CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED

That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Why does this chapter exist?

The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
Harvey Oswald"

Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
his book and make it seem more substantial.

The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
== QUOTE ==

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

== UNQUOTE ==

Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
shot?"

They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue.

Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
the Warren Commission never advanced.

The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.

This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
earliest practitioners of the art.

Hank

[Mark]

Great post. Lane was the father of all the nonsense that was to come. As
Bugliosi says, he was "the original dean of distortion." Amazingly, he
still has followers and defenders. Mark

[barracud...@gmail.com]

Assassin was in the Lincoln's Trunk sitting behind JFK-gun The barrel "in
place" behind the rear- seat; Oswald was the distraction- the Patsy.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>

THE ZANIES (AND OTHERS) HAVE THEIR SAY
INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY
HISTORY OF THE CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT
THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE PLOT TO KILL KENNEDY
LINCOLN-KENNEDY COINCIDENCES

> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Those are all chapter titles from Vincent Bugliosi's book RECLAIMING
HISTORY.

>
> Why does this chapter exist?

Why do these chapters exist?

>
> The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald"

The Book is subtitled "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"

>
> Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
> between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
> about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

Yet Bugliosi spends an inordinate amount of time and page space mocking
conspiracy theorists and their research.

>
> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
> his book and make it seem more substantial.

This is another example of Vincent Bugliosi employing a logical fallacy to

pad his book and make it seem more substantial.

>
> The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The logical fallacy utilized by Bugliosi is called Appeal to Ridicule.

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

> == QUOTE ==
>
> A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
> the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
> an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
> this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
>
> The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
> refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
> replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
> man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
> straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
>
> == UNQUOTE ==

== QUOTE==

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the
horse laugh[1]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's
argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of
serious consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced
circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some
other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an
opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical
tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to
inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in
the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that
argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is
typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that
represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.

== UNQUOTE ==

>
> Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
> the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
> shot?"

Bugliosi actually refers to conspiracies as "bacteria", which anyone
familiar with a book called "Hitler's Table Talk" will know, Hitler
expressed a hatred of his enemies by way of "pathogenic" adjectives (ie.,
Jews as "diseases" and "vermin.") Bugliosi also refers to conspiracy
theorists as a "chorus of cuckoo birds", and by quoting Johann Rush,
Bugliosi also infers that "Rush to Judgement" was written by a Marxist.

>
> They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
> a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
> minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue.
>
> Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
> for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
> Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
> the Warren Commission never advanced.

I'll C&P Ben's response here:

Henry is TERRIFIED of the first statement:

"A DESCRIPTION of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee
Harvey Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas police just
before 12.45 p.m. on November 22,15 minutes after the shots were fired
at President Kennedy. But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas
Theatre at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities
announced that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection
with the murder of a police officer, J. D. Tippit."

So the question is quite reasonable. They *DID* want Oswald... he was,
after all, the one "missing" from the TSBD.

Henry won't explain this fact.

Watch!

>
> The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
> to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.

These chapters are superfluous, because they are stating - and pretending
to examine the evidence for - an obvious truth.

>
> This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
> earliest practitioners of the art.

This is a fine example of a LNer (and pen pal of David Atlee Philips)
practicing the weaponizing the idea of "conspiracy" one of the earliest
practicitioners of the art being CIA Document 1035-960.

>
> Hank

Boris

[bigdog]

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish parody from real conspiracy theories.
Not sure which category this falls into.

[Mark]

I hear you. Perhaps it's a post by one of Mark Lane's great-grandchildren.
Mark

[Bud]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:52:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
> >
>
> THE ZANIES (AND OTHERS) HAVE THEIR SAY
> INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY
> HISTORY OF THE CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT
> THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE PLOT TO KILL KENNEDY
> LINCOLN-KENNEDY COINCIDENCES
>
> > That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>
> Those are all chapter titles from Vincent Bugliosi's book RECLAIMING
> HISTORY.
>
> >
> > Why does this chapter exist?
>
> Why do these chapters exist?
>
> >
> > The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> > the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> > Harvey Oswald"
>
> The Book is subtitled "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"
>
> >
> > Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
> > between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
> > about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.
>
> Yet Bugliosi spends an inordinate amount of time and page space mocking
> conspiracy theorists and their research.

You need to look up the definition of "inordinate".

> >
> > This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
> > his book and make it seem more substantial.
>
> This is another example of Vincent Bugliosi employing a logical fallacy to
> pad his book and make it seem more substantial.

You are employing this fallacy...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/11/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque

> > The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
> The logical fallacy utilized by Bugliosi is called Appeal to Ridicule.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
>
>
> > == QUOTE ==
> >
> > A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
> > the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
> > an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
> > this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
> >
> > The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
> > refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
> > replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
> > man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
> > straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
> >
> > == UNQUOTE ==
>
> == QUOTE==
>
> Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the
> horse laugh[1]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's
> argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of
> serious consideration.

Perhaps you should avoid making ridiculous arguments.

In the future if you are going to bring content from the nuthouse you
should remove the ad hominem first.

> "A DESCRIPTION of the suspect in the assassination, matching Lee
> Harvey Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas police just
> before 12.45 p.m. on November 22,15 minutes after the shots were fired
> at President Kennedy. But when Oswald was arrested in the Texas
> Theatre at approximately 1:50 p.m. that day, the Dallas authorities
> announced that the 24-year-old suspect had been wanted in connection
> with the murder of a police officer, J. D. Tippit."
>
> So the question is quite reasonable. They *DID* want Oswald... he was,
> after all, the one "missing" from the TSBD.
>
> Henry won't explain this fact.
>
> Watch!
>
> >
> > The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
> > to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.
>
> These chapters are superfluous, because they are stating - and pretending
> to examine the evidence for - an obvious truth.
>
> >
> > This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
> > earliest practitioners of the art.
>
> This is a fine example of a LNer (and pen pal of David Atlee Philips)
> practicing the weaponizing the idea of "conspiracy" one of the earliest
> practicitioners of the art being CIA Document 1035-960.
>
> >
> > Hank
>
> Boris

Ben has taught you well, if you can`t address the points made talk over
them.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 10:52:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Boris,

You write almost exactly like Ben Holmes.

You didn't rebut the claim in any fashion. You just claimed Bugliosi was
guilty of pretty much the same thing or worse. That's the logical fallacy
of 'Two Wrongs Make a Right'. Please avoid logical fallacies in the
future.

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

If your goal is to emulate Mark Lane, you're doing a great job by
employing logical fallacies like 'two wrongs make a right' and 'changing
the subject'.

You changed the subject to something else entirely, making a series of
accusations against another author entirely, and made a series of unproven
assertions (supposedly quoting 'Ben Holmes', although you post no link to
that), pretend Oswald was noticed as missing by the time of the radio
broadcast, and double-down on the logical fallacies by pretending I have
to further address the point I already established was a straw man
argument by Mark Lane.

No, I don't.

On the contrary, if you want to salvage Lane's chapter entitled "WHY
OSWALD WAS WANTED" all you need to do is provide the evidence that Oswald
was wanted by 12:45 when the broadcast went out. It mentioned a
description, but no name. In fact, Oswald's name wasn't broadcast even
once on the police radio before his arrest.

Please address the point I did made and don't try to rebut points I didn't
make.

Show that Oswald was wanted by the time of the radio broadcast, which
doesn't mention his name. Or show how he was arrested in the theatre
because he was noticed missing from the Depository.

You won't. Because Oswald wasn't mentioned in the police broadcast at
12:45, and because he was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit shooting.

Mark Lane's entire chapter is built around a straw man argument.

Hank

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Hi Boris,
>
> You write almost exactly like Ben Holmes.

And you write exactly like someone evading Ben Holmes.

>
> You didn't rebut the claim in any fashion. You just claimed Bugliosi was
> guilty of pretty much the same thing or worse.

Very subtle word selection there, Henry. I didn't "claim" anything, I
outright PROVED it, with several specific examples. And being hard-pressed
to find a single page in that oversized kindling which doesn't contain
appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, or some other variation of LOGICAL
FALLACY, I would not have much trouble citing more. But I'm sure I don't
need to; you get the point. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes on
your understanding of what I'm getting at.

>
> That's the logical fallacy
> of 'Two Wrongs Make a Right'. Please avoid logical fallacies in the
> future.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Very "Freudian slip" of you to admit Bugliosi was wrong, Henry. But that's
the only way to get you to recognize the logical fallacies of your fellow
LNers...you'll never do it on your own.

>
> If your goal is to emulate Mark Lane, you're doing a great job by
> employing logical fallacies like 'two wrongs make a right' and 'changing
> the subject'.

If the intent were to change the subject, I would not have addressed the
subject at all. And you have no choice but to admit I addressed it,
because you're about to comment on my methods of doing so....

>
> You changed the subject to something else entirely, making a series of
> accusations against another author entirely, and made a series of unproven
> assertions (supposedly quoting 'Ben Holmes', although you post no link to
> that),

Oh I see, so the only way you can comment on someone's rebuttal is if the
rebuttal is cited with an accompanied link.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/PRuF8B4F-GE/ci9lY2CxAQAJ

Okay? So I hope your concerns have been met now. And you know, if you
responded in the other forum it would be published right away, instead of
this snail-mail vetting with the 24-hour turnaround that goes on here.

>
> Please address the point I did made and don't try to rebut points I didn't
> make.

Is this the part where you pretend the point you weren't obviously
inferring is that Mark Lane and his book are invalid on the grounds of
some imagined "logical fallacy"? Well I guess it's tricky for you to admit
that now, now that Bugliosi's book is provably invalidated due to its use
of ridicule and ad hominem by your own standards. So I guess we're at an
impasse, because how can either side be right if both use logical
fallacies?

>
> Show that Oswald was wanted by the time of the radio broadcast, which
> doesn't mention his name. Or show how he was arrested in the theatre
> because he was noticed missing from the Depository.
>
> You won't. Because Oswald wasn't mentioned in the police broadcast at
> 12:45, and because he was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit shooting.

Strange that Tippit knew who to look for then, seeing as the police BOLO
was the dictionary definition of generic. Oh, but never you mind, I've now
provided a link to the other forum where your "concerns" were addressed,
so no need for me to repeat them in another C&P here.

>
> Mark Lane's entire chapter is built around a straw man argument.

And Bugliosi's **whole book** is built around worse. What now?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

What's the matter, Mark? Nothing from you lauding my great post? I'm
shocked by your silence, seeing as how brilliantly I exposed Bugliosi as

[Anthony Marsh]

How many aliases do you have, Igor? Soon they'll be arguing with each
other just to keep threads alive.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/15/2019 10:52 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>>
>
> THE ZANIES (AND OTHERS) HAVE THEIR SAY
> INTRODUCTION TO CONSPIRACY
> HISTORY OF THE CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT
> THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE PLOT TO KILL KENNEDY
> LINCOLN-KENNEDY COINCIDENCES
>

Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an argument just make personal
attacks on your opponent.

[Anthony Marsh]

Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
He saw a strange and stopped him.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> Poisoning the Well. When you can't wwin an argument just make personal
> attacks on your opponent.

That, of course, is the point *I* was making about Bugliosi's approach to
analyzing the case evidence. Now go away and keep pretending to be a
critic, Sheep in Wolf's Clothing.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
> He saw a strange and stopped him.

A stranger "matching" Oswald. Strange.

Drain the Marsh.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:10:35 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > You write almost exactly like Ben Holmes.
>
> And you write exactly like someone evading Ben Holmes.

I haven't seen Ben Holmes post here. How am I evading him? That's an empty
accusation, devoid of any meaning. Indeed, one could argue Ben is evading
me. I haven't seen him post a rebuttal here.

And I did notice you deleted entirely my original post and your original
response.

You wouldn't perhaps be trying to change the subject and avoid the
original point entirely, would you?

Here's my original post. You never did rebut the points made.

=== QUOTE ==
WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED

That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Why does this chapter exist?

The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
Harvey Oswald"

Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
his book and make it seem more substantial.

The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.

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

== QUOTE ==
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

== UNQUOTE ==

Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
shot?"

They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue.

Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
the Warren Commission never advanced.

The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.

This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
earliest practitioners of the art.

=== UNQUOTE ===

Try to stick to the points I made. Don't change the subject to what some
other author said. Let's discuss Lane's Chapter Five, entitled "WHY OSWALD
WAS WANTED". Was Oswald wanted before his arrest at about 1:50pm in the
Texas Movie Theatre? What's the evidence for that? If not, why does Lane
claim he was? Care to discuss the points I made?

>
> >
> > You didn't rebut the claim in any fashion. You just claimed Bugliosi was
> > guilty of pretty much the same thing or worse.
>
> Very subtle word selection there, Henry. I didn't "claim" anything, I
> outright PROVED it, with several specific examples. And being hard-pressed
> to find a single page in that oversized kindling which doesn't contain
> appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, or some other variation of LOGICAL
> FALLACY, I would not have much trouble citing more. But I'm sure I don't
> need to; you get the point. Your silence on the matter speaks volumes on
> your understanding of what I'm getting at.

What you're getting at is a RED HERRING - the logical fallacy of a change
of subject. I wasn't talking about anything Bugliosi wrote. I was talking
specifically about Mark Lane's Chapter Five entitled "WHY OSWALD WAS
WANTED".

>
> >
> > That's the logical fallacy
> > of 'Two Wrongs Make a Right'. Please avoid logical fallacies in the
> > future.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right
>
> Very "Freudian slip" of you to admit Bugliosi was wrong, Henry. But that's
> the only way to get you to recognize the logical fallacies of your fellow
> LNers...you'll never do it on your own.

On the contrary, I felt when I read Bugliosi for the first time that he
overdid the ad hominem and that it subtracted from the depth of his
research and would give critics an easy hand-hold for something to ding
him for, and ignore much of the substance of his research. True to form,
you do exactly that. Talking about Bugliosi was and remains an attempt to
change of subject by you.

Most websites devoted to logical fallacies point out why that's done: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring
"Description: ...the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention
with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument."

I see evidence of that in your deletion of my entire point from your most
recent response, as well as in your responses, where you bring up Bugliosi
and pretty much avoid the points I made about Lane's Chapter Five.

Now, my post was about Lane's Chapter Five. Do you care to discuss the
points I made there, or not?

>
> >
> > If your goal is to emulate Mark Lane, you're doing a great job by
> > employing logical fallacies like 'two wrongs make a right' and 'changing
> > the subject'.
>
> If the intent were to change the subject, I would not have addressed the
> subject at all. And you have no choice but to admit I addressed it,
> because you're about to comment on my methods of doing so....

You didn't address the points I made whatsoever. You changed the subject
(fallacy #1) to Bugliosi, and invoked the logical fallacy of 'two wrongs
make a right', suggesting if Bugliosi was wrong, then Mark Lane could be
somewhat excused for his strawman, because Bugliosi was also guilty of
logical fallacies like ad hominem.

>
> >
> > You changed the subject to something else entirely, making a series of
> > accusations against another author entirely, and made a series of unproven
> > assertions (supposedly quoting 'Ben Holmes', although you post no link to
> > that),
>
> Oh I see, so the only way you can comment on someone's rebuttal is if the
> rebuttal is cited with an accompanied link.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/PRuF8B4F-GE/ci9lY2CxAQAJ

No, my point is invoking someone's else claims either by a reference
without a link or with a link doesn't move the dial here. I am not going
to chase down and rebut every conspiracy claim you quote or can link to. I
don't have enough time in the day. Or in my remaining days. I've told
plenty of CTs that, and I will tell you the same thing. If it's not
important enough for you to put into your own words and argue for it, it's
not important enough for me to bother to rebut.

>
> Okay? So I hope your concerns have been met now. And you know, if you
> responded in the other forum it would be published right away, instead of
> this snail-mail vetting with the 24-hour turnaround that goes on here.

