info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Excellent post about beb's hero
90 views
Skip to first unread message
BT George
Feb 12, 2019, 6:32:06 PM2/12/19
to
Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
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
healyd...@gmail.com
Feb 12, 2019, 7:59:49 PM2/12/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 13, 2019, 12:26:41 PM2/13/19
to
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
>>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
>>
>>
>> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>>
>> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>>
>> Why does this chapter exist?
Because it's a FACT that the police stated that they were looking for
a suspect "matching" Oswald.
As Mark Lane pointed out:
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.
Now, either Mark Lane is lying, or Gannaway is lying.
Who is it?
Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
can't be censored.
Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
read chunks... but believers simply run away.
Why is that?
>> 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"
And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
Amazing, isn't it?
>> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
what he's implicitly claiming.
Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
stated.
>> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> his book and make it seem more substantial.
By telling the absolute truth???
Are you denying that his book is **NOT** "A critique of the Warren
Looks like the one "employing a logical fallacy" is clearly you, Henry
Sienzant.
Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>> The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.
Yet you've just been shown to be lying about what Mark Lane said.
Why can't you *QUOTE* him as I do?
>> 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 ==
Henry just *LOVES* pointing out logical fallacies, and not surprising
critics, uses them as often as most other believers do.
>> 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?"
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!
>> 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.
You're lying, Henry Sienzant. I've *QUOTED* Mark Lane on that issue,
which you were afraid to do.
You'll *NOT* refute what he stated with citation...
In order for your statement *NOT* to be the clear lie that it is, you
*MUST* accept that the description being broadcast did not fit Oswald,
and that Gannaway was lying.
Willing to defend your provable lie?
>> 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.
You're lying again, Henry Sienzant. Indeed, the WCR gave the broadcast
description as the reason why Tippit must have pulled "Oswald" aside.
The Warren Commission also states:
Captain Fritz returned to police headquarters from the Texas
School Book Depository at 2 :15 after a brief stop at the sheriff's
office when he entered the homicide and robbery bureau office, he
saw two detectives standing there with Sgt. Gerald L. Hill, who had
driven from the theatre with Oswald. Hill testified that Fritz told
the detective to get a search warrant, go to an address on Fifth
Street in Irving, and pick up a man named Lee Oswald. When Hill asked
why Oswald was wanted, Fritz replied, "Well, he was employed down
at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a roll call of
the employees." Hill said, "Captain, we will save you a trip * * *
there he sits.
Now, Oswald was already arrested, but quite clearly - Fritz wanted
Oswald, BY NAME - before he was aware of Oswald already having been
arrested.
So the one telling the truth is clearly Mark Lane...
>> The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
>> to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.
So explain the description that was broadcast. Explain why all
believers believe it fit Oswald. Explain why you're refusing to QUOTE
Mark Lane, then lying about what he said...
But you won't.
>> 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 Henry at his best, with sly underhanded
lying concealed within it's contents.
>> Hank
>
>your scenario Einstein, the other matter not a wit, just yours--where is it?
Henry won't provide one anymore than the troll you're responding to
will.
wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
>>
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
>>
>>
>> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>>
>> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>>
>> Why does this chapter exist?
a suspect "matching" Oswald.
As Mark Lane pointed out:
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.
Now, either Mark Lane is lying, or Gannaway is lying.
Who is it?
Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
can't be censored.
Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
read chunks... but believers simply run away.
Why is that?
>> 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"
Amazing, isn't it?
>> 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.
what he's implicitly claiming.
Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
stated.
>> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> his book and make it seem more substantial.
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.
Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>> The logical fallacy utilized by Lane is called a straw man argument.
Why can't you *QUOTE* him as I do?
>> 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 ==
critics, uses them as often as most other believers do.
>> 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?"
"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!
>> 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.
which you were afraid to do.
You'll *NOT* refute what he stated with citation...
In order for your statement *NOT* to be the clear lie that it is, you
*MUST* accept that the description being broadcast did not fit Oswald,
and that Gannaway was lying.
Willing to defend your provable lie?
>> 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.
description as the reason why Tippit must have pulled "Oswald" aside.
