is about as wealsely as it gets. "Probable" means more likely than not. "fair" means "sufficient but not ample, or adequate". This does not mean the test for concluding that the bullet could be linked to CE 139 to the exclusion of all other rifles. And this was with a friendly attorney trying to help him. The testimony would have significantly changed after  cross-examination. All the WC Report amount to is a prosecutor's case- that is- half the story.   

    

   

[Bill Brown]

8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

#1. ON FINDING THE JACKET UNDER THE CAR IN A PARKING LOT
 

The Report concluded:
"The jacket that was subsequently found in a parking lot and identified as Oswald’s was a light-gray one.“ ( pg. 653 )
 

But the evidence said:

 

 

The discovery of a white jacket is corroborated by the testimony of Officer Thomas Hutson.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/white-jacket-hutson.gif

 

#2. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:
 

The Report concluded:
"Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol3_513-nicol.gif

 

#3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:
 

The Report concluded:
The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle ....concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol4_97-cadigan.gif

 

#4. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:
 

The Report concluded:
"Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )
 

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol7_6.gif

You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

 

 

"#1. ON FINDING THE JACKET UNDER THE CAR IN A PARKING LOT
 

The Report concluded:
"The jacket that was subsequently found in a parking lot and identified as Oswald’s was a light-gray one.“ ( pg. 653 )"

 

Ah yes, the good ole white versus gray argument.  This is easily the most lame argument of all of the arguments put forth by conspiracy advocates.  Keep up the nice work, Gil.   🙄

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Bill Brown

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Ah yes, the good ole white versus gray argument.  This is easily the most lame argument of all of the arguments put forth by conspiracy advocates.  Keep up the nice work, Gil.   🙄

 

 

Easy there, big fella. You don't want to violate any forum rules.

I notice you didn't post any evidence to bolster YOUR argument. Just what you're good at : Commentary.

We have corroborating evidence that the jacket found under the car was white. The officer that the Commission said found the jacket ( Capt. W.R. Westbrook ) was nowhere near the location when the jacket was found ( according to the police radio transcripts ) and he corroborated that when he denied finding it during his testimony. ( 7 H 117 )

Because the jacket was not marked by the person who found it, no chain of possession or authenticity can be established. Without a positive identification by the person who found it, there's no proof that the jacket in evidence wasn't substituted for a white jacket. Not surprisingly, the chain of possession of the jacket, like the Tippit shells, begins with the Dallas Police.

Maybe you can help us out of our "lameness" by telling us who it was that found the jacket and cite where he/she described the jacket as "tannish-grey".

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Easy there, big fella. You don't want to violate any forum rules.

I notice you didn't post any evidence to bolster YOUR argument. Just what you're good at : Commentary.

We have corroborating evidence that the jacket found under the car was white. The officer that the Commission said found the jacket ( Capt. W.R. Westbrook ) was nowhere near the location when the jacket was found ( according to the police radio transcripts ) and he corroborated that when he denied finding it during his testimony. ( 7 H 117 )

Because the jacket was not marked by the person who found it, no chain of possession or authenticity can be established. The chain of possession of the jacket, like the Tippit shells, begins with the Dallas Police.

Maybe you can help us out of "lameness" by telling us who it was that found the jacket and cite where he/she described the jacket as "tannish-grey".

If one is going to accuse others of making lame arguments, he had better not make the comical error of citing the autopsy report as proof that the autopsy doctors found a tract from the back wound to the throat wound. That claim would have been inexcusable even in 1965. It is embarrassingly surreal in 2023.

To believe WC apologists, the witnesses all suffered from color blindness, being unable to tell the difference between white, blue, gray, and tan. 

[Gil Jesus]

11 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

If one is going to accuse others of making lame arguments, he had better not make the comical error of citing the autopsy report as proof that the autopsy doctors found a tract from the back wound to the throat wound. That claim would have been inexcusable even in 1965. It is embarrassingly surreal in 2023.

To believe WC apologists, the witnesses all suffered from color blindness, being unable to tell the difference between white, blue, gray, and tan. 

Apparently, they couldn't read either.

They couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a "6.5" "made in Italy".

They couldn't tell a ".38 auto" shell from a ".38 spl"

They couldn't tell a 38" package from one that was 27".

Even the smartest people in the city, the doctors, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.

They should have changed the name of the city from Dallas to "Dumbass" because they could never get the facts right the first time.

It's amazing how stupidity could reign supreme in that city and yet they got the right man on the first try.

ROFLMAO

Either they were the stupidest people who ever lived or they were LYers.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Lawrence Schnapf]

who is "big fella"?

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Nicol's testimony would not be acceptable in a court of law today. "quite a few points"? how many? were they consecutive marks? A " fair probability" is a qualified opinion that is about as wealsely as it gets. "Probable" means more likely than not. "fair" means "sufficient but not ample, or adequate". This does not mean the test for concluding that the bullet could be linked to CE 139 to the exclusion of all other rifles. And this was with a friendly attorney trying to help him. The testimony would have significantly changed after  cross-examination. All the WC Report amount to is a prosecutor's case- that is- half the story.   

    

   

I agree. The FBI used terms like "similar" to mask the fact that things they compared were not identical.

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

who is "big fella"?

Mr. Brown. 🙂