Ben will resort to name-calling ('liar' and 'coward' being his favorite
two) and won't rebut the points made. He will even admit the point then
turn around and claim it wasn't said. Anything to discuss my claims
instead of Lane's claims.

I'm here. If Ben wants to rebut me, he can post where I posted this. If he
won't, then we'll know why.

>
>
> >
> > Please address the point I did made and don't try to rebut points I didn't
> > make.
>
> Is this the part where you pretend the point you weren't obviously
> inferring is that Mark Lane and his book are invalid on the grounds of
> some imagined "logical fallacy"?

I pointed out the following:

1. Lane's entire fifth chapter "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" was a logical
fallacy because Oswald wasn't wanted at any point for the murder of JFK
prior to his arrest. His name was never broadcast. The logical fallacy
is called a strawman argument, because the Warren Commission never said
Oswald was wanted. No one sent the police to the Paine residence or his
rooming house prior to his arrest. He was arrested as a suspect in the
Tippit shooting. It was only once he was in custody for the Tippit
shooting that it was determined he worked in the Depository and it was
evident he might be a suspect in that shooting as well.

2. The Subtitle of Lane's book gives detail on Lane's supposed subject
matter. It's called ""A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in

the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee

Harvey Oswald", but the Warren Commission never said Oswald was wanted
before his arrest.

3. Lane claimed Oswald was wanted by 12;45pm on 11/22/63 here: "Why then

did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit

was shot?" Tippit was shot at about 1:15pm. That means Lane is claiming
Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm. He shows no evidence of that.

Lane's question is a strawman argument. Oswald wasn't wanted at 12:45. He
was never wanted for JFK's murder while he was free. He was arrested after
acting suspiciously near Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and the police were
called because of that. This was shortly after Brewer heard a policeman
had been shot nearby.

> Well I guess it's tricky for you to admit
> that now, now that Bugliosi's book is provably invalidated due to its use
> of ridicule and ad hominem by your own standards. So I guess we're at an
> impasse, because how can either side be right if both use logical
> fallacies?

Your claim is another logical fallacy. The ad hominem does not invalidate
the factual claims Bugliosi makes. You'd have to tackle the factual claims
one by one and rebut them with further evidence. I established that Lane's
Chapter Five entitled "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" was entirely a strawman
argument. And that invalidates the entire point of that chapter, because
Oswald wasn't wanted and the Warren Commission never said he was. It's
solely Lane's pretense that Oswald was wanted by 12:45. The two logical
fallacies aren't equivalent.

You admit as much.

>
>
> >
> > Show that Oswald was wanted by the time of the radio broadcast, which
> > doesn't mention his name. Or show how he was arrested in the theatre
> > because he was noticed missing from the Depository.
> >
> > You won't. Because Oswald wasn't mentioned in the police broadcast at
> > 12:45, and because he was arrested as a suspect in the Tippit shooting.
>
> Strange that Tippit knew who to look for then, seeing as the police BOLO
> was the dictionary definition of generic.

You don't even know that Tippit was looking for Oswald. One researcher
claimed Tippit's girlfriend lived on that block, and it's entirely
possible Tippit was pulling over to pay her a visit. Witnesses said that
Oswald approached Tippit's vehicle, not that Tippit called Oswald over.

So it's curious that you're reduced to arguing Tippit was looking for
Oswald, when there's no evidence of that (Tippit was shot dead immediately
upon exiting his vehicle, and Oswald denied in custody doing it, so the
two people involved never spoke of what transpired immediately prior to
the shooting - and nobody else was close enough to hear their
conversation), and you're now apparently trying to pass yourself off as a
mind-reader or someone who communes with the spirits of the dead. You are
above assuming what you need to prove to attempt to establish the point
that Lane had some validity in his false claims about Oswald being wanted.
Oswald wasn't, and Tippit pulling up alongside Oswald isn't evidence
Oswald was wanted.

You do admit Tippit was killed by Oswald, right? Otherwise, if you're
going to argue Tippit was shot by someone else, as Lane does in his
chapters 14 & 15, Lane's strawman argument falls apart... because if
Tippit was shot by someone else, then Tippit stopping the gunman wasn't
evidence Tippit was looking for Oswald, and the generic description that
went out at 12:45 wasn't specific to Oswald.

This is why critics can't make a case... their various arguments point
nowhere except away from Oswald, and often times contradict each other.

> Oh, but never you mind, I've now
> provided a link to the other forum where your "concerns" were addressed,
> so no need for me to repeat them in another C&P here.

As a general rule, if you don't care enough to post points in your own
words, and are reduced to copy-pasting, I don't care to rebut them. I
don't have the time or inclination to chase CTs down every rabbit hole
they wish to run into.

I will rebut one point of Ben's here:

I wrote: "Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in

the time between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of
Oswald's arrest about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre."

Ben's response was: "This is known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show
Mark Lane stating what he's implicitly claiming. ... Are you denying that
his book is **NOT** "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in the

murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee Harvey

Oswald" ??? Looks like the one "employing a logical fallacy" is clearly
you, Henry Sienzant. "

Ben confuses the issue, perhaps deliberately. I was absolutely clear that
Lane's Chapter Five entitled "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" was a strawman
argument, and had nothing to do with Lane's supposed Warren Commission
critique, because the Warren Commission didn't conclude Oswald was wanted
at 12:45. Ben changes my point from Chapter Five to Lane's entire book,
and attempts to rebut my point that way. But that's not the point I made,
and that's just another strawman argument - this one from Ben, attempting
to defend Lane's original strawman argument.

Just so we're clear, once again:

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

= QUOTE =

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.

= UNQUOTE =

Lane devoted an entire chapter to "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED", when the Warren
Commission never said he was, and Ben deflects my point about Lane's
Chapter Five by pretending I was arguing Lane's entire book was
inappropriately subtitled, when I never said that. I did point out that
Lane's Chapter Five was a strawman argument by Lane, as the Warren
Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted. And by Lane asking, as he
did, "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour
before Tippit was shot?" is further evidence of Lane advancing a strawman
argument.

>
> >
> > Mark Lane's entire chapter is built around a straw man argument.
>
> And Bugliosi's **whole book** is built around worse. What now?

You just admitted (again) Lane's Chapter Five is inappropriate, as it's
not a rebuttal or critique of anything the Warren Commission claimed or
concluded. You also admitted Lane's question in the text is false: "Why

then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit
was shot?"

If you disagree and wish to argue that the question is factually valid,
please provide the evidence the DPD wanted Oswald by 12:45. A generic
description that could fit many men in Dallas is not evidence that a
specific individual was wanted. Lane is pretending it is. You are adopting
the same pretense, when you state: "Strange that Tippit knew who to look

for then, seeing as the police BOLO was the dictionary definition of
generic."

You haven't shown Tippit was looking for Oswald. And if you're going to
argue Oswald wasn't the gunman and didn't shoot Tippit, then you're
cutting the legs out from your own argument you're making here.

Please don't change the subject to something Dale Myers or Jim Moore or
Gerald Posner wrote. Please address the actual points I make with
substantive rebuttal, and avoid resorting to logical fallacies.

Hank

[Natasha]

The major and consistant problem with WC believers such as Henry Seinzant
is they've rarely, if ever, had an original thought. If it's not mentioned
in the WR, it's blasphemous to think otherwise as far as they're
concerned. Oswald knew he was set up and the authorities would be looking
for him, hence having the cabbie drive past his rooming house.

Additionally, the entire Tippit shooting couldn't smell more fishy. Aside
from it taking place less than a football field from Ruby's apartment (not
mentioned in the WR), there were what, roughly 10 people in the immediate
area that saw Tippit's police car stop, yet didn't see whomever shot him?
... Why not? Were there so many more interesting things going in Oak Grove
at that moment which caused all those people not to observe a police car
pulling over to question a person or persons in a quiet neighborhood?

There was also a witness near the shooting who told the police he "wasn't
good at identifying people". Really? In other words, had Tippit's shooter
been a midget clown with orange hair, that particular witness would have
remained silent?

My advice to all believers, aka excuse makers, is to visit the Emerald
City and ask the Wizard for an imagination.

[Anthony Marsh]

That disciption could match thousands of people including YOU. At least he
stopped a MAN and no one else. But if he thought this was the assassin he
should have already had his gun drawn. Not a routine traffic stop.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/22/2019 7:41 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>

Unlike you I am a real researcher who has met hundreds of other real
persons at conferences and worked with both sides.

[Jason Burke]

Yes, Rocky and Bullwinkle. Imagination is all you people have.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Questions, please: How did Oswald *know* he was setup? And setup for what?
If he's having lunch, then how does he know what happened outside of the
building?

He left the building about three minutes after the assassination. It was
unknown at that time and around the building what exactly had happened.
People heard shots and some thought the president was shot, but maybe not.
It was chaos. This is what the people who were there said. They weren't
sure what was going on.

Why did he leave and not stay to find out what happened? To talk to his
co-workers? To inquire about exactly what occurred? Again, how would he
know he was setup? For what? Nobody knew what happened. But he knew he was
going to be blamed for what exactly?

Instead of staying, he immediately walks seven blocks up the street to
catch a bus. Does he tell people on the bus, "Something awful has
happened, the president's been shot!" No he says nothing.

The bus is caught up in traffic and he leaves - why? - to get a cab. The
cab starts to leave when police cars go flying by. Does he tell the cab
driver about the shooting? No.

He goes to his rooming house and while the landlady/housekeeper is
watching television SHOWS NO INTEREST in what was on. Is he interested in
finding out what happened to the president? No, he changes his shirt and
apparently gets his revolver.

Then, again showing no interest in what happened, goes to a movie. I'll
cut it short here and leave out the rest.

To summarize, then: How did he know he was setup for something that nobody
at that time knew occurred?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I haven't seen Ben Holmes post here. How am I evading him? That's an empty
> accusation, devoid of any meaning. Indeed, one could argue Ben is evading
> me. I haven't seen him post a rebuttal here.

Don't look too hard, Henry.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/SLnciL9yoRY%5B151-175%5D

He even posted the same day as you. Congratulations, you're the ONLY ONE
here who has no idea where to find him.

>
> And I did notice you deleted entirely my original post and your original
> response.

I notice taking shelter in a forum where you're not allowed to call people
liars has emboldened you to up the ante on....exaggerating the truth. I'm
not even going to ask you where I deleted YOUR post, let alone my own
response to a post that was deleted. I simply don't care.

>
> You wouldn't perhaps be trying to change the subject and avoid the
> original point entirely, would you?
>
> Here's my original post. You never did rebut the points made.
>
> === QUOTE ==
> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>
> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>
> Why does this chapter exist?
>
> The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald"
>
> Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
> between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
> about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.

It seems you're assigning the subtitle of his book to a random chapter in
the book, then trying to claim that by association, the original argument
of his chapter is also coupled with the subtitle of his book. This is
where the straw man accusation comes from; it's ironic that you think of
the two of you, the straw man is coming from him.

>
> Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
> the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
> shot?"

Omission is your problem right there. Had you focused on the paragraph
preceding or proceeding, your stupid question would have been answered.
But then, you're trying to frame a narrative.


Oswald was wanted because he was missing from roll call, and it's really
that simple. And because LNers have maintained he was the ONLY employee
missing from roll call, you're now in the "rock and hard place" position
of having to stand by that glaring canard, since this was the reasoning
given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony. Your verbose
windbaggery aside, that's your answer in a nutshell. Now go ahead and
insist your points weren't answered again.

> > >
> > > You didn't rebut the claim in any fashion. You just claimed Bugliosi was
> > > guilty of pretty much the same thing or worse.

Yes, I like using LN logic against them as a general rule, because it
exposes their weakness in a way that forces them to twist a lot more
serpentine than usual to justify their garbage narratives. You, for
instance, doth protest so much that we ended up with this lengthy screed
of a post which I'm sure would cover several pages in a Word doc. Twist,
Henry. Dance, Henry. Good boy.

[approx. 18 paragraphs of you whining about the same logical fallacies
you're guilty of on a daily basis omitted for brevity]

>
> No, my point is invoking someone's else claims either by a reference
> without a link or with a link doesn't move the dial here. I am not going
> to chase down and rebut every conspiracy claim you quote or can link to. I
> don't have enough time in the day.

Yes, Patrick Collins was another who would gladly cite the evidence, but
"did not have the time."

>
> I've told plenty of CTs that, and I will tell you the same thing. If it's not
> important enough for you to put into your own words and argue for it, it's
> not important enough for me to bother to rebut.

You'll have to decide whether your refusal to rebut people is based on
their failure to cite where the argument came from, or whether or not the
argument was written in their own words, or if it's...something else. You
take so many moral high grounds, it's hard for us sinful dreck to keep up
with your ever-changing rules of engagement.


>
> I'm here.

(quite a commitment from someone who doesn't have the time in his
remaining days)

>
> If Ben wants to rebut me, he can post where I posted this. If he
> won't, then we'll know why.

Likewise, obviously.

> >
> > Is this the part where you pretend the point you weren't obviously
> > inferring is that Mark Lane and his book are invalid on the grounds of
> > some imagined "logical fallacy"?
>
> I pointed out the following:
>
> 1. Lane's entire fifth chapter "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" was a logical
> fallacy because Oswald wasn't wanted at any point for the murder of JFK
> prior to his arrest. His name was never broadcast. The logical fallacy
> is called a strawman argument, because the Warren Commission never said
> Oswald was wanted.

Nor did Lane, and so the strawman is all yours.

>
> 2. The Subtitle of Lane's book gives detail on Lane's supposed subject
> matter. It's called ""A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald", but the Warren Commission never said Oswald was wanted
> before his arrest.

Ibid. Argument from Repetition.

>
> 3. Lane claimed Oswald was wanted by 12;45pm on 11/22/63 here: "Why then
> did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit
> was shot?" Tippit was shot at about 1:15pm.

Not according to Helen Markham. Not according to Domingeo Benavides. Not
according to his recorded time of arrival at the hospital. But do go on
with your subtle PRESUMPTION of facts, and hope no one will notice the way
you subtly slip them in.

>
> Lane's question is a strawman argument. Oswald wasn't wanted at 12:45. He
> was never wanted for JFK's murder while he was free. He was arrested after
> acting suspiciously near Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and the police were
> called because of that. This was shortly after Brewer heard a policeman
> had been shot nearby.

Answered already and, BTW, how many police showed up to the Texas Theater
to arrest a man because some shoe salesman thought was acting suspicious,
but who was otherwise unknown to police? You ask me to show that he was
wanted by the time of the radio broadcast, and that he was arrested in the
theater because he was missing from roll call. The DPD does this heavy
lifting by their own actions. I have no other way to explain why over a
dozen officers showed up to arrest "some guy" so soon after the leader of
the free world was murdered in their jurisdiction. Was it boredom,
Henry?

>
> > Well I guess it's tricky for you to admit
> > that now, now that Bugliosi's book is provably invalidated due to its use
> > of ridicule and ad hominem by your own standards. So I guess we're at an
> > impasse, because how can either side be right if both use logical
> > fallacies?
>
> Your claim is another logical fallacy. The ad hominem does not invalidate
> the factual claims Bugliosi makes. You'd have to tackle the factual claims
> one by one and rebut them with further evidence.

Do you know I *literally* stole this tactic from you. I mean you,
personally. I'm not even kidding. You are impugning yourself, and you
don't even know it. Hilarious. Right, Henry?

Hilarious.

No, all you are doing is trying to force me into conforming into your own
strawman. Whether it was generic or specific isn't relevant to the *WHY*
of his being wanted. And the original BOLO was based mostly on Brennan's
description of the man in the window, and THAT is the generic part,
because LNers point to *that* generic description as their "It must be
Oswald" defense, when it could have been anybody. And this is why LNers
can't make a case.