The Warren Commission also states:
Captain Fritz returned to police headquarters from the Texas
School Book Depository at 2 :15 after a brief stop at the sheriff's
office when he entered the homicide and robbery bureau office, he
saw two detectives standing there with Sgt. Gerald L. Hill, who had
driven from the theatre with Oswald. Hill testified that Fritz told
the detective to get a search warrant, go to an address on Fifth
Street in Irving, and pick up a man named Lee Oswald. When Hill asked
why Oswald was wanted, Fritz replied, "Well, he was employed down
at the Book Depository and he had not been present for a roll call of
the employees." Hill said, "Captain, we will save you a trip * * *
there he sits.
Now, Oswald was already arrested, but quite clearly - Fritz wanted
Oswald, BY NAME - before he was aware of Oswald already having been
arrested.
So the one telling the truth is clearly Mark Lane...
>> The entire chapter is superfluous, because it's stating - and pretending
>> to examine the evidence for - an obvious untruth.
believers believe it fit Oswald. Explain why you're refusing to QUOTE
Mark Lane, then lying about what he said...
But you won't.
>> This is a fine example of conspiracy theory as practiced by one of the
>> earliest practitioners of the art.
lying concealed within it's contents.
>> Hank
>
>your scenario Einstein, the other matter not a wit, just yours--where is it?
will.
Bud
Feb 13, 2019, 3:46:39 PM2/13/19
to
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> >> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
> >>
> >>
> >> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
> >>
> >> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
> >>
> >> Why does this chapter exist?
>
>
> Because it's a FACT that the police stated that they were looking for
> a suspect "matching" Oswald.
Oswald committed the crime and they were looking for the person who committed the crime.
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> >> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
> >>
> >>
> >> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
> >>
> >> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
> >>
> >> Why does this chapter exist?
>
>
> Because it's a FACT that the police stated that they were looking for
> a suspect "matching" Oswald.
> As Mark Lane pointed out:
>
> 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.
>
> Now, either Mark Lane is lying, or Gannaway is lying.
> Who is it?
Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to this understanding of what he related?"
> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>
> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
> can't be censored.
>
> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>
> Why is that?
>
>
> >> 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"
>
>
> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
> Amazing, isn't it?
lazu...@gmail.com
Feb 14, 2019, 12:12:29 PM2/14/19
to
On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
Ben Holmes
Feb 14, 2019, 12:19:23 PM2/14/19
to
Warren Commission, and well informed on the evidence.
For when you are both - you're a provable liar.
And no-one yet has ever offered the name of a believer they believe is
honest... for I'd quickly be able to point out either their ignorance
of the evidence, or provable lies they'd told.
This is the only CREDIBLE reason why most believers hang out in
censored forums... some of them are still embarrassed to be publicly
pointed out as liars.
Ben Holmes
Feb 14, 2019, 12:30:15 PM2/14/19
to
What's the problem, facts got you down?
BT George
Feb 14, 2019, 12:33:05 PM2/14/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 14, 2019, 2:23:30 PM2/14/19
to
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 12:46:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> >> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>> >>
>> >> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>> >>
>> >> Why does this chapter exist?
>>
>> Because it's a FACT that the police stated that they were looking for
>> a suspect "matching" Oswald.
>
> Oswald committed the crime and they were looking for the person
> who committed the crime.
You really shouldn't be calling a fellow believer a liar.
>> As Mark Lane pointed out:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Now, either Mark Lane is lying, or Gannaway is lying.
>
> False dilemma fallacy.
Amusingly, Puddy will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support his wacky claim.
If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
essentially the same thing.
>> Who is it?
>
> Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
> this understanding of what he related?"
Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>>
>> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> can't be censored.
>>
>> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>>
>> Why is that?
Puddy won't say...
>> >> 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"
>>
>> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> Amazing, isn't it?
>
> Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
> putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
> pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
fellow believer?
>> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> what he's implicitly claiming.
>>
>> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> stated.
>>
>> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>>
>>
>> By telling the absolute truth???
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
Puddy sure didn't help out very much!
wrote:
>On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:59:48 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
>> >> Hank Seinzant exposes another example of Lane's playing fast a loose with the truth. From:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GI1_prrDfM0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WHY OSWALD WAS WANTED
>> >>
>> >> That's the title of Mark Lane's Chapter Five in RUSH TO JUDGMENT.
>> >>
>> >> Why does this chapter exist?
>>
>> Because it's a FACT that the police stated that they were looking for
>> a suspect "matching" Oswald.
>
> Oswald committed the crime and they were looking for the person
> who committed the crime.
>> As Mark Lane pointed out:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Now, either Mark Lane is lying, or Gannaway is lying.
>
> False dilemma fallacy.
If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
essentially the same thing.
>> Who is it?
>
> Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
> this understanding of what he related?"
>> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>>
>> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> can't be censored.
>>
>> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>>
>> Why is that?
>> >> 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"
>>
>> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> Amazing, isn't it?
>
> Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
> putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
> pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
fellow believer?
>> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> what he's implicitly claiming.
>>
>> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> stated.
>>
>> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>>
>>
>> By telling the absolute truth???
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
Bud
Feb 15, 2019, 12:32:01 PM2/15/19
to
The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
> essentially the same thing.
>
> >> Who is it?
> >
> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
> > this understanding of what he related?"
>
>
> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
> >> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
> >> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
> >> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
> >> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
> >>
> >> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
> >> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
> >> can't be censored.
> >>
> >> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
> >> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
> >> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
> >>
> >> Why is that?
>
>
> Puddy won't say...
> >> >> 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"
> >>
> >> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
> >> Amazing, isn't it?
> >
> > Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
> > putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
> > pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
>
>
> Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
> fellow believer?
>
> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
> >>
> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
> >> stated.
> >>
> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
> >>
> >>
> >> By telling the absolute truth???
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>
>
> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
Ben Holmes
Feb 20, 2019, 10:31:39 AM2/20/19
to
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:32:00 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Once again, you refuse, AS I PREDICTED - from supporting your claim.
> The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
> is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
> to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
questioned on this point
Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
>> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> essentially the same thing.
>
> Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
> for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
> is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
premises), so why did you bother posting them?
Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence. PERIOD!
>> >> Who is it?
>> >
>> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> > this understanding of what he related?"
>>
>> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>
> This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
> how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
> their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
> information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
> he got the information second hand.
You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
that Mark Lane lied.
The liar is you.
>> >> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> >> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> >> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> >> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>> >>
>> >> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> >> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> >> can't be censored.
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> >> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> >> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>> >>
>> >> Why is that?
>>
>> Puddy won't say...
>
> It is done all the time. You don`t accept that it is done, what
> could matter less?
Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium. You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be
supported are empty claims. Empty claims are worthless (especially in
support of fantastic premises), so why did you bother posting them?
Posted today was number 188 - there are many more to come... and YOU
ARE RUNNING AWAY!
>> >> >> 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"
>> >>
>> >> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> >> Amazing, isn't it?
>> >
>> > Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
>> > putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
>> > pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
>>
>> Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
>
> But you were offering Mark Lane as someone who has made a case.
But you are claiming that Mark Lane is lying because YOU believe
Gannaway was wrong.
Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
Run coward... RUN!
>> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> fellow believer?
>
> On what do we disagree?
If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> >> stated.
>> >>
>> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> By telling the absolute truth???
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>>
>> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
>
> I commented on all the things I fely like commenting on. If that
> leaves you unsatisfied, even better.
You're the one being crushed with all the lies you're telling... not
I.
> The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
> is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
> to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
questioned on this point
Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
>> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> essentially the same thing.
>
> Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
> for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
> is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
premises), so why did you bother posting them?
Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence. PERIOD!
>> >> Who is it?
>> >
>> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> > this understanding of what he related?"
>>
>> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>
> This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
> how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
> their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
> information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
> he got the information second hand.
that Mark Lane lied.
The liar is you.
>> >> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> >> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> >> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> >> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>> >>
>> >> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> >> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> >> can't be censored.
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> >> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> >> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>> >>
>> >> Why is that?
>>
>> Puddy won't say...
>
> It is done all the time. You don`t accept that it is done, what
> could matter less?
supported are empty claims. Empty claims are worthless (especially in
support of fantastic premises), so why did you bother posting them?
Posted today was number 188 - there are many more to come... and YOU
ARE RUNNING AWAY!
>> >> >> 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"
>> >>
>> >> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> >> Amazing, isn't it?
>> >
>> > Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
>> > putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
>> > pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
>>
>> Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
>
> But you were offering Mark Lane as someone who has made a case.
Gannaway was wrong.
Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
Run coward... RUN!
>> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> fellow believer?
>
> On what do we disagree?
for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> >> stated.
>> >>
>> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> By telling the absolute truth???