And now I'm going to cut out the rest of your post, because it's so
repetitive that it borders on senility. But you'll claim I didn't address
your points, because I only addressed them once rather than five or six
times, and that's as expected.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, Natasha wrote:

> The major and consistant problem with WC believers such as Henry Seinzant
> is they've rarely, if ever, had an original thought.

Wow. Start of with ad hominem. It's obvious you've been reading "How to
Make Friends and Influence People" again. FYI: It's Sienzant. You can
call me Hank.

> If it's not mentioned
> in the WR, it's blasphemous to think otherwise as far as they're
> concerned.

Why does your phraseology suggest biblical and religious overtones? Do you
really think I decided to wake up one day and just believe whatever the
Warren COmmission concluded as if it was handed down from God on Mount
Sanai? I didn't.

I was a conspiracy believer in the 1960s, having read the Warren
Commission Report along with a few dozen different conspiracy oriented
books. Throught the 1970s, I read everything related to the JFK
assassination I could get my nands on. In the early 1980s I couldn't make
sense of it all and I started visiting on evenings and weekends my nearest
big city library, which had the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission
evidence and testimony. I bought a set of the 26 volumes from the
President's Box Bookshop for $2500. I also bought, from the GPO, a set of
the HSCA volumes on the JFK assassination and their final report too.

It was only after twice reading through the WR volumes and HSCA volumes,
that I stopped being a conspiracy believer. The evidence doesn't support
it. I am an evidence believer, not a Warren Report believer.

> Oswald knew he was set up and the authorities would be looking
> for him, hence having the cabbie drive past his rooming house.

Okay, Natasha. Tell us how Oswald knew this within ten or 15 minutes of
the assassination. If the President was assassinated outside my place of
work, I would hang around and want to know what happened. Ask questions of
my fellow employees, see what was transpiring. Not Oswald. He left the
building in less than three minutes, had no questions for anyone, took a
bus and a cab to get to his rooming house to get his revolver.

If I suspected I was being set up for murder, I wouldn't go get a gun,
which makes me look more guilty. I'd walk into a newspaper or TV office
and start talking to the nearest reporter. Or get a good lawyer and have
me represent me and walk into the nearest police station and start talking
to the cops.

What would you do, and why do you think Oswald went to the rooming house
to get his revolver?

And separate from how Oswald concluded he was being set up and his actions
post-assassination, there's the problem of the evidence recovered in the
Depository. How did Oswald's rifle happen to show up on the same floor
numerous witnesses outside the building happened to see a white male
shooter? Why did numerous witnesses describe the shooter in terms that fit
Oswald?

>
> Additionally, the entire Tippit shooting couldn't smell more fishy. Aside
> from it taking place less than a football field from Ruby's apartment (not
> mentioned in the WR),

Maybe because it's not true. Google maps shows the shortest route is .4
miles. A football field is 120 yards (including both endzones).
Four-tenths of a mile is about four times as long, 704 yards. Even
allowing for the pretense that Oswald could fly there, instead of walking
along the sidewalks, it would still be over 500 yards away, more than four
times the football field you reference as a yardstick.

> there were what, roughly 10 people in the immediate
> area that saw Tippit's police car stop, yet didn't see whomever shot him?
> ... Why not? Were there so many more interesting things going in Oak Grove

Oak Cliff.

> at that moment which caused all those people not to observe a police car
> pulling over to question a person or persons in a quiet neighborhood?

Well, most people were in their homes or not particularly interested. The
Davis sisters, for instance, were inside their home and only went to the
door when they heard gunshots. The cab driver, William Scoggins, was in
the process of eating his lunch in the general vicinity. Some of the other
witnesses (there are 21 who gave testimony or statements) worked in the
area but not within view of 10th and Patton. People like Warren Reynolds
and Ted Callaway. They only saw the gunman flee. What exactly is your
point here? That because a witness didn't observe the entire interaction
play out they are somehow questionable? Most people would hear gunshots
and look for the source. That's what happened here. I fail to see what's
'fishy' about that.

>
> There was also a witness near the shooting who told the police he "wasn't
> good at identifying people". Really? In other words, had Tippit's shooter
> been a midget clown with orange hair, that particular witness would have
> remained silent?

Straw man argument. He didn't say that. Read it yourself.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two
officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them
that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying
to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.

Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the
President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been
shot I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and
these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told
him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could
identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure --
I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify
and go down and couldn't have.
Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you
could identify him?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
== UNQUOTE ==

He said "I wasn't sure that I could [identify him] or not." He didn't say
what you claimed he said.

>
> My advice to all believers, aka excuse makers, is to visit the Emerald
> City and ask the Wizard for an imagination.

Nobody here is making excuses. I am examining the evidence.

You stick to your imagination. I'll continue to stick to the evidence.
Tell us which one the courts use and why.

Hank

PS: You avoided my original point entirely. You called me names and introduced a few false claims into the thread. Nw, try addressing the point I actually made in your next post, or continue with the misdirection and logical fallacies (like changing the subject and ad hominem).

[bigdog]

On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, Natasha wrote:

> The major and consistant problem with WC believers such as Henry Seinzant> is they've rarely, if ever, had an original thought.

Once you know the truth, originality is not required.

> If it's not mentioned
> in the WR, it's blasphemous to think otherwise as far as they're
> concerned. Oswald knew he was set up and the authorities would be looking
> for him, hence having the cabbie drive past his rooming house.
>

There actually have been enhancements to the conclusions of the WC. It's
not widely accepted among LNs that the first shot was almost certainly the
one that missed, something the WC could not reach a definite conclusion
about. We have also narrowed down the instant the single bullet struck
from a 3/4 second time frame as specified by the WC to a 1/4 second time
frame. That's about 4 possible frames. All of us have different opinions
about which of those 4 frames the bullet struck, but it has been narrowed
down quite a bit.

> Additionally, the entire Tippit shooting couldn't smell more fishy. Aside
> from it taking place less than a football field from Ruby's apartment

Cite?

> (not
> mentioned in the WR), there were what, roughly 10 people in the immediate
> area that saw Tippit's police car stop, yet didn't see whomever shot him?

You are exaggerating.

> ... Why not? Were there so many more interesting things going in Oak Grove
> at that moment which caused all those people not to observe a police car
> pulling over to question a person or persons in a quiet neighborhood?
>
> There was also a witness near the shooting who told the police he "wasn't
> good at identifying people". Really? In other words, had Tippit's shooter
> been a midget clown with orange hair, that particular witness would have
> remained silent?
>
> My advice to all believers, aka excuse makers, is to visit the Emerald
> City and ask the Wizard for an imagination.

Imagination is required to believe in conspiracies in the assassination of
JFK because there is no evidence of one.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's amazing how conspiracy people always look elsewhere, away from
Oswald. Tippit's behavior is, for you, "strange" but not Oswald's.

The president was, perhaps, shot right outside the building where he
worked and he's a mile away after leaving the scene about three minutes
afterwards.

He has no interest at all in events that occurred right outside the place
of work. This was a political person; and he doesn't show any interest in
whether the president is dead. Really?

But for you the "strange" behavior is that by Tippit.

[BOZ]

You have never been to Dallas Marsh. I've walked all over Dealey Plaza.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Questions, please: How did Oswald *know* he was setup?

Because he was complicit. Not innocent. His presence and subsequent
actions in the theater prove that.

[BT George]

Oh boy. I *truly* hate to side with Marsh on much of anything, but he's
almost certainly right. We will never know for sure why he stopped
Oswald, but few rational persons believe it was solely on the fairly
generic description that was put out.

While that may have been a factor, the by far more compelling reason was
almost certainly because he observed Oswald acting suspicious in some
manner. Dale Myers has suggested on the basis of conflicting witness
testimony that one possibility is that Oswald saw the police car and did a
sudden about face that Tippit observed.

Like I said, we will never know, but it's simply wooden thinking to not
see that Oswald could have been stopped for more than his fitting the
general description.

[BT George]

Does anyone else notice just how much "Boris" sounds like Holmes at times?
Just sayin'!

[Anthony Marsh]

Because some cop had pointed a gun at him.

> co-workers? To inquire about exactly what occurred? Again, how would he

He did talk to one secretary and found out that the president had been
shot. He didn't need to stick around for yearss to find out about the
SBT. He had to get home to get his gun to protect himself. Of course you
would say that NO ONE has the right to protect himself. We should all
calmly walk into the gas chamber.

> know he was setup? For what? Nobody knew what happened. But he knew he was
> going to be blamed for what exactly?
>
> Instead of staying, he immediately walks seven blocks up the street to
> catch a bus. Does he tell people on the bus, "Something awful has
> happened, the president's been shot!" No he says nothing.
>
> The bus is caught up in traffic and he leaves - why? - to get a cab. The
> cab starts to leave when police cars go flying by. Does he tell the cab
> driver about the shooting? No.
>
> He goes to his rooming house and while the landlady/housekeeper is
> watching television SHOWS NO INTEREST in what was on. Is he interested in

Oswald was not a fan of soap operas.
How many times did he watch that TV?

> finding out what happened to the president? No, he changes his shirt and
> apparently gets his revolver.
>
> Then, again showing no interest in what happened, goes to a movie. I'll
> cut it short here and leave out the rest.
>

Silly, he only ducked into the thearter because he was being followed.
We don't know where he was headed. Maybe the local CIA safe house.

> To summarize, then: How did he know he was setup for something that nobody
> at that time knew occurred?
>
>

Major shooting and the only person the cops pull a gun on is him.

[GKnoll]

Oswald did not realize he was being set-up until the moment the shots were
fired. That is when he realized that he was being set up. He knew he was
not firing all the shots.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:56:10 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > I haven't seen Ben Holmes post here. How am I evading him? That's an empty
> > accusation, devoid of any meaning. Indeed, one could argue Ben is evading
> > me. I haven't seen him post a rebuttal here.
>
> Don't look too hard, Henry.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/SLnciL9yoRY%5B151-175%5D
>
> He even posted the same day as you. Congratulations, you're the ONLY ONE
> here who has no idea where to find him.

I didn't say I didn't know where to find him. That's another strawman
argument by you. I even responded to one of his points here (and you
snipped it from your response). I said Ben knows where I am, and if he
wants to engage me, he clearly knows where to find me. Your argument that
I need to go where Ben is and engage him there merely because you cited
something he wrote is and will remain nonsense.

>
>
> >
> > And I did notice you deleted entirely my original post and your original
> > response.
>
> I notice taking shelter in a forum where you're not allowed to call people
> liars has emboldened you to up the ante on....exaggerating the truth. I'm
> not even going to ask you where I deleted YOUR post, let alone my own
> response to a post that was deleted. I simply don't care.

Your response prior to this one contains none of the language from my
original post; you snipped it entirely from your second response, ignoring
entirely my points and attempting to double-down on the fallacy that two
wrongs make a right. Pretend you didn't understand my point some more.

>
>
> >
> > You wouldn't perhaps be trying to change the subject and avoid the
> > original point entirely, would you?
> >
> > Here's my original post. You never did rebut the points made.
> >
> > === QUOTE ==
> > WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
> >
> > That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
> >
> > Why does this chapter exist?
> >
> > The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> > the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> > Harvey Oswald"
> >
> > Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
> > between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
> > about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.
>
>
> It seems you're assigning the subtitle of his book to a random chapter in
> the book, then trying to claim that by association, the original argument
> of his chapter is also coupled with the subtitle of his book. This is
> where the straw man accusation comes from; it's ironic that you think of
> the two of you, the straw man is coming from him.

To clarify yet once more, I'm assigning the subtitle to all the chapters
in his book. At no time did the Warren Commission say Oswald was wanted
prior to his arrest. Lane's chapter makes the argument Oswald was wanted,
and since the book is supposedly "a critique of the Warren Commission's
inquiry" as per its subtitle, Lane is simply setting up a strawman to
knock down.

>
> >
> > Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
> > the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
> > shot?"
>
> Omission is your problem right there. Had you focused on the paragraph
> preceding or proceeding, your stupid question would have been answered.
> But then, you're trying to frame a narrative.

No, it's not. Oswald wasn't wanted at any time, and you (and Lane) have
yet to show he was. Citing a random police officer's uninformed hearsay
doesn't make it true, and doesn't make it anything the Warren Commission
was responsible for. If the book was subtitled ""A critique of the some
random police officer's hearsay in the murders of President John F.
Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald", I would have no issue
with the subject of the chapter, but Lane's book is subtitled "A critique

of the Warren Commission's inquiry in the murders of President John F.

Kennedy, Officer J.D. Tippit, and Lee Harvey Oswald", and that makes his
entire chapter a strawman.

The Warren Commission never said Oswald was wanted. Lane is examining a
strawman argument and knocking that down.

>
>
> Oswald was wanted because he was missing from roll call, and it's really
> that simple.

You're repeating a myth. There was no roll call, and the Warren Commission
never said there was. You can search the Warren Report in vain, they never
used the words 'roll call'. Lane invented that particular fiction, taking
the erroneous hearsay account of Captain Gannaway and others and making it
the linchpin argument of his entire chapter five entitled "WHY OSWALD WAS
WANTED". Oswald wasn't wanted.The Warren Report never said he was. Lane
knew it. Lane simply pretended Oswald was, and spent his chapter five on
attacking that particular strawman argument.

You need to establish the supposed roll call was before 12:45, because
Lane claimed that's when Oswald was wanted: "Why then did the Dallas
police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit wasshot?" Go ahead,
we'll wait.

> And because LNers have maintained he was the ONLY employee
> missing from roll call,

There was no roll call. I haven't said there was. He wasn't missing from
the roll call that never was. Don't pretend you're rebutting points I've
made, because you're not.

> you're now in the "rock and hard place" position
> of having to stand by that glaring canard, since this was the reasoning
> given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony. Your verbose
> windbaggery aside, that's your answer in a nutshell. Now go ahead and
> insist your points weren't answered again.

Again, the book is not subtitled to be a critique of random hearsay by
random DPD officers. Neither Fritz, Hill, nor Gannaway testified they
witnessed any roll call. And their hearsay claims don't rise to the level
of evidence in any case. Offering any of their hearsay statements as
evidence of a roll call is nonsense, and is not evidence. Offering it as
evidence Oswald was wanted is simply bizarre reasoning on Lane's part, and
yours, if you're going to defend Lane.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > You didn't rebut the claim in any fashion. You just claimed Bugliosi was
> > > > guilty of pretty much the same thing or worse.
>
>
> Yes, I like using LN logic against them as a general rule, because it
> exposes their weakness in a way that forces them to twist a lot more
> serpentine than usual to justify their garbage narratives.

Sorry, you're not using my arguments against me. You're rebutting
arguments I never made, and avoiding the ones I did make. I never said
there was a roll call and never said Oswald was missing from it. I did
point out you committed the logical fallacy of trying to change the
subject and the logical fallacy of trying to argue two wrongs make a
right. I don't see how what Bugliosi did excuses or lessens the strawman
argument of Lane, and I even agreed that Bugliosi's overuse of ad hominem
detracts from the overall strength of the case he makes.

Yet you assign that particular fiction of the roll call (popularized in
Lane's book) to LNers in general ("And because LNers have maintained he
was the ONLY employee missing from roll call") and pretend I have to
defend it. I don't have to defend erroneous claims made by Mark Lane.
That's what you're supposed to be doing.



> You, for

> instance, doth protest so much that we ended up with this lengthy screed
> of a post which I'm sure would cover several pages in a Word doc. Twist,
> Henry. Dance, Henry. Good boy.

Still sounding like Ben Holmes. Don't pretend you're rebutting anything I
claimed. You brought up Bugliosi. You brought up the fictitious roll call.
Show us the testimony for that roll call. Who was at it? Which of those
people testified to it?