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>>
>> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
>
> I commented on all the things I fely like commenting on. If that
> leaves you unsatisfied, even better.
I.
borisba...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2019, 1:19:53 PM2/20/19
to
Bud
Feb 20, 2019, 1:44:18 PM2/20/19
to
> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
>
>
> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
> questioned on this point
> Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t scrutinize information they like the sound of.
> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
> >> essentially the same thing.
> >
> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
>
>
> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>
> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
> PERIOD!
>
>
> >> >> Who is it?
> >> >
> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
> >>
> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
> >
> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
> > he got the information second hand.
>
>
> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
> that Mark Lane lied.
> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>
>
> Run coward... RUN!
>
>
> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
> >> fellow believer?
> >
> > On what do we disagree?
>
>
> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>
> >> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
> >> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
> >> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
> >> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
> >> >> stated.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
> >> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> By telling the absolute truth???
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
> >>
> >> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
> >
> > I commented on all the things I fely like commenting on. If that
> > leaves you unsatisfied, even better.
>
>
> You're the one being crushed with all the lies you're telling... not
> I.
BT George
Feb 20, 2019, 3:05:15 PM2/20/19
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2019, 4:46:19 PM2/20/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 20, 2019, 5:05:43 PM2/20/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2019, 10:48:47 AM2/22/19
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:44:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Once agin, you refuse, AS I PREDICTED - from supporting your claim.
>> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
>> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
>> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
>>
>> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
>> questioned on this point
You couldn't.
> Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
> would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
> related.
The Warren Commission wrote their report. Had they any interest in the
truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
said.
>> Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
>
> So you run with the information whether you know it is firsthand,
> secondhand, third hand, whatever?
So you aren't particular about childen, first grade, second grade,
third grade, whatever?
> And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t
> scrutinize information they like the sound of.
You *RUN* from everything I challenge you on.
>> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> >> essentially the same thing.
>> >
>> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
>> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
>> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
>>
>>
>> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
>> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
>> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>>
>> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
>
> This is a good example of how conspiracy advocates use the
> available information. If it is useful to their silly ideas they don`t
> question it, they run with it.
The Warren Commission Report is a good example of how the government
twisted and lied about the available information. If it was useful for
their purposes of convicting Oswald, they ran with it.
>> PERIOD!
>>
>>
>> >> >> Who is it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
>> >>
>> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>> >
>> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
>> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
>> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
>> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
>> > he got the information second hand.
>>
>>
>> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
>> that Mark Lane lied.
>
> It isn`t "speculation" to determine the context of information in
> order to weigh it properly.
It's not "speculation," it's an outright lie to claim that Mark Lane
lied by using what Gannaway stated.
>> The liar is you.
And still is.
>> >> >> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> >> >> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> >> >> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> >> >> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> >> >> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> >> >> can't be censored.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> >> >> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> >> >> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is that?
>> >>
>> >> Puddy won't say...
>> >
>> > It is done all the time. You don`t accept that it is done, what
>> > could matter less?
>>
>>
>> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium. You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be
>> supported are empty claims. Empty claims are worthless (especially in
>> support of fantastic premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>>
>> Posted today was number 188 - there are many more to come... and YOU
>> ARE RUNNING AWAY!
And *still* running...
>> >> >> >> 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"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> >> >> Amazing, isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
>> >> > putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
>> >> > pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
>> >>
>> >> Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
>> >
>> > But you were offering Mark Lane as someone who has made a case.
>>
>>
>> But you are claiming that Mark Lane is lying because YOU believe
>> Gannaway was wrong.
>
> You are too stupid to understand the positions I take.
You are too much a coward to confront the end result of your whining.
>> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>>
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!
>>
>>
>> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> fellow believer?
>> >
>> > On what do we disagree?
>>
>>
>> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>
> A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
A simple question mark sends you running.
>> >> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> >> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> >> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> >> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> >> >> stated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By telling the absolute truth???
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>> >>
>> >> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
>> >
>> > I commented on all the things I fely like commenting on. If that
>> > leaves you unsatisfied, even better.
>>
>>
>> You're the one being crushed with all the lies you're telling... not
>> I.
>
> You are the one who is delusional, not I.
Said the lunatic.
>> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
>> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
>> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
>>
>> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
>> questioned on this point
> Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
> would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
> related.
truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
said.
>> Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
>
> So you run with the information whether you know it is firsthand,
> secondhand, third hand, whatever?
third grade, whatever?
> And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t
> scrutinize information they like the sound of.
>> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> >> essentially the same thing.
>> >
>> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
>> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
>> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
>>
>>
>> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
>> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
>> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>>
>> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
>
> This is a good example of how conspiracy advocates use the
> available information. If it is useful to their silly ideas they don`t
> question it, they run with it.
twisted and lied about the available information. If it was useful for
their purposes of convicting Oswald, they ran with it.
>> PERIOD!
>>
>>
>> >> >> Who is it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
>> >>
>> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>> >
>> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
>> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
>> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
>> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
>> > he got the information second hand.
>>
>>
>> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
>> that Mark Lane lied.
>
> It isn`t "speculation" to determine the context of information in
> order to weigh it properly.
lied by using what Gannaway stated.
>> The liar is you.
And still is.
>> >> >> Indeed, more accurately, either you are lying, or Mark Lane is
>> >> >> lying... Being that you refused to actually QUOTE the words of Mark
>> >> >> Lane, most honest people would come to the conclusion that *YOU*,
>> >> >> Henry Sienzant, are the one lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is re-enforced by your refusal to post in a public forum, where
>> >> >> it's allowed to point out that someone is lying, and where the truth
>> >> >> can't be censored.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amusingly, I give all believers the opportunity to actually POINT OUT
>> >> >> the "lies" of Mark Lane, by posting his book in short little easily
>> >> >> read chunks... but believers simply run away.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is that?
>> >>
>> >> Puddy won't say...
>> >
>> > It is done all the time. You don`t accept that it is done, what
>> > could matter less?
>>
>>
>> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium. You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be
>> supported are empty claims. Empty claims are worthless (especially in
>> support of fantastic premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>>
>> Posted today was number 188 - there are many more to come... and YOU
>> ARE RUNNING AWAY!
>> >> >> >> 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"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And amusingly, that seems to be the actual *CONTENT* of the book!
>> >> >> Amazing, isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, it is a critique of the case the WC made, it isn`t Mark Lane
>> >> > putting a cohesive case up for consideration that explains the major
>> >> > pieces of evidence. No conspiracy advocate has ever done this.
>> >>
>> >> Nor is it a treatise on Napoleon's Generals.
>> >
>> > But you were offering Mark Lane as someone who has made a case.
>>
>>
>> But you are claiming that Mark Lane is lying because YOU believe
>> Gannaway was wrong.
>
> You are too stupid to understand the positions I take.
>> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>>
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!
>>
>>
>> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> fellow believer?
>> >
>> > On what do we disagree?
>>
>>
>> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>
> A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>> >> >> >> 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 known as a "strawman" - Henry cannot show Mark Lane stating
>> >> >> what he's implicitly claiming.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perhaps this explains why Henry REFUSES to address the Mark Lane
>> >> >> series being currently posted... he would have to address the ACTUAL
>> >> >> WORDS of Mark Lane, and not his outright lies of what Mark Lane
>> >> >> stated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This is another example of Mark Lane employing a logical fallacy to pad
>> >> >> >> his book and make it seem more substantial.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By telling the absolute truth???
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to address this post.
>> >>
>> >> Looks like Puddy didn't want to touch this either...
>> >
>> > I commented on all the things I fely like commenting on. If that
>> > leaves you unsatisfied, even better.
>>
>>
>> You're the one being crushed with all the lies you're telling... not
>> I.
>
> You are the one who is delusional, not I.
Bud
Feb 22, 2019, 7:30:15 PM2/22/19
to
>
> >> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
> >> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
> >> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
> >>
> >> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
> >> questioned on this point
>
> You couldn't.
>
> > Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
> > would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
> > related.
>
>
> The Warren Commission wrote their report.
> Had they any interest in the
> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
> said.
>
> >> Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
> >
> > So you run with the information whether you know it is firsthand,
> > secondhand, third hand, whatever?
>
> So you aren't particular about childen, first grade, second grade,
> third grade, whatever?
And he is using this inflammatory rhetoric because he knows I`ve hit the nail on the head how conspiracy advocates don`t scrutinize information they like the sound of. Zealots like Ben or Lane could care less how Gannaway came to believe what he related, as long as they can exploit it for their silly narratives.