Roy Truly noticed that Oswald, whom he had seen in the building shortly
after the assassin, was not around. He consulted with a few people,
decided to let the police know what he noticed, and did that. That's it.
And that did NOT all transpire within the first fifteen minutes of the
assassination.

== QUOTE ==
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information?
Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over here "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not." And I gave him his description. And he says, "Just a moment. We will go tell Captain Fritz."
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we will go upstairs".
So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it."
== UNQUOTE ==

>
> [approx. 18 paragraphs of you whining about the same logical fallacies
> you're guilty of on a daily basis omitted for brevity]

Including points you'd apparently rather not respond to.

>
> >
> > No, my point is invoking someone's else claims either by a reference
> > without a link or with a link doesn't move the dial here. I am not going
> > to chase down and rebut every conspiracy claim you quote or can link to. I
> > don't have enough time in the day.
>
> Yes, Patrick Collins was another who would gladly cite the evidence, but
> "did not have the time."

Where did I say I won't rebut the points you make here? I said I am not
chasing you down rabbit holes and rebuting links and quotes you pull from
the internet. I did rebut the points you made.

>
> >
> > I've told plenty of CTs that, and I will tell you the same thing. If it's not
> > important enough for you to put into your own words and argue for it, it's
> > not important enough for me to bother to rebut.
>
> You'll have to decide whether your refusal to rebut people is based on
> their failure to cite where the argument came from, or whether or not the
> argument was written in their own words, or if it's...something else. You
> take so many moral high grounds, it's hard for us sinful dreck to keep up
> with your ever-changing rules of engagement.

There are no ever-changing rules of engagement. You make a point I
disagree with, I rebut it. You pull something from another person you
found somewhere and cite or quote it here, I ignore it. I am not going to
bother with links and cites you provide.

>
>
> >
> > I'm here.
>
> (quite a commitment from someone who doesn't have the time in his
> remaining days)

I'm here now. Regardless of how many remaining days I have, I don't intend
to chase down every claim of every poster you can link to or cite and
rebut their claims. Nor will I go where they are currently posting, and go
debate them there. I neither have the time nor the inclination to do so.
And to expect anyone to do that is an absurdity by you.

>
> >
> > If Ben wants to rebut me, he can post where I posted this. If he
> > won't, then we'll know why.
>
> Likewise, obviously.

My thread starts here. If Ben wants to engage, he knows where to find me.
If he doesn't, well, tough.

>
>
> > >
> > > Is this the part where you pretend the point you weren't obviously
> > > inferring is that Mark Lane and his book are invalid on the grounds of
> > > some imagined "logical fallacy"?
> >
> > I pointed out the following:
> >
> > 1. Lane's entire fifth chapter "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" was a logical
> > fallacy because Oswald wasn't wanted at any point for the murder of JFK
> > prior to his arrest. His name was never broadcast. The logical fallacy
> > is called a strawman argument, because the Warren Commission never said
> > Oswald was wanted.
>
> Nor did Lane, and so the strawman is all yours.

False. Lane did said Oswald was wanted at least twice. Once in the title
of the chapter "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED", and once more when he asked ""Why

then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit
was shot?"

Lane said Oswald was wanted, then spent his fifth chapter on that topic.

>
> >
> > 2. The Subtitle of Lane's book gives detail on Lane's supposed subject
> > matter. It's called ""A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> > the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> > Harvey Oswald", but the Warren Commission never said Oswald was wanted
> > before his arrest.
>
> Ibid. Argument from Repetition.

Nope. Lane made the claim, then rebutted it. His book is supposed to be
(from his subtitle) 'a critigue of the Warren Commission's inquiry", but
the Warren Commission never said that. It's further evidence of Lane's
strawman argument.

>
> >
> > 3. Lane claimed Oswald was wanted by 12;45pm on 11/22/63 here: "Why then
> > did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit
> > was shot?" Tippit was shot at about 1:15pm.
>
> Not according to Helen Markham. Not according to Domingeo Benavides. Not
> according to his recorded time of arrival at the hospital. But do go on
> with your subtle PRESUMPTION of facts, and hope no one will notice the way
> you subtly slip them in.

Hilarious! Truly, truly hilarious.

This is a change of subject from my post and

You're now arguing (if I understand you correctly) the shooting of Tippit
happened EARLIER than 1:15, which makes Lane even more wrong. It was after
all Lane who asked, "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a

half hour before Tippit was shot?"

Now, if Oswald was wanted at least a half hour before Tippit was shot, and
Tippit was shot before 1:15 (let's call it 1:07 for the sake of argument),
then Oswald was wanted -- according to Lane and your argument -- at least
by 12:37 or earlier.

Do you understand how I am arriving at those figures? If you don't, just
ask.

But if you do, then defend Lane's argument using your own suggested time
of Tippit's shooting. I don't care what earlier time you pick, defend it.
You can't and you won't.

Where's the evidence Oswald was wanted by 12:37, for instance? It's not
the radio call... that happened at 12:45. It's not the roll call. That
never happened. It's not Truly's noticing Oswald was missing... Truly was
uncertain of exactly when that transpired. But based on everything Truly
testified he did after the assassination and before reporting Oswald
missing, we can be confident it didn't happen before 1:00pm at the
earliest.

So do cite the evidence for Oswald being wanted at 12:37 (or whatever
earlier time you choose for Tippit's shooting other than 1:15) to make
Lane's claim "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half
hour before Tippit was shot?" true.

This is why I stated that critics arguments go nowhere except away from
Oswald, and they can't attempt to make an argument without contradicting
themselves frequently. Your attempted argument that Tippit was shot before
1:15 makes Lane's claim you're supposedly defending even harder to defend,
and you don't even realize that in trying to move the time of Tippit's
shooting to earlier than 1:15.

>
> >
> > Lane's question is a strawman argument. Oswald wasn't wanted at 12:45. He
> > was never wanted for JFK's murder while he was free. He was arrested after
> > acting suspiciously near Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and the police were
> > called because of that. This was shortly after Brewer heard a policeman
> > had been shot nearby.
>
> Answered already and, BTW, how many police showed up to the Texas Theater
> to arrest a man because some shoe salesman thought was acting suspicious,
> but who was otherwise unknown to police?

Another change of subject.

Probably a good dozen or more. You neglect to mention why the police
responded in that fashion, and pretend -- like all CTs -- that this is
some big mystery. It's not. Tippit was shot not far from the movie
theatre, and now some guy is acting suspiciously and ducking into the
theatre without paying. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
the two might be related, and Johnny Brewer did that, deciding to follow
the guy, and asking Julia Postal to call the police.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm

"The reason I noticed the man in front of the store was because he acted
so nervous, and I thought at the time he might be the man that had shot
the p oliceman."

> You ask me to show that he was
> wanted by the time of the radio broadcast, and that he was arrested in the
> theater because he was missing from roll call. The DPD does this heavy
> lifting by their own actions. I have no other way to explain why over a
> dozen officers showed up to arrest "some guy" so soon after the leader of
> the free world was murdered in their jurisdiction. Was it boredom,
> Henry?

Another change of subject by you. Anything, I suppose, to detract from
your inability to defend Lane's claim that Oswald was wanted a half-hour
before Tippit was shot. The fact that some guy was acting suspiciously in
front of Brewer's shoe store isn't evidence Oswald, as an individual, was
wanted by the police a half-hour before Tippit's shooting, nor is it
evidence Oswald was wanted at the time of his arrest in the theatre. You
beg the question (another logical fallacy by you) and assume it means
that, but you don't establish it. Your assumptions are not evidence. Your
argument from ignorance (another logical fallacy by you) that because you
can't explain it, it's unexplainable simply won't fly here.

And you pretend I ask you for something I never did, citing once more the
roll call you brought up: "You ask me to show that he was wanted by the

time of the radio broadcast, and that he was arrested in the theater
because he was missing from roll call."

I asked you cite evidence Oswald was wanted as late as at the time of his
arrest, or as Lane claimed, a half-hour before Tippit was shot. You never
did, and introduced the fictitious roll call into the argument, and
pretend I was asking for evidence "he was arrested in the theater because

he was missing from roll call."

I never asked for that.

>
>
> >
> > > Well I guess it's tricky for you to admit
> > > that now, now that Bugliosi's book is provably invalidated due to its use
> > > of ridicule and ad hominem by your own standards. So I guess we're at an
> > > impasse, because how can either side be right if both use logical
> > > fallacies?
> >
> > Your claim is another logical fallacy. The ad hominem does not invalidate
> > the factual claims Bugliosi makes. You'd have to tackle the factual claims
> > one by one and rebut them with further evidence.
>
> Do you know I *literally* stole this tactic from you. I mean you,
> personally. I'm not even kidding. You are impugning yourself, and you
> don't even know it. Hilarious. Right, Henry?
>
> Hilarious.

What tactic am I using? And by claiming you're using it because I did,
you're back to invoking the logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.
You did avoid entirely my point that ad hominem by Bugliosi doesn't
invalidate any of the substance of Bugliosi's detailed critique of CT
arguments.

You didn't address my point that Lane's use of a strawman argument does
invalid his arguments in chapter five... he's attempting to rebut
something the Warren Commission never said.

He wasn't wanted, and you haven't shown he was. You still need to
establish that. You still need to establish he was wanted a half-hour
before Tippit was shot (whenever you place the time of the shooting).

A generic description broadcast doesn't mean Oswald as an individual was
wanted. Police responding to a phone call reporting an unknown male acting
suspiciously near the scene of the Tippit shooting doesn't mean Oswald as
an individual was wanted.

Yet Lane claims Oswald was wanted by 12:45 (or even earlier, according to
you) and presents no evidence of that. Gannaway's hearsay is not evidence.

> And the original BOLO was based mostly on Brennan's
> description of the man in the window, and THAT is the generic part,
> because LNers point to *that* generic description as their "It must be
> Oswald" defense, when it could have been anybody. And this is why LNers
> can't make a case.

Another strawman by you. We'll get to that next, but it's interesting that
you'll concede the Warren Commission was right about something. They
concluded Brennan was most likely the source of the 12:45 call.

"Oswald Was Guilty" believers don't point to Brennan's on again, off again
ID of Oswald, but to the facts ( and you know all this. You will want to
discuss this next, in your effort to avoid Lane's strawman argument that
Oswald was wanted):

A. that numerous witnesses claimed to see a person resembling Oswald.
B. that Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor of the building.
C. that Oswald's rifle was missing from its normal hiding place on the
afternoon of the assassination.
D.that Oswald was seen bringing a long package (estimated at about two feet
or slightly more) to the Depository on the morning of the assassination.
E. that Oswald's print was found on the bag recovered from the Depository
on the afternoon of the assassination.
F. that Ballistic evidence recovered in the aftermath of the assassination
(3 shells, 2 large fragments and 1 nearly whole bullet) established Oswald's
rifle was used in the assassination.
G. that Oswald told numerous lies in custody.

>
> And now I'm going to cut out the rest of your post, because it's so
> repetitive that it borders on senility. But you'll claim I didn't address
> your points, because I only addressed them once rather than five or six
> times, and that's as expected.

You never established that Oswald was wanted by 12:45 (or earlier, per
your own argument that Tippit was shot before 1:15). Lane claimed Oswald
was wanted by then: asked, "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at

least a half hour before Tippit was shot?"

As a defender of Lane, you've failed miserably. Please provide the
evidence Oswald was wanted by 12:45. You don't have any because it's a
falsehood that he was. A falsehood by Lane. You don't even have evidence
Oswald as wanted at the time of his arrest. That's what I said at the
beginning of this thread. And that's what you have failed to rebut.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> >

> > Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
> > He saw a strange and stopped him.
>
> A stranger "matching" Oswald. Strange.
>

What's strange about numerous witnesses observing a white male in the
sixth floor window shortly before or during the shooting and then a
description of a white male going out over the police radio about fifteen
minutes after the shooting?

What's strange about the white male's description corresponding somewhat
to the description of the guy whose rifle was later found on the sixth
floor?

Apparently you expect none of this to tie together. You've apparently been
reading about 'loose ends' in the assassination literature so much you
don't even recognize when things match because the evidence is there for
them to match.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 11:56:10 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>

> Oswald was wanted because he was missing from roll call, and it's really
> that simple.

No, it's not.

Missed this the first time. Now you're arguing with Mark Lane AND the
Warren Commission, neither of whom ever said there was a roll call.

Lane wrote, on page 82, "In the first place, there was no such roll
call..."

I erroneously applied your error to Lane in my more lengthy response.

There was no roll call. Lane himself admits it.

You need to find another reason to excuse why Lane claimed Oswald was

wanted a half-hour before Tippit was shot.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

== QUOTE ==

> Questions, please: How did Oswald *know* he was setup?

Because he was complicit. Not innocent. His presence and subsequent
actions in the theater prove that.

== UNQUOTE==

If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy as
much as any mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes or the person
whose finger was on the trigger of the weapon that fired the fatal shot
that struck the President in the head. Or for that matter, one of the 14
other gunmen in Dealey Plaza who all missed the limousine entirely, and
those gunmen in Chicago and Miami that never got the opportunity.

You can't be guilty and 'set up'. And you just admitted Oswald was guilty.

Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?

Hank

[BT George]

Hank you will find that “Boris” is a veritable count of
contradictory beliefs. He truly can envision a squared circle.

[Mark]

Two of your favorite criticisms of other posters are: Stop misrepresenting
the facts. Just admit the facts.

Last year, I cited to you Mrs. Robert A. Reid's testimony where she said
she was returning from the outside front of the TSBD to her desk inside
the large central office, as Oswald was cutting through the office. He was
going in the direction of the stairs that would take him to the front
entrance.

She she told LHO the president had been shot.

Oswald mumbled something in return which she did not understand and never
stopped walking away from her.

I pointed out then that the interaction between the two does not
constitute talking to, or having a conversation with, by most people's
definitions.

You are misrepresenting Mrs. Reid's testimony. Again. But I'm not
surprised. You never "just admit the facts" if they disagree with your
theories.

Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2019 8:41 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
>>> He saw a strange and stopped him.
>>
>> A stranger "matching" Oswald. Strange.
>>
>> Drain the Marsh.
>
> It's amazing how conspiracy people always look elsewhere, away from
> Oswald. Tippit's behavior is, for you, "strange" but not Oswald's.
>

Why would you say strange? You have to assume that Tippit had his police
radio on and heard the radio traffic about the shooting and suspects.
As a good cop he would be doing his duty to notice who was driving down
rhe street or walking down the street.

> The president was, perhaps, shot right outside the building where he
> worked and he's a mile away after leaving the scene about three minutes
> afterwards.
>

So what? Several othere people were and the DPD put out an APB on
Givens. I'm sure that Tippit would have stopped the first black man he saw.

> He has no interest at all in events that occurred right outside the place
> of work. This was a political person; and he doesn't show any interest in
> whether the president is dead. Really?
>

Who? Oswald? Again you misstate the facts. That seems to be your only
job here.
Can you tell me exactly who in the TSBD knew at that instant that the
President was dead. Some people said they hoped he wasn't hit.

> But for you the "strange" behavior is that by Tippit.
>

No, the only strange behavior here is YOU, to cover up the obvious.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2019 10:26 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 6:41:19 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
>>> He saw a strange and stopped him.
>>
>> A stranger "matching" Oswald. Strange.
>>
>> Drain the Marsh.
>
> Oh boy. I *truly* hate to side with Marsh on much of anything, but he's
> almost certainly right. We will never know for sure why he stopped
> Oswald, but few rational persons believe it was solely on the fairly
> generic description that was put out.
>

And I saw nothing wrong with that. Should he hve stopped Helen Markham
on her way to the bus stop? No, that would have been silly and a
diversion. He is looking for a man. The man could have change appearance
since the broadcast. The description will never be perfect and how could
Tippit at glance tell if the man was 25 years old or 30 years old?
But he wouldn't stop some little kid on a bike. Or shoot him.

> While that may have been a factor, the by far more compelling reason was
> almost certainly because he observed Oswald acting suspicious in some
> manner. Dale Myers has suggested on the basis of conflicting witness
> testimony that one possibility is that Oswald saw the police car and did a
> sudden about face that Tippit observed.
>

Maybe.

> Like I said, we will never know, but it's simply wooden thinking to not
> see that Oswald could have been stopped for more than his fitting the
> general description.
>

Well, it is a simple fact that he was a man.

[Natasha]

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 1:33:14 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>
> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>
> Why does this chapter exist?
>
> The Book is subtitled "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in
> the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee
> Harvey Oswald"
>
> Yet the Warren Commission never concluded Oswald was wanted in the time
> between the assassination of JFK at 12:30 and the time of Oswald's arrest
> about 80 minutes later in the Texas Theatre.
>

> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>
> The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> == QUOTE ==
>
> A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving
> the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting
> an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in
> this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
>
> The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely
> refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert
> replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw
> man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a
> straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
>
> == UNQUOTE ==
>

> Lane actually asks, in the second paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did
> the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
> shot?"
>

> They didn't. His statement in the Chapter title that Oswald was wanted is
> a clear falsehood. His statement Oswald was wanted at 12:45, about 30
> minutes before the shooting of Tippit, is likewise untrue.
>
> Since the Warren Report never claimed that Oswald was wanted by the police
> for either murder in the short time he was free, we can all see that Mark
> Lane is simply employing a straw man argument, knocking down a claim that
> the Warren Commission never advanced.
>
> The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
> to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.
>
> This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
> earliest practitioners of the art.
>

> Hank


To Hank, Henry and Joey Z:

I'd first like to thank you for revealing the story of your transformation
from conspiracy theorist to staunch believer in the WCR. I wish you had
mentioned 2 or 3 major factors causing that change, however... Do you have
anyone in mind that would play your part in the movie version?

In any case, I've decided not to play "tag" with you or any other
believer. I strongly feel the WCR was pre-determined the day after Oswald
was killed, as evidenced by Katzenbach's memo - undoubtedly drafted by LBJ
and J. Edgar Hoover. Additionally and ironically, you, of all people, have
been committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy of logic for years by
using the WCR as evidence.

As for the proximity of the Tippit shooting and Ruby's apartment, British
believer Patrick Collins claims to have had a minor assignment on the
Tippit murder by means of his fellow Englishman Nigel Turner during the
1980s filming of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Patrick admits, albeit
reluctantly, the distance was no more than a block and a half - despite
Google Maps. (Google is a wonderful tool, but not always 100% accurate.)
Further, an extremely learned individual on this topic using the name
"Spearman" from the now defunct Amazon JFK forums claimed he actually
paced the distance and said, "As the crow flies it's roughly 50 yards,"
which was why I said, "About half a football field." ... If you're still
not convinced, next time you're in Dallas I respectfully suggest you see
for yourself.

In reality however, it wouldn't matter to you if Tippit was killed on
Ruby's doorstep, as you'd surely have an excuse - regardless of how
nonsensical.. You twisted the "I'm just a patsy" remark by combining it
with Oswald's following statement of being arrested because he spent time
in the Soviet Union - although he had been back for 18 months and his only
known police encounter was from a street altercation in New Orleans. You
defended the missing footage from the Zapruder film that didn't show the
presidential limo until it was several yards onto Elm Street, by
speculating "Maybe Zapruder was low on film and saving it for one of his
grandchildren's birthday parties." .... Actually, I've seen the Z-film
without that particular missing footage on YouTube and there's a good
reason why a few seconds were removed. And among numerous other dubious
excuses you've made, you echoed Hoover (the FBI's former director, not the
vacuum cleaner) by blaming a "printing error" as the cause of JFK's body
originally going forward instead of backwards after frame Z313... It says
a great deal about your bias that with over 400 frames the "printing
error" just happened to take place at the exact time of the fatal head
shot.... Shame on you.

And you have no right whatsoever to matter-of-factly state what was or
wasn't going on in any aspect of this matter, like the timing of Ruby's
arrival to kill Oswald, for example. You're not doing yourself or your
credibility any favors by inventing scenarios or dismissing plausible
possibilities in order to justify your beliefs.

Your shtick is also replete with half-truths such as witnesses identifying
Oswald at the 6th floor window while they were at street level. Howard
Brennan's description, as you well-know, was considerably off, he didn't
notice the telescopic sight on the rifle and didn't pick Oswald in the
police's line-up - if there even was one.

I could go on for a while with substantial & valid evidence why Oswald
would have easily been exonerated had there been a trial, and therefore
had to silenced. I never said he didn't know or communicate with the
perpetrators of the assassination. Thus, it's pointless to continue
debating this subject until considerably more classified information is
made public, and in an unredacted form - unless national security is truly
at risk - and I can't imagine how it would be at this point.

If you're looking for Ben, you'll find him at alt.conspiracy.jfk

May the forensics be with you!

btw, it's Mt. Sinai, not Sanai

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy

I've never said otherwise. Don't try to assign the constructed OIC or
"Saintly Oswald" narratives on me. The argument isn't, and has never been,
Oswald's innocence vs. guilt; it has always been "sole guilt" vs.
"conspiracy."

>
> You can't be guilty and 'set up'. And you just admitted Oswald was guilty.

Really? That's your "gotcha"?

>
> Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
> or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
> Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
> evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
> admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
> because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
> reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
> was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?

You are twisting my words around in your typical fashion. I didn't say
there was a roll call, I said he was *wanted* because of a roll call...as
in, "roll call" was the reason given. And then I said it was the reasoning

given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony.

HILL: And I asked [Fritz] why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was
employed down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a
roll call of the employees."

And if you'd chosen not to OMIT important information from Lane's chapter
in order to frame your narrative, we would know this is not the only
source to cite "roll call" as a reason:

"Captain W. P. Gannaway, the officer in charge of the Dallas Police
Department Special Service Bureau, offered a similar explanation. He said
that Oswald's description was broadcast because he was missing from a
'roll call' of Book Depository employees. 'He was the only one who didn't
show up and couldn't be accounted for,' Gannaway said."

BUT, as you pointed out, Lane notes there was no such roll call, and I
rather suspect that's the point. His chapter is a critique of the suspect
reasoning provided, because he then contrasts it with the reasoning Curry
gives...

"Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be considered the authority on the
question of why the Dallas police wanted Oswald, said that Oswald became a
suspect 'after the police had found on the sixth floor the rifle they
believed was the assassination weapon'. That explanation is equally
unacceptable, since the broadcast was prior to 12.45 and the rifle was not
discovered until 1.22 p.m."

And D.A. Wade...

"A police officer, immediately after the assassination, ran in the
building and saw this man [Oswald] in a corner and started to arrest him,
but the manager of the building said that he was an employee and was all
right. Every other employee was located but this defendant, of the
company. A description and name of him went out by police to look for
him."

And Lane never said "Oswald" was mentioned over any radio call, so I'm not
going to argue false claims with you. What Lane is doing here is asking
questions (LNers should try this sometime), and calling the chapter a
strawman argument is a deliberate misinterpretation on your part, because
each admission is all there in print, for any reader who chooses to
approach Lane non-prejudicially.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Unlike you I am a real researcher who has met hundreds of other real
> persons at conferences and worked with both sides.

Pay attention, I didn't say you weren't a researcher. I said you weren't a
critic. Critics don't scoff at the scientific anomalies of this case and
or/deny there are any, or work "both sides" as if the "Oswald alone"
narrative has any credence whatsoever outside of anyone who gets their
information from sources other than the Discovery Channel. You are the
"pet critic" of this forum who does nothing but lob softballs, such as
"Oswald only ducked into the theater because he was being followed." And
that's why they love you just the way you are. Drain the Marsh.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/26/2019 2:37 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Friday, February 22, 2019 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straw man argument. Tippit was not looking for anybody.
>>> He saw a strange and stopped him.
>>
>> A stranger "matching" Oswald. Strange.
>>
>
> What's strange about numerous witnesses observing a white male in the
> sixth floor window shortly before or during the shooting and then a
> description of a white male going out over the police radio about fifteen
> minutes after the shooting?
>

Who you got for your "numerous"? One or two.
Did you learn this trick from your buddy Trump where he heard Alex Jones
say something stupid and then he claims that MANY PEOPLE SAY?

> What's strange about the white male's description corresponding somewhat
> to the description of the guy whose rifle was later found on the sixth
> floor?
>

Who? Owning a gun is not proof that he fired it.
Why do I have to keep reminding you of cases where someone else stole
someone's gun and used it to murder someone?

> Apparently you expect none of this to tie together. You've apparently been

Depends on what you use to tie things. As a prosecutor you are required
to consider exculpatory evidence. As a WC defefender you are trained to
leap to conclusions without evidence.

> reading about 'loose ends' in the assassination literature so much you
> don't even recognize when things match because the evidence is there for
> them to match.
>

You refuse to look at the evidence.
Verdict first, trial never.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, I see how it works. One of McAdams minions is allowed to use the
word "stupid" but I am not because I'm on the other side.

You have to remember that these Russian bots have access to a complete
archive of the messages that most of the WC defenders are not smart
enough to find. He may even be able to cut and paste the unusual
punctuation.

[Anthony Marsh]

> the p=liceman."

BUT, are you good enough to respond to his post before it appears here?

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you know what an APB is? Do you have access to the DPD transcripts?
Can you see that the DPD put out an APB on Givens?
Why not the same on Oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

Well thanks. Now I can smell it from here.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2019 10:24 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Questions, please: How did Oswald *know* he was setup?
>

Because a cop pulled a gun on him.

> Because he was complicit. Not innocent. His presence and subsequent
> actions in the theater prove that.
>

No, silly. He had just killed a cop.

[John McAdams]

On 28 Feb 2019 09:52:38 -0500, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>>
>>> And now I'm going to cut out the rest of your post, because it's so
>>> repetitive that it borders on senility. But you'll claim I didn't address
>>> your points, because I only addressed them once rather than five or six
>>> times, and that's as expected.
>>
>> Does anyone else notice just how much "Boris" sounds like Holmes at times?
>> Just sayin'!
>>
>
>
>You have to remember that these Russian bots have access to a complete
>archive of the messages that most of the WC defenders are not smart
>enough to find. He may even be able to cut and paste the unusual
>punctuation.
>

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/26/2019 8:20 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> == QUOTE ==
>> Questions, please: How did Oswald *know* he was setup?
>
> Because he was complicit. Not innocent. His presence and subsequent
> actions in the theater prove that.
> == UNQUOTE==
>
> If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy as
> much as any mastermind pulling the strings behind the scenes or the person
> whose finger was on the trigger of the weapon that fired the fatal shot
> that struck the President in the head. Or for that matter, one of the 14
> other gunmen in Dealey Plaza who all missed the limousine entirely, and
> those gunmen in Chicago and Miami that never got the opportunity.
>
> You can't be guilty and 'set up'. And you just admitted Oswald was guilty.

Sure you can. You can be part of the bank robbery team and get left
behind. You can be told to do something and not know it is part of a
conspiracy.

>
> Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
> or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
> Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
> evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
> admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
> because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
> reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
> was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?
>

Oswald was not wanted that early. Only after several TSBD employees were
questioned and Truly noticed that Oswald was not there. Same as Givens.
Maybe Oswald was locked out and couldn't get in like Givens. At least he
wasn't smoking dope with his buddies.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2019 3:29 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, Natasha wrote:
>> The major and consistant problem with WC believers such as Henry Seinzant
>> is they've rarely, if ever, had an original thought.
>

> Wow. Start of with ad hominem. It's obvious you've been reading "How to
> Make Friends and Influence People" again. FYI: It's Sienzant. You can
> call me Hank.
>
>

>> If it's not mentioned
>> in the WR, it's blasphemous to think otherwise as far as they're
>> concerned.
>

> Why does your phraseology suggest biblical and religious overtones? Do you
> really think I decided to wake up one day and just believe whatever the
> Warren COmmission concluded as if it was handed down from God on Mount
> Sanai? I didn't.
>

I don't think that you ever woke up.
I think that you were so scared by conspiracy that you had to believe
the lies of the WC. Maybe you'r allergic to atomic fallout.

> I was a conspiracy believer in the 1960s, having read the Warren
> Commission Report along with a few dozen different conspiracy oriented
> books. Throught the 1970s, I read everything related to the JFK
> assassination I could get my nands on. In the early 1980s I couldn't make

But never filed even one FOIA for the internal WC files.

> sense of it all and I started visiting on evenings and weekends my nearest
> big city library, which had the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission
> evidence and testimony. I bought a set of the 26 volumes from the
> President's Box Bookshop for $2500. I also bought, from the GPO, a set of
> the HSCA volumes on the JFK assassination and their final report too.
>
> It was only after twice reading through the WR volumes and HSCA volumes,
> that I stopped being a conspiracy believer. The evidence doesn't support
> it. I am an evidence believer, not a Warren Report believer.
>

I seriously doubt that. It was probably after you read Posner or Bugliosi
and realized that it really was a conspiracy and you saw the evidence of
conspiracy for yourself. Maybe after you saw the leaked autopsy photos.

>> Oswald knew he was set up and the authorities would be looking
>> for him, hence having the cabbie drive past his rooming house.
>

> Okay, Natasha. Tell us how Oswald knew this within ten or 15 minutes of
> the assassination. If the President was assassinated outside my place of

Knew what? The names of all the conspirators?

> work, I would hang around and want to know what happened. Ask questions of

No, silly. Not if you had a 201 file with the CIA and you knew the FBI
had been looking for you.

> my fellow employees, see what was transpiring. Not Oswald. He left the

Well, he talked to the secretary and she thought the President had not
been killed. BTW, do you happen to rememember that Oswald had shot at
General Walker? He would not want to be questioned about that. Maybe the
DPD was too stupid to link the mangled bullet to his rifle, but the FBI
could do it in 5 seconds.

Oswald was a known criminal, but the FBI couldn't find him.

> building in less than three minutes, had no questions for anyone, took a
> bus and a cab to get to his rooming house to get his revolver.
>

False. He talked to the secretary. Who knew within three minutes if the
President was alive or dead? Names please.

> If I suspected I was being set up for murder, I wouldn't go get a gun,

Well, hopefully that's because you are not paranoid.

When I noticed that my rooming house was being staked out, I got off the
bus a few blocks away and snuck in through the basement and called my
father to have him pick me up at the shopping center. When the cop was
asked in court why I wasn't apprehended he said they could never locate
me. The Judge was too stupid to ask, "Is Mr. Marsh present in this court"
as he should have. I was sitting in the back row next to the door. Two
steps and I could have said, "No, your honor."

> which makes me look more guilty. I'd walk into a newspaper or TV office
> and start talking to the nearest reporter. Or get a good lawyer and have

Oh, YOU would, eh? You wouldn't make it that far. You would have been
shot immediately.

> me represent me and walk into the nearest police station and start talking
> to the cops.
>

Without a lawyer?

> What would you do, and why do you think Oswald went to the rooming house
> to get his revolver?
>

Because he was paranoid and he knew they were out to get him. Do YOU have
201 file at the CIA? Have you been arrested before? Is the FBI constantly
looking for you?

Are you calmly drinking a Coke at work when a cop comes in and puts a gun
to your stomach?

Is all this normal for every person? Or are you just like Oswald? You
can't even answer ONE of these questions? Maybe you've never even been
asaulted by a cop or threatened. You lead a perfect, sheltered life where
nothing bad ever happens. Pollyanna World.