> > And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t
> > scrutinize information they like the sound of.
>
>
> You *RUN* from everything I challenge you on.
>
> >> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
> >> >> essentially the same thing.
> >> >
> >> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
> >> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
> >> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
> >>
> >>
> >> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
> >> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
> >> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
> >>
> >> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
> >
> > This is a good example of how conspiracy advocates use the
> > available information. If it is useful to their silly ideas they don`t
> > question it, they run with it.
>
>
> The Warren Commission Report is a good example of how the government
> twisted and lied about the available information. If it was useful for
> their purposes of convicting Oswald, they ran with it.
> >> PERIOD!
> >>
> >>
> >> >> >> Who is it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
> >> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
> >> >>
> >> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
> >> >
> >> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
> >> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
> >> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
> >> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
> >> > he got the information second hand.
> >>
> >>
> >> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
> >> that Mark Lane lied.
> >
> > It isn`t "speculation" to determine the context of information in
> > order to weigh it properly.
>
>
> It's not "speculation," it's an outright lie to claim that Mark Lane
> lied by using what Gannaway stated.
>
> >> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
> >>
> >>
> >> Run coward... RUN!
> >>
> >>
> >> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
> >> >> fellow believer?
> >> >
> >> > On what do we disagree?
> >>
> >>
> >> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
> >> for any lurkers who might be interested.
> >
> > A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>
>
> A simple question mark sends you running.
Ben Holmes
Feb 25, 2019, 11:12:21 AM2/25/19
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:30:15 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Why the misdirection? We are examing the lies told by the Warren
Commission.
>> Had they any interest in the
>> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
>> said.
>
> What did they need to ask Gannaway about?
They needed to establish that he was lying, so that you could then
>
> And he is using this inflammatory rhetoric because he caught me yet
> again implying he'd said something he didn't.
>> >> PERIOD!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Who is it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> >> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
>> >> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
>> >> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
>> >> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
>> >> > he got the information second hand.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
>> >> that Mark Lane lied.
>> >
>> > It isn`t "speculation" to determine the context of information in
>> > order to weigh it properly.
>>
>>
>> It's not "speculation," it's an outright lie to claim that Mark Lane
>> lied by using what Gannaway stated.
>
> Strawman.
The topic. Did you forget already?
Then you'll have no problems publicly acknowledging that Gannaway is
the evidence for what Mark Lane stated.
I predict, however, that you'll show your cowardly side...
>> >> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Run coward... RUN!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> >> fellow believer?
>> >> >
>> >> > On what do we disagree?
>> >>
>> >> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> >> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >
>> > A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>>
>> A simple question mark sends you running.
>
> You claimed I disagreed with someone else. I asked you "How so?"
> and you had nothing.
You agreed that it *IS* what Henry Sienzant claimed it wasn't.
Go ahead and deny it moron...
> I admit that I'm a lunatic...
Anyone notice that Puddy *STILL* hasn't replied to the series that
proves believers are liars?
Even though he's PROVABLY read them.
Commission.
>> Had they any interest in the
>> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
>> said.
>
> What did they need to ask Gannaway about?
claim that Mark Lane lied.
>> >> Speculation on your part isn't evidence.
>> >
>> > So you run with the information whether you know it is firsthand,
>> > secondhand, third hand, whatever?
>>
>> So you aren't particular about childen, first grade, second grade,
>> third grade, whatever?
>
> I have children on my mind all the time. It isn`t healthy.
>> >
>> > So you run with the information whether you know it is firsthand,
>> > secondhand, third hand, whatever?
>>
>> So you aren't particular about childen, first grade, second grade,
>> third grade, whatever?
>
>
> And he is using this inflammatory rhetoric because he caught me yet
> again implying he'd said something he didn't.
>
>> > And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t
>> > scrutinize information they like the sound of.
>>
>>
>> You *RUN* from everything I challenge you on.
>
> I know what you wrote is true and has to reflect on me.
>> > And then you challenge me to show that conspiracy advocates don`t
>> > scrutinize information they like the sound of.
>>
>>
>> You *RUN* from everything I challenge you on.
>
>
>>
>> >> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> >> >> essentially the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
>> >> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
>> >> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
>> >> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
>> >> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>> >>
>> >> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
>> >
>> > This is a good example of how conspiracy advocates use the
>> > available information. If it is useful to their silly ideas they don`t
>> > question it, they run with it.