> And separate from how Oswald concluded he was being set up and his actions
> post-assassination, there's the problem of the evidence recovered in the
> Depository. How did Oswald's rifle happen to show up on the same floor
> numerous witnesses outside the building happened to see a white male
> shooter? Why did numerous witnesses describe the shooter in terms that fit
> Oswald?
>

Numerous?
What exactly did they see? Someone at a window. Black, white, bald,
whatever. Not Oswald.

>
>
>>
>> Additionally, the entire Tippit shooting couldn't smell more fishy. Aside
>> from it taking place less than a football field from Ruby's apartment (not
>> mentioned in the WR),
>

> Maybe because it's not true. Google maps shows the shortest route is .4
> miles. A football field is 120 yards (including both endzones).
> Four-tenths of a mile is about four times as long, 704 yards. Even
> allowing for the pretense that Oswald could fly there, instead of walking
> along the sidewalks, it would still be over 500 yards away, more than four
> times the football field you reference as a yardstick.
>
>
>

>> there were what, roughly 10 people in the immediate
>> area that saw Tippit's police car stop, yet didn't see whomever shot him?
>> ... Why not? Were there so many more interesting things going in Oak Grove
>

> Oak Cliff.

>
>
>> at that moment which caused all those people not to observe a police car
>> pulling over to question a person or persons in a quiet neighborhood?
>

> Well, most people were in their homes or not particularly interested. The
> Davis sisters, for instance, were inside their home and only went to the
> door when they heard gunshots. The cab driver, William Scoggins, was in
> the process of eating his lunch in the general vicinity. Some of the other
> witnesses (there are 21 who gave testimony or statements) worked in the
> area but not within view of 10th and Patton. People like Warren Reynolds
> and Ted Callaway. They only saw the gunman flee. What exactly is your
> point here? That because a witness didn't observe the entire interaction
> play out they are somehow questionable? Most people would hear gunshots
> and look for the source. That's what happened here. I fail to see what's
> 'fishy' about that.
>
>
>>

>> There was also a witness near the shooting who told the police he "wasn't
>> good at identifying people". Really? In other words, had Tippit's shooter
>> been a midget clown with orange hair, that particular witness would have
>> remained silent?
>

> Straw man argument. He didn't say that. Read it yourself.
>
> == QUOTE ==
>
> Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two
> officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them
> that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying
> to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
>
> Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the
> President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been
> shot I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and
> these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told
> him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could
> identify him, and I said I don't think I could. At this time I was sure --
> I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify
> and go down and couldn't have.
> Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you
> could identify him?
> Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
> == UNQUOTE ==
>
> He said "I wasn't sure that I could [identify him] or not." He didn't say
> what you claimed he said.
>
>
>>

>> My advice to all believers, aka excuse makers, is to visit the Emerald
>> City and ask the Wizard for an imagination.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/25/2019 3:31 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 7:33:59 PM UTC-5, Natasha wrote:
>> The major and consistant problem with WC believers such as Henry Seinzant> is they've rarely, if ever, had an original thought.
>

> Once you know the truth, originality is not required.

>
>> If it's not mentioned
>> in the WR, it's blasphemous to think otherwise as far as they're

>> concerned. Oswald knew he was set up and the authorities would be looking

>> for him, hence having the cabbie drive past his rooming house.
>>
>

> There actually have been enhancements to the conclusions of the WC. It's
> not widely accepted among LNs that the first shot was almost certainly the
> one that missed, something the WC could not reach a definite conclusion

Well, that's a very good guess, but it's not a proven fact for all WC
defenders.

> about. We have also narrowed down the instant the single bullet struck
> from a 3/4 second time frame as specified by the WC to a 1/4 second time
> frame. That's about 4 possible frames. All of us have different opinions
> about which of those 4 frames the bullet struck, but it has been narrowed
> down quite a bit.
>

OK, that's good. So you have no hard evidence, but you have some
theories. Good for you.

>> Additionally, the entire Tippit shooting couldn't smell more fishy. Aside
>> from it taking place less than a football field from Ruby's apartment
>

> Cite?
>

http://harveyandlee.net/November/10th%20Street%20Map%20-%20Tippit%20murder%20Holan%20included.jpg

BTW, how far away was Oswald from the CIA safe house?

>> (not
>> mentioned in the WR), there were what, roughly 10 people in the immediate

>> area that saw Tippit's police car stop, yet didn't see whomever shot him?
>

> You are exaggerating.

>
>
>> ... Why not? Were there so many more interesting things going in Oak Grove

>> at that moment which caused all those people not to observe a police car
>> pulling over to question a person or persons in a quiet neighborhood?
>>

>> There was also a witness near the shooting who told the police he "wasn't
>> good at identifying people". Really? In other words, had Tippit's shooter
>> been a midget clown with orange hair, that particular witness would have
>> remained silent?
>>

>> My advice to all believers, aka excuse makers, is to visit the Emerald
>> City and ask the Wizard for an imagination.
>

> Imagination is required to believe in conspiracies in the assassination of
> JFK because there is no evidence of one.
>
>


Isn't that where the SBT was born?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

He said that where, Tony? To whom? In which interrogation session?

Oh, you're guilty of making it up? That's what I thought.

Please present the evidence "Oswald left the building because some cop
pointed a gun at him". We'll wait forever for you to substantiate this.
Because you can't.

>
> > co-workers? To inquire about exactly what occurred? Again, how would he
>
> He did talk to one secretary and found out that the president had been
> shot.

Another falsehood. She tried to talk to him and told him the President
might have been struck with an assassination's bullet. He didn't respond
with anything intelligible. He didn't stop and try to have a conversation
with Mrs. Reid. He just kept walking. You don't even know that he heard
what she said correctly.

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in
the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several
feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they
didn't hit him."

He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too.

Reid said the President may not have been struck. She didn't say he was
definitely shot. Oswald didn't in any manner acknowledge he understood her
comment or that her information was previously unknown to him (he could
have observed all that, and known more about what wounds the President
suffered from behind the iron sights of the Mannlicher-Carcano he brought
to the Sniper's nest that day).

> He didn't need to stick around for yearss to find out about the
> SBT.

Straw man. He didn't stick around for even five minutes to find out
whether the President was struck or not. Fatally or not. He left the
building, according to the WC reconstruction, by 12:33 -- three minutes
after the assassination. He asked no one any questions, he said nothing to
anyone, and he didn't bother to ask anyone if the President even went by
yet.

Reid, after all, didn't say the President was struck in Dealey Plaza. He
could have been shot earlier in the motorcade, and Reid could have learned
about it from a transistor radio.

> He had to get home to get his gun to protect himself.

Why, Tony? To protect himself from what, if he was an innocent person who
was eating his lunch inside the building at the time of the shooting?

> Of course you
> would say that NO ONE has the right to protect himself. We should all
> calmly walk into the gas chamber.

Straw man argument.

>
> > know he was setup? For what? Nobody knew what happened. But he knew he was
> > going to be blamed for what exactly?
> >
> > Instead of staying, he immediately walks seven blocks up the street to
> > catch a bus. Does he tell people on the bus, "Something awful has
> > happened, the president's been shot!" No he says nothing.
> >
> > The bus is caught up in traffic and he leaves - why? - to get a cab. The
> > cab starts to leave when police cars go flying by. Does he tell the cab
> > driver about the shooting? No.
> >
> > He goes to his rooming house and while the landlady/housekeeper is
> > watching television SHOWS NO INTEREST in what was on. Is he interested in
>
> Oswald was not a fan of soap operas.

Soap operas weren't on at the time. They had been interrupted to start the
process of showing everything JFK assassination related for the next three
days, through the funeral of JFK. Oswald didn't even stop and ask Earlene
Roberts what happened. What the latest news was. Whether the President was
struck or not. Whether the President was dead or alive.

> How many times did he watch that TV?

At least on occasion, according to his housekeeper:

Mr. BALL. Did he watch television?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---in a way---but all he did ever watch the television was
if someone in the other rooms had it on, maybe he would come and stand at
the back of the couch---not over 5 minutes and go to his room and shut the
door and never say a word.

>
> > finding out what happened to the president? No, he changes his shirt and
> > apparently gets his revolver.
> >
> > Then, again showing no interest in what happened, goes to a movie. I'll
> > cut it short here and leave out the rest.
> >
>
> Silly, he only ducked into the thearter because he was being followed.

Mind-reading again? Oswald told this to whom, when? In what interrogation
sesssion did he mention this? Oh, you're making this up too!

I get it. When stuck, just make up stuff you have no way of knowing.

> We don't know where he was headed. Maybe the local CIA safe house.

Terrible guess. Was he even cognizant of where the nearest CIA safe house
was? You've certainly presented no evidence of that.

General Walker's home is a better guess. He knew where General Walker
lived (photos of General Walker's home was found among his possessions,
taken with his camera). He had shot at General Walker previously. He had -
and the literature he subscribed to had - compared Walker to Hitler.
Marina testified that Oswald made the argument to Marina that Walker was
like Hitler, and the world would have been a better place if Hitler had
been killed.

Oswald wasn't going to be free long, having just murdered the President of
the free world and, if he remained free for any more than a day somehow,
was going to be the most wanted man on the planet.

Having tried to murder Walker in the past, why would he have any compunction
about finishing the job? Why wouldn't he be heading there next?

>
> > To summarize, then: How did he know he was setup for something that nobody
> > at that time knew occurred?
> >
> >
>
>
> Major shooting and the only person the cops pull a gun on is him.

And he was cleared as a suspect (for the moment) when his supervisor said
'he works here'. He was there for that exchange. Why would he suspect he
was set up? Did he know his rifle would be found on the sixth floor? How?
Did he somehow know it was used in the assassination? How? Did he know
there even was an assassination attempt? How? How does he go from "the
President might have been shot somewhere in Dallas" (the most he could
know from what Reid said) to "I'm very quickly going to be the chief
suspect and am being set up for this. I need to go get my gun and start
shooting anyone who tries to arrest me to prove I'm not the kind of guy
that would shoot people in cold blood."

Can you walk us through your logic there, Tony? Nice and slow, and present
the evidence for each step of the way? Can you do that for us?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You can't be set up if you're guilty of firing either all, some, or only
one of the shots. It doesn't work that way. You are as guilty as every
other gunman and every other conspirator. If a bank teller or security
guard is shot and killed by a bank robber, the guy waiting outside the
bank waiting as the driver of the getaway car is as guilty of conspiracy
to commit murder as the guy in the bank who pulled the trigger -- even if
they all agreed in advance no one would be shot. All conspirators in a
criminal conspiracy are as guilty of any and all criminal acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy even if they were nowhere in the area.

For example, in the trial of Clay Shaw, Shaw and Ferry weren't in Dallas
at the time of the assassination. Both were charged as part of a
conspiracy - with Oswald, the only other named conspirator in the
indictment - with conspiracy to assassinate the President. Garrison didn't
prove his case, but the indictment establishes that what I'm saying is
true -- you can't set up a guilty man.

If Oswald fired any shots at the president - and you seem to be admitting
he did - he can't be a patsy. He's a guilty co-conspirator.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 10:27:16 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
...

> Does anyone else notice just how much "Boris" sounds like Holmes at times?
> Just sayin'!

I've remarked on that on a number of occasions in this thread. First time
here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0/lRe9vwE_FwAJ

All that's missing is the name-calling of "Liar!" and "Coward!"

Otherwise, you can't tell them apart.

And he keeps pointing me to Holmes posts elsewhere and says if I don't
respond there, I'm ducking Holmes. I didn't realize he was Holmes errand
boy, relaying Holmes wishes where Holmes won't go.

Hank

[Mitch Todd]

> As for the proximity of the Tippit shooting and Ruby's apartment, British
> believer Patrick Collins claims to have had a minor assignment on the
> Tippit murder by means of his fellow Englishman Nigel Turner during the
> 1980s filming of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Patrick admits, albeit
> reluctantly, the distance was no more than a block and a half - despite
> Google Maps. (Google is a wonderful tool, but not always 100% accurate.)
> Further, an extremely learned individual on this topic using the name
> "Spearman" from the now defunct Amazon JFK forums claimed he actually
> paced the distance and said, "As the crow flies it's roughly 50 yards,"
> which was why I said, "About half a football field." ... If you're still
> not convinced, next time you're in Dallas I respectfully suggest you see
> for yourself.

Have done that myself. Google (and Bing, and Mapsco, and Mapquest) is
correct. It's about a half mile worth of roadway from 400 10th St to
Ruby's place on S Ewing. "Spearman" is either misinformed about Ruby's
apartment, or he simply lied to you.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Straw man. I never said I was a "staunch believer in the WCR". That's a
mischaracterization by you of what I said. I do believe they got some
things right, but I believe they got some things wrong as well -- off the
top of my head: the Odio incident, the car dealership incident on Veterans
Day, and Arnold Rowland's testimony. But that's for another time and
place, but not with you, especially since you say you don't want to
discuss this further. I decided on my own, by examining the published
evidence contained in the 26 volumes that the conspiracy authors were
taking evidence out of context, misinterpreting evidence, leaving key
evidence out in trying to make a case for conspiracy. I would have decided
Oswald was the guilty party - from the evidence I saw - even if the Warren
Commission had decided Oswald was framed and a conspiracy had killed JFK.

> I wish you had
> mentioned 2 or 3 major factors causing that change, however... Do you have
> anyone in mind that would play your part in the movie version?
>

There wasn't one or two things... It was everything. As I read through the
testimony, it struck me how much different an impression the witnesses
testimony left than the snippets contained in conspiracy books. For
example, many of the men on the overpass heard only three shots, but
thought all the shots came from the knoll. None of the conspiracy books
mention that detail about the three shots, which agrees with the vast bulk
of the other witnesses.

Numerous conspiracy books quote Connally saying the shots were so rapid he
thought it was automatic rifle fire, but none of those books quote his
saying he thought there were three shots that occurred over ten to twelve
seconds.

The first couple of times I came across discrepancies like this, I
dismissed them as simple errors on the part of the authors. But when a
pattern emerged of the authors downplaying or ignoring anything pointing
to Oswald, and stressing anything pointing away fromOswald, I started to
see the books for what they really were - not the honest search for the
truth in the JFK assassination, but books written to play up the
possibility of a conspiracy. Saying the government investigation got it
right isn't noteworthy and doesn't sell books. Saying there's a coverup
and a conspiracy and the government investigation got it wrong gets
attention and sells books.

> In any case, I've decided not to play "tag" with you or any other
> believer.

Of course you don't want to do that. You can't support your views with
evidence.

> I strongly feel the WCR was pre-determined the day after Oswald
> was killed, as evidenced by Katzenbach's memo - undoubtedly drafted by LBJ
> and J. Edgar Hoover.

This is not about 'feelings - yours or mine. This is about the evidence. I
note you cite no evidence in support of your feelings expressed above. You
just tell us your unsupported opinion. Nobody cares about your opinion.
It's meaningless. What evidence can you cite to support your opinion?
That's where the nitty gritty is.

> Additionally and ironically, you, of all people, have
> been committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy of logic for years by
> using the WCR as evidence.

False. I have not once cited a Warren Commission Report conclusion as the
basis for anything I have concluded. On the contrary, I have on numerous
occasions cited the eyewitness testimony and the expert testimony, as well
as hard evidence as the basis for my conclusions.

>
> As for the proximity of the Tippit shooting and Ruby's apartment, British
> believer Patrick Collins claims to have had a minor assignment on the
> Tippit murder by means of his fellow Englishman Nigel Turner during the
> 1980s filming of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Patrick admits, albeit
> reluctantly, the distance was no more than a block and a half - despite
> Google Maps. (Google is a wonderful tool, but not always 100% accurate.)
> Further, an extremely learned individual on this topic using the name
> "Spearman" from the now defunct Amazon JFK forums claimed he actually
> paced the distance and said, "As the crow flies it's roughly 50 yards,"
> which was why I said, "About half a football field." ... If you're still
> not convinced, next time you're in Dallas I respectfully suggest you see
> for yourself.

Hilarious! Seriously, you're funny. I can ignore street view in Google
maps and other maps of Dallas, and instead trust some people I don't know,
one of them anonymous. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Find me one
cartographer who claims it's 50 yards from 10th and Patton to Ruby's
apartment on South Ewing.

Spearman (and you) appear to contradict yourselves. You claim he *paced*
the distance, but don't give that walked distance. Instead, he (and you)
give the supposed straight line distance ('as the crow flies') somehow
determined by pacing the distance. Can you you explain how this 'extremely
learned individual' Spearman determined the straight line distance by
actually walking the not-straight street path route?

I'm going to wager you can't. I'm also going to wager you won't be able to
explain how you determined this anonymous Spearman was an 'extremely
learned individual' (except because he agrees with you, so ergo, he must
be). Of course, all that demonstrates is your bias here. A massive
multi-billion dollar company that sends cars on the road to create street
views of nearly every street in the U.S. can't be trusted to get something
as simple as the walking distance between two points correct, but some
anonymous poster on the internet who supposedly paces the walk, then gives
-- not that distance -- but the computed straight line distance without
showing his work is believable. Yeah, right.

In any case, the straight line distance isn't meaningful unless you're
claiming Oswald was going to sprout wings and fly to Ruby's apartment.
Neither measurement isn't meaningful unless you demonstrate Oswald was
going to Ruby's apartment, which you have yet to do. You seem to be
getting ahead of yourself.

>
> In reality however, it wouldn't matter to you if Tippit was killed on
> Ruby's doorstep, as you'd surely have an excuse - regardless of how
> nonsensical..

Unless you're posting under an alias and we've interacted in the past, you
appear more than content to just assume the worst about me - rather
curious behavior for someone you've just met. Have we interacted before?
If so, where, and under what name were you posting? Were you in fact
posting as the 'extremely learned individual' known as 'Spearman'?

> You twisted the "I'm just a patsy" remark by combining it
> with Oswald's following statement of being arrested because he spent time
> in the Soviet Union - although he had been back for 18 months and his only
> known police encounter was from a street altercation in New Orleans. You
> defended the missing footage from the Zapruder film that didn't show the
> presidential limo until it was several yards onto Elm Street, by
> speculating "Maybe Zapruder was low on film and saving it for one of his
> grandchildren's birthday parties." .... Actually, I've seen the Z-film
> without that particular missing footage on YouTube and there's a good
> reason why a few seconds were removed. And among numerous other dubious
> excuses you've made, you echoed Hoover (the FBI's former director, not the
> vacuum cleaner) by blaming a "printing error" as the cause of JFK's body
> originally going forward instead of backwards after frame Z313... It says
> a great deal about your bias that with over 400 frames the "printing
> error" just happened to take place at the exact time of the fatal head
> shot.... Shame on you.

Ok, it's apparent you have interacted with me before, as I double highly
you would remember much of what I said in the past on the Amazon boards if
you were some random lurker. You butcher a lot of the above claims of what
I actually said, but much of that is recognizable as stuff I did discuss
on the Amazon forums with Spearman and a few others. So why not out
yourself already?

>
> And you have no right whatsoever to matter-of-factly state what was or
> wasn't going on in any aspect of this matter, like the timing of Ruby's
> arrival to kill Oswald, for example. You're not doing yourself or your
> credibility any favors by inventing scenarios or dismissing plausible
> possibilities in order to justify your beliefs.

If you've got some rebuttal evidence to anything I said, quote what I said
and post your rebuttal evidence here. But your supposed summaries of my
claims made a few years ago on another forum carry no weight here.

>
> Your shtick is also replete with half-truths such as witnesses identifying
> Oswald at the 6th floor window while they were at street level. Howard
> Brennan's description, as you well-know, was considerably off, he didn't
> notice the telescopic sight on the rifle and didn't pick Oswald in the
> police's line-up - if there even was one.

I said elsewhere that numerous witnesses described the sniper's nest
gunman in terms that fit Oswald. Do you disagree with that assessment? If
so, why and where? Be specific.

I also said elsewhere than 'Lone Nutters' (I dislike that term) don't
credit Brennan's on-again, off-again ID of Oswald as the way you
mischaracterize it above. I don't think anyone ever said that Brennan's
testimony was sufficent to identify the rifle, so why you're quoting his
failure to recall a telescopic sight is beyond me. What has been claim is
that Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor and other evidence up there give
credence to his being the source of the description at 12:45.

>
> I could go on for a while with substantial & valid evidence why Oswald
> would have easily been exonerated had there been a trial, and therefore
> had to silenced.

No, you can't. Not least because there is no such evidence, but because
you've already said you have no intention of going toe-to-toe and debating
the case with me or any other "Oswald killed JFK alone and unaided"
believer (I dislike the other terms immensely).

> I never said he didn't know or communicate with the
> perpetrators of the assassination.

What did you say?

> Thus, it's pointless to continue
> debating this subject until considerably more classified information is
> made public, and in an unredacted form - unless national security is truly
> at risk - and I can't imagine how it would be at this point.
>

Yeah, that was Spearman's schtick on the Amazon forums. It's becoming more
clear why you cited him as an 'extremely learned individual'. As I pointed
out previously to the 'extremely learned individual' known as 'Spearman',
there's relatively little that's still redacted, and it's absurd to think
it's going to contain some smoking gun that will overturn all the
accumulated evidence indicating Oswald committed the assassination alone
and unaided. I also pointed out to 'Spearman' how his claiming not be
able to imagine how National Security could be at stake is the logical
fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

> If you're looking for Ben, you'll find him at alt.conspiracy.jfk

I'm not. Why would I be? If he wants to debate this with me, he knows
where to find me.



>

> May the forensics be with you!
>

No worries. They are.

> btw, it's Mt. Sinai, not Sanai

OMG! A spelling error! What's the penalty for that here?

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I see you snipped a lot of the points I made. I can only presume you're
doing so because you can't rebut them.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 11:06:01 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy
>
> I've never said otherwise.

You claimed he was set up. Which makes no sense. Any conspirator is as
guilty as any other.

> Don't try to assign the constructed OIC or
> "Saintly Oswald" narratives on me. The argument isn't, and has never been,
> Oswald's innocence vs. guilt; it has always been "sole guilt" vs.
> "conspiracy."

No, it's not. Numerous CTs here and everywhere have argued for Oswald's
innocence. You don't get to pretend this is only about your claims. It's
about Lane's claims. Lane has argued for Oswald's innocence repeatedly,
not least in his initial writing on this subject, in "A BRIEF FOR THE
DEFENSE".

You can see it here: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html

You can see the same Straw Man Arguments being pulled by Lane in his point
one there. He quotes Henry Wade as saying the gunman was seen by witnesses
outside the Depository, but Lane changes that to argue that Oswald wasn't
identified by witnesses outside the building. Those are two distinctly
different claims, and in arguing against his own straw man, he doesn't lay
a glove on Wade's actual claim that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
Depository.

>
> >
> > You can't be guilty and 'set up'. And you just admitted Oswald was guilty.
>
> Really? That's your "gotcha"?

Yes. You claimed Oswald was set up. Can't be if he's guilty of conspiracy.

>
> >
> > Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
> > or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
> > Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
> > evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
> > admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
> > because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
> > reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
> > was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?
>
>
> You are twisting my words around in your typical fashion. I didn't say
> there was a roll call, I said he was *wanted* because of a roll call...as
> in, "roll call" was the reason given. And then I said it was the reasoning
> given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony.

You did say there was a roll call. And you did say, in defending Lane,
that was why Oswald was wanted: "Oswald was wanted because he was missing

from roll call, and it's really that simple."

Nothing in there about the roll call not really happening. Nothing in
there about the roll call being an erroneous claim by the police.

It was pointed out to you that "Lane actually asks, in the second

paragraph in that chapter, "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at
least a half hour before Tippit was shot?"

Part of your response was "Oswald was wanted because he was missing from

roll call, and it's really that simple."

You claimed there was a roll call, and you claimed that explained why
Oswald was wanted, and that explained why Lane said Oswald was wanted.

I'm not even asking you to defend your silly claims. I'm asking you to
defend Lane's. Lane said Oswald was wanted at 12:45 or before when he
wrote, "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour
before Tippit was shot?"

The Warren Commission said Tippit was shot at about 1:15pm. You tried to
argue it was earlier than that, which makes Lane's claim harder to defend.
If the shooting happened at 1:07. not 1:15, then Lane's claim is that
Oswald was wanted at 12:37, not 12:45.

I'm awaiting the evidence Oswald was wanted at either of those times. You
have yet to provide any.

You initially tried to claim the roll call was the evidence, but you're
now admitting that there was no roll call, hence, you can't use the roll
call to support Lane's claim. So what does support Lane's claim?

Do you have anything?

>
> HILL: And I asked [Fritz] why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was
> employed down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a
> roll call of the employees."

We both admit this is wrong. As does Lane. And the Warren Commission never
said there was a roll call either. So on what basis is Lane claiming
Oswald was wanted when he asks, "Why then did the Dallas police want

Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was shot?"


>

> And if you'd chosen not to OMIT important information from Lane's chapter
> in order to frame your narrative, we would know this is not the only
> source to cite "roll call" as a reason:

A reason for what? That Oswald was wanted. Oswald wasn't wanted. You
haven't shown he was. Neither did Lane. There was no roll call. You
admitted as much. I pointed out to you Lane admitted as much. I also
pointed out the Warren Report never used the words 'roll call' at any
time. Lane's claim that Oswald was wanted is a straw man argument.

>
> "Captain W. P. Gannaway, the officer in charge of the Dallas Police
> Department Special Service Bureau, offered a similar explanation. He said
> that Oswald's description was broadcast because he was missing from a
> 'roll call' of Book Depository employees. 'He was the only one who didn't
> show up and couldn't be accounted for,' Gannaway said."

Gannaway was wrong, as there was no roll call. Right?

>
> BUT, as you pointed out, Lane notes there was no such roll call, and I
> rather suspect that's the point. His chapter is a critique of the suspect
> reasoning provided, because he then contrasts it with the reasoning Curry
> gives...

His book is supposedly "A critique of the Warren Commission's inquiry in

the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J.D.Tippit, and Lee

Harvey Oswald" (at least, that's the subtitle of the book).

Since the Warren Commission never said there was a roll call, why is Lane
examining the statements of random police officers who gave hearsay
statements about what transpired and knocking them down? That's
meaningless, as we all agree there was no roll call and the officers were
wrong.

More importantly, why did Lane say Oswald was wanted, as he did in the
chapter title "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED" and here, when he asked, "Why then

did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was
shot?"

Can you defend that statement that Oswald was wanted by 12:45 or before?

>
> "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be considered the authority on the
> question of why the Dallas police wanted Oswald, said that Oswald became a
> suspect 'after the police had found on the sixth floor the rifle they
> believed was the assassination weapon'. That explanation is equally
> unacceptable, since the broadcast was prior to 12.45 and the rifle was not
> discovered until 1.22 p.m."

We both admit, as does Lane, that Chief Curry was wrong. More to the
point, why is Lane claiming the police wanted Oswald in the above? What
evidence is there that Oswald was wanted by 12:45 as Lane insists?

>
> And D.A. Wade...
>
> "A police officer, immediately after the assassination, ran in the
> building and saw this man [Oswald] in a corner and started to arrest him,
> but the manager of the building said that he was an employee and was all
> right. Every other employee was located but this defendant, of the
> company. A description and name of him went out by police to look for
> him."

Wade was wrong. A description went out, based on eyewitness(es) from
outside the building description(s) of the gunman. No name went out. We
agree on that, as does Lane. As does the Warren Commission.

So why did Lane insist Oswald was wanted at 12:45 ("Why then did the
Dallas police want Oswald at least a half hour before Tippit was shot?")

What evidence supports Lane's assertion?

>
> And Lane never said "Oswald" was mentioned over any radio call, so I'm not
> going to argue false claims with you.

Lane said Oswald was wanted by 12:45 (if we use the Warren Commission time
for the Tippit shooting of about 12:15). It's earlier than that if we use
your attempt to move the time forward to about 1:07 for the Tippit
shooting (or earlier, you weren't specific on when you think the shooting
was). Lane claimed "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a

half hour before Tippit was shot?"

> What Lane is doing here is asking
> questions (LNers should try this sometime),

Hilarious. I've been asking you for Lane's evidence that Oswald was wanted
for numerous posts now, and you have yet to provide any.

> and calling the chapter a
> strawman argument is a deliberate misinterpretation on your part, because
> each admission is all there in print, for any reader who chooses to
> approach Lane non-prejudicially.

Here's the Straw Man Argument "WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED". It's the chapter
title. You have yet to establish Oswald was wanted. Lane never did. He
quoted a lot of erroneous claims (that we all admit were erroneous) by
uninformed police officers advancing hearsay or guesses, but he never
provided any evidence Oswald was wanted. Neither have you.

Still waiting for the evidence Oswald was WANTED at 12:45 or before. You
got any? We now all agree it's not the roll call. We now all agree it's
not the police or DA statements cited in Rush to Judgment by Lane. We all
agree those statements were erroneous.

So what's the evidence then?

Lane claimed "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half

hour before Tippit was shot?"

That claim is a straw man argument.

Oswald was never wanted by the police. Your claim that the roll call was
the reason ("Oswald was wanted because he was missing from roll call, and
it's really that simple.") was exposed as false.

And so now you're claiming now you never offered it as a reason Oswald was
wanted ("I didn't say there was a roll call, I said he was *wanted*
because of a roll call...as in, 'roll call' was the reason given")

You still have yet to provide any valid reason for Lane to claim Oswald
was wanted at 12:45. Or for you to claim Oswald was wanted. The Warren
Commission never claimed Oswald was wanted. You did: ("Oswald was wanted
because he was missing from roll call, and it's really that simple.")

And Lane did: "Why then did the Dallas police want Oswald at least a half

hour before Tippit was shot?"

Can you defend Lane's statement that Oswald was wanted by 12:45 or before?

No? Then it's a straw man argument.

Can you defend your own statement that Oswald was wanted because of the
roll call?

No? Then it's an erroneous claim.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

I have criticized almost all the WC defenders and some of the conspiracy
believers. Do you feel left out because I haven't criticized you every
day? I apologize but there are hundreds of more important messages to
respond to.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/27/2019 11:06 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>

>> If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy
>
> I've never said otherwise. Don't try to assign the constructed OIC or
> "Saintly Oswald" narratives on me. The argument isn't, and has never been,
> Oswald's innocence vs. guilt; it has always been "sole guilt" vs.
> "conspiracy."
>

I appreciate the disction, but some of us are from the US and believe
that every person is innocent until proven guilty.
Maybe where you're from they hang him first and then have a trial.

>>
>> You can't be guilty and 'set up'. And you just admitted Oswald was guilty.
>
> Really? That's your "gotcha"?
>
>>
>> Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
>> or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
>> Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
>> evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
>> admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
>> because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
>> reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
>> was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?
>
>
> You are twisting my words around in your typical fashion. I didn't say

That's what this newsgroup is for!

> there was a roll call, I said he was *wanted* because of a roll call...as
> in, "roll call" was the reason given. And then I said it was the reasoning
> given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony.
>

Oswald was wanted for questioning because he didn't stick around for
questioning and Truly noticed that he was missing.
Ironic because it was Truly who had vouched for Oswald and helped Baker
search the top floors.

> HILL: And I asked [Fritz] why he wanted him, and he said, "Well, he was
> employed down at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a
> roll call of the employees."
>

Well, that was a good guess, but he was wrong.

> And if you'd chosen not to OMIT important information from Lane's chapter
> in order to frame your narrative, we would know this is not the only
> source to cite "roll call" as a reason:
>
> "Captain W. P. Gannaway, the officer in charge of the Dallas Police
> Department Special Service Bureau, offered a similar explanation. He said
> that Oswald's description was broadcast because he was missing from a
> 'roll call' of Book Depository employees. 'He was the only one who didn't
> show up and couldn't be accounted for,' Gannaway said."
>

A roll call in someone's mind. No official. Which witnesses said they
heard a roll call?

> BUT, as you pointed out, Lane notes there was no such roll call, and I

NO OFFICIAL roll call.

> rather suspect that's the point. His chapter is a critique of the suspect
> reasoning provided, because he then contrasts it with the reasoning Curry
> gives...
>
> "Police Chief Jesse Curry, who must be considered the authority on the
> question of why the Dallas police wanted Oswald, said that Oswald became a
> suspect 'after the police had found on the sixth floor the rifle they
> believed was the assassination weapon'. That explanation is equally
> unacceptable, since the broadcast was prior to 12.45 and the rifle was not
> discovered until 1.22 p.m."
>

A man at the window was a suspect within minutes and the DPD put out a
description of the suspect. Not the guy with the white beard wearing a fez.

> And D.A. Wade...
>
> "A police officer, immediately after the assassination, ran in the
> building and saw this man [Oswald] in a corner and started to arrest him,
> but the manager of the building said that he was an employee and was all
> right. Every other employee was located but this defendant, of the

That was a LIE. Givens was missing and they put out an APB on him.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Are you seriously claiming that Marsh is not a critic of the scientific
claims in this matter? The autopsy report, the judgments about the x-rays?

There are literally thousands of posts here by him criticizing the lone
assassin science and interpretation. He calls those who support it "CIA
assets" or paid liars or frauds. Myers is a liar, et cetera. That's not
criticism? What is it, please?

He is completely dismissive of any involvement by Oswald in the
assassination (did you follow the "curtain rods" thread?). In any way. He
says Oswald was framed and completely innocent. And he routinely attacks
lone assassin believers for saying otherwise.

It is groundless to say he gives any credence to the lone assassin
explanation. He is completely dismissive of it.

[Anthony Marsh]

3 minutes? Are you forgetting that he was confronted by a cop and let go?
Is that included in your 3 minutes? Do you remember that he stopped to
show a reporter find a phone? How does that fit into your 3 minutes? Did
he run down the stairs? How come no one saw him leaving the TSBD? Did he
go out the front or the back?

He mumbled something to the secretary. That counts as saying something to
someone. She told him that someone had shot at the President. Did she mean
at the airport? How would she know from inside the TSBD?

> Reid, after all, didn't say the President was struck in Dealey Plaza. He
> could have been shot earlier in the motorcade, and Reid could have learned
> about it from a transistor radio.
>

Please tell me more about this transistor radio. Can you show me a
picture of it in the TSBD? Maybe it was small enough to fit in her
purse? I expected you to say she saw it on her cell phone! You're not
trying hard enough.

>
>> He had to get home to get his gun to protect himself.
>
> Why, Tony? To protect himself from what, if he was an innocent person who
> was eating his lunch inside the building at the time of the shooting?
>

The police, the FBI, the CIA. As he had just explained to the guys in
the Russian embassy.

BTW, I never said he ate his lunch in the TSBD. I aksed you what he ate
for lunch and as usual YOU refuse to answer any questions.

>
>> Of course you
>> would say that NO ONE has the right to protect himself. We should all
>> calmly walk into the gas chamber.
>
> Straw man argument.
>
>
>>
>>> know he was setup? For what? Nobody knew what happened. But he knew he was
>>> going to be blamed for what exactly?
>>>
>>> Instead of staying, he immediately walks seven blocks up the street to
>>> catch a bus. Does he tell people on the bus, "Something awful has
>>> happened, the president's been shot!" No he says nothing.
>>>
>>> The bus is caught up in traffic and he leaves - why? - to get a cab. The
>>> cab starts to leave when police cars go flying by. Does he tell the cab
>>> driver about the shooting? No.
>>>
>>> He goes to his rooming house and while the landlady/housekeeper is
>>> watching television SHOWS NO INTEREST in what was on. Is he interested in
>>
>> Oswald was not a fan of soap operas.
>
> Soap operas weren't on at the time. They had been interrupted to start the

Excuse me? A Soap opera was interupted by the news of the assassination.
Roberts would naturally be watching her favorite soap opera. Maybe you
weren't even alive then or didn't like As the World Turns.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=soap+opera+interrupted+by+news+of+JFK+assassination&&view=detail&mid=6126201476F319A3F4796126201476F319A3F479&&FORM=VRDGAR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-pRgD3x56A

> process of showing everything JFK assassination related for the next three
> days, through the funeral of JFK. Oswald didn't even stop and ask Earlene
> Roberts what happened. What the latest news was. Whether the President was
> struck or not. Whether the President was dead or alive.
>

What was the exact time and SHOW me what was on at that exact time.
Earlean Roberts had trouble getting the TV to work.
Her friend had told her (probably over the phone) that the President had
been shot.

>
>> How many times did he watch that TV?
>
> At least on occasion, according to his housekeeper:
>
> Mr. BALL. Did he watch television?
> Mrs. ROBERTS. No---in a way---but all he did ever watch the television was
> if someone in the other rooms had it on, maybe he would come and stand at
> the back of the couch---not over 5 minutes and go to his room and shut the
> door and never say a word.
>
>
>>
>>> finding out what happened to the president? No, he changes his shirt and
>>> apparently gets his revolver.
>>>
>>> Then, again showing no interest in what happened, goes to a movie. I'll
>>> cut it short here and leave out the rest.
>>>
>>
>> Silly, he only ducked into the thearter because he was being followed.
>
> Mind-reading again? Oswald told this to whom, when? In what interrogation
> sesssion did he mention this? Oh, you're making this up too!
>

He was being folloed by the shoe clerk. Read his his statements.

> I get it. When stuck, just make up stuff you have no way of knowing.
>
>
>> We don't know where he was headed. Maybe the local CIA safe house.
>
> Terrible guess. Was he even cognizant of where the nearest CIA safe house
> was? You've certainly presented no evidence of that.
>

Good guesss, so YOU know where the CIA safe house was?

> General Walker's home is a better guess. He knew where General Walker
> lived (photos of General Walker's home was found among his possessions,
> taken with his camera). He had shot at General Walker previously. He had -
> and the literature he subscribed to had - compared Walker to Hitler.
> Marina testified that Oswald made the argument to Marina that Walker was
> like Hitler, and the world would have been a better place if Hitler had
> been killed.

What did he plan to do, finish the job? Walker was nnot even in Dallas
that day. Maybe hijack a plane to stalk Walker?

>
> Oswald wasn't going to be free long, having just murdered the President of
> the free world and, if he remained free for any more than a day somehow,
> was going to be the most wanted man on the planet.
>
> Having tried to murder Walker in the past, why would he have any compunction
> about finishing the job? Why wouldn't he be heading there next?
>

How would he even know where Walker was? You are being silly.
Oswald as going nowhere.

>
>>
>>> To summarize, then: How did he know he was setup for something that nobody
>>> at that time knew occurred?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Major shooting and the only person the cops pull a gun on is him.
>
> And he was cleared as a suspect (for the moment) when his supervisor said
> 'he works here'. He was there for that exchange. Why would he suspect he
> was set up? Did he know his rifle would be found on the sixth floor? How?

Hmm, excuse me? Oswald was paranoid. He thought they were always out to
get him. That's why he bought the revolver, as he explained to the
Russians in the embassy.

> Did he somehow know it was used in the assassination? How? Did he know

No, as he said, they blamed him because he had been to Russia. Was there
anyone else in Dallas who had defected to Russia?

> there even was an assassination attempt? How? How does he go from "the

He heard it from Reid. Pay attention.

> President might have been shot somewhere in Dallas" (the most he could
> know from what Reid said) to "I'm very quickly going to be the chief
> suspect and am being set up for this. I need to go get my gun and start
> shooting anyone who tries to arrest me to prove I'm not the kind of guy
> that would shoot people in cold blood."
>

No, silly. Defending himself does not prove that he murdered anybody.
Look at all the traffic stops where the guy comes out shooting. That
does not prove that he just assassinated the President.

> Can you walk us through your logic there, Tony? Nice and slow, and present
> the evidence for each step of the way? Can you do that for us?
>

I have, many times, but you refuse to pay attention.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't have the evidence. You destroyed it.

>>> Tell us which one the courts use and why.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>>
>>> PS: You avoided my original point entirely. You called me names and introduced a few false claims into the thread. Nw, try addressing the point I actually made in your next post, or continue with the misdirection and logical fallacies (like changing the subject and ad hominem).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oswald did not realize he was being set-up until the moment the shots were
>> fired. That is when he realized that he was being set up. He knew he was
>> not firing all the shots.
>
> You can't be set up if you're guilty of firing either all, some, or only
> one of the shots. It doesn't work that way. You are as guilty as every
> other gunman and every other conspirator. If a bank teller or security
> guard is shot and killed by a bank robber, the guy waiting outside the
> bank waiting as the driver of the getaway car is as guilty of conspiracy
> to commit murder as the guy in the bank who pulled the trigger -- even if
> they all agreed in advance no one would be shot. All conspirators in a
> criminal conspiracy are as guilty of any and all criminal acts in
> furtherance of the conspiracy even if they were nowhere in the area.
>
> For example, in the trial of Clay Shaw, Shaw and Ferry weren't in Dallas
> at the time of the assassination. Both were charged as part of a

The Mafia boss doesn't have to be at the scene of the crime to be a
conspirator.

> conspiracy - with Oswald, the only other named conspirator in the
> indictment - with conspiracy to assassinate the President. Garrison didn't
> prove his case, but the indictment establishes that what I'm saying is
> true -- you can't set up a guilty man.
>

Sure you can. Leave him behind to get caught.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, make up your mind. Are you a WC defender or a conspiracy kook?

From the WC.

McAdams says we are not allowed to question the use of an alias.

> appear more than content to just assume the worst about me - rather
> curious behavior for someone you've just met. Have we interacted before?
> If so, where, and under what name were you posting? Were you in fact
> posting as the 'extremely learned individual' known as 'Spearman'?
>
>
>
>> You twisted the "I'm just a patsy" remark by combining it
>> with Oswald's following statement of being arrested because he spent time

It was all part of the same answer.

>> in the Soviet Union - although he had been back for 18 months and his only
>> known police encounter was from a street altercation in New Orleans. You
>> defended the missing footage from the Zapruder film that didn't show the
>> presidential limo until it was several yards onto Elm Street, by

He was saying that he was marked by having been to Russia.

Great. As well as thousands of other people. Why did some people think
that Billy Lovelady looked like Oswald? No beard?

> I also said elsewhere than 'Lone Nutters' (I dislike that term) don't
> credit Brennan's on-again, off-again ID of Oswald as the way you
> mischaracterize it above. I don't think anyone ever said that Brennan's
> testimony was sufficent to identify the rifle, so why you're quoting his
> failure to recall a telescopic sight is beyond me. What has been claim is
> that Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor and other evidence up there give
> credence to his being the source of the description at 12:45.
>

Never rely on any witness.

Banishment.
To Mt. Sanai.

> Hank
>
>

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I see you snipped a lot of the points I made. I can only presume you're
> doing so because you can't rebut them.

ASS-ume anything you want, it's the dictionary definition of Begging the
Question, and we all know why you have to do it. Imagine you think you
have a golden keyboard, where everything you write is so sacrosanct that
each and every word need be addressed, especially when half your post is a
reprise of the other half.

> > >
> > > If he is complicit and not innocent, then he is guilty of conspiracy
> >
> > I've never said otherwise.
>
> You claimed he was set up. Which makes no sense. Any conspirator is as
> guilty as any other.

Tell us what the word is for a conspirator who acts out believing his
protection will be secure, only to be unwittingly "set up" to take the
fall by himself later. And tell us what word Oswald used to describe
himself.

> >
> > >
> > > Follow up questions: Why did Mark Lane claim Oswald was wanted at 12:45pm
> > > or earlier based on claims by some random officers hearsay of a roll call
> > > Lane later admitted never happened? Why do you claim the roll call is the
> > > evidence Lane was correct in claiming Oswald was wanted, when Lane himself
> > > admits the roll call never happened? You claimed "Oswald was wanted
> > > because he was missing from roll call. It's really that simple." Can you
> > > reconcile your claim of the roll call exonerating Lane's claim that Oswald
> > > was wanted and Lane's own admission there was no roll call?
> >
> >
> > You are twisting my words around in your typical fashion. I didn't say
> > there was a roll call, I said he was *wanted* because of a roll call...as
> > in, "roll call" was the reason given. And then I said it was the reasoning
> > given by Captain Fritz, as per Gerald Hill's testimony.
>
> You did say there was a roll call. And you did say, in defending Lane,
> that was why Oswald was wanted: "Oswald was wanted because he was missing
> from roll call, and it's really that simple."
>
> Nothing in there about the roll call not really happening. Nothing in
> there about the roll call being an erroneous claim by the police.

Thank you for explaining to me what I meant by my own words. I was in fact
operating under the presumption that you KNEW something about the case,
and that I did not have to spoonfeed every explanation to you for you to
see what I was getting at. But clearly you're an authority on what *I'm*
thinking.

The question posed in Lane's chapter is rhetorically presented in order to
address the discrepancies of Wade, Gannaway and Curry (and Fritz). You're
framing it as literal; in doing so, attempting to Poison the Well against
Mark Lane. In fact, that is the sole purpose of your thread. Claims he is
erraneous and deceptive are therefore fallacious. And I just did a search
on the phrase "roll call" and see this issue has been addressed about a
dozen different ways in this forum, so not only is your intention to
Poison the Well against a critic, you're not even the first to try it. So
from this point on you can do it all by your lonesome... and don't forget
to pretend that none of your questions have been answered, and that you
think Mark Lane is lying again. Coming from you, these are compliments.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I have criticized almost all the WC defenders and some of the conspiracy
> believers. Do you feel left out because I haven't criticized you every
> day? I apologize but there are hundreds of more important messages to
> respond to.

According to you, was Connally's wrist injured before or after Z313? Your
answer will illustrate why macadams refers to your work as "brilliant" on
his website. Drain the Marsh.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Is your thinking that because John gives Marsh a compliment that means
Marsh is a lone assassin believer? What's the reasoning here?

Please check the archives here. They go back almost two decades. You will
find in them literally hundreds of posts by Marsh criticizing the lone
assassin science and reasoning. Just see what he says about the forensic
pathologist Peter Cummings, for example. Or the autopsy team. He's
scathing in criticism of their work.

[Anthony Marsh]

I suspect it was injured after 313. Dolce thought it was injured by the
second shot.

How rude of you to misspell .John's name. Now ask why we call him .John!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/9/2019 9:25 AM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 10:08:56 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have criticized almost all the WC defenders and some of the conspiracy
>>> believers. Do you feel left out because I haven't criticized you every
>>> day? I apologize but there are hundreds of more important messages to
>>> respond to.
>>
>> According to you, was Connally's wrist injured before or after Z313? Your
>> answer will illustrate why macadams refers to your work as "brilliant" on
>> his website. Drain the Marsh.
>
> Is your thinking that because John gives Marsh a compliment that means
> Marsh is a lone assassin believer? What's the reasoning here?
>

Who is crazy enough to think that way?

> Please check the archives here. They go back almost two decades. You will
> find in them literally hundreds of posts by Marsh criticizing the lone
> assassin science and reasoning. Just see what he says about the forensic
> pathologist Peter Cummings, for example. Or the autopsy team. He's
> scathing in criticism of their work.
>

And yet some WC defenders are accidentally correct sometimes.
I rarely criticize them for debunking the Alterationists unless they are
being too wimpy.