>>
>> The Warren Commission Report is a good example of how the government
>> twisted and lied about the available information. If it was useful for
>> their purposes of convicting Oswald, they ran with it.
>
> Non sequitur. Misdirection to avoid the topic being discussed.
Amusingly, Puddy has to run...
>>
>> >> >> If Gannaway told the truth, then Mark Lane can't be faulted for saying
>> >> >> essentially the same thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because investigating and vetting the information isn`t an option
>> >> > for a conspiracy advocate, nor is honesty. The only criteria for them
>> >> > is whether it useful for their silly ideas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
>> >> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
>> >> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>> >>
>> >> Mark Lane cannot be faulted for following the evidence.
>> >
>> > This is a good example of how conspiracy advocates use the
>> > available information. If it is useful to their silly ideas they don`t
>> > question it, they run with it.
>>
>> The Warren Commission Report is a good example of how the government
>> twisted and lied about the available information. If it was useful for
>> their purposes of convicting Oswald, they ran with it.
>
> Non sequitur. Misdirection to avoid the topic being discussed.
>> >> PERIOD!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Who is it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wrong question. The right question is "How did Gannaway come to
>> >> >> > this understanding of what he related?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Desperate to evade the actual facts in this case, aren't you Puddy?
>> >> >
>> >> > This is why I say it isn`t the evidence that is the problem, it is
>> >> > how the conspiracy advocates use the information. They exploit it for
>> >> > their idiotic ideas. Is it like Gannaway was in the TSBD when the
>> >> > information that Oswald was missing came to light? If he wasn`t, then
>> >> > he got the information second hand.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You use your *SPECULATION* that Gannaway was wrong in order to claim
>> >> that Mark Lane lied.
>> >
>> > It isn`t "speculation" to determine the context of information in
>> > order to weigh it properly.
>>
>>
>> It's not "speculation," it's an outright lie to claim that Mark Lane
>> lied by using what Gannaway stated.
>
> Strawman.
the evidence for what Mark Lane stated.
I predict, however, that you'll show your cowardly side...
>> >> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Run coward... RUN!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> >> fellow believer?
>> >> >
>> >> > On what do we disagree?
>> >>
>> >> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> >> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >
>> > A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>>
>> A simple question mark sends you running.
>
> You claimed I disagreed with someone else. I asked you "How so?"
> and you had nothing.
Go ahead and deny it moron...
proves believers are liars?
Even though he's PROVABLY read them.
Bud
Feb 25, 2019, 4:37:34 PM2/25/19
to
>
> >> >> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
> >> >> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
> >> >> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
> >> >> questioned on this point
> >>
> >> You couldn't.
> >>
> >> > Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
> >> > would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
> >> > related.
> >>
> >> The Warren Commission wrote their report.
> >
> > Why the misdirection? We are examining what Lane wrote.
>
>
> Why the misdirection? We are examing the lies told by the Warren
> Commission.
> >> Had they any interest in the
> >> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
> >> said.
> >
> > What did they need to ask Gannaway about?
>
>
> They needed to establish that he was lying,
Ben Holmes
Mar 4, 2019, 11:00:35 AM3/4/19
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 13:37:33 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Simple to do - you've not given a third.
And I predicted that you'd refuse to do so.
Keep running Puddy.
>> >> >> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
>> >> >> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
>> >> >> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
>> >> >> questioned on this point
>> >>
>> >> You couldn't.
>> >>
>> >> > Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
>> >> > would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
>> >> > related.
>> >>
>> >> The Warren Commission wrote their report.
>> >
>> > Why the misdirection? We are examining what Lane wrote.
>>
>> Why the misdirection? We are examing the lies told by the Warren
>> Commission.
>
> You`re lying. Check the first post.
You're lying. Henry Sienzant's a provable liar too.
>> >> Had they any interest in the
>> >> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
>> >> said.
>> >
>> > What did they need to ask Gannaway about?
>>
>> They needed to establish that he was lying,
>
> Why would they think he was?
Your constant changing of the topic won't change the fact that Henry
Sienzant got caught lying. Mark Lane told the truth, AND IS SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE.
See the first post. Read all *your* nonsense.
Then try to deny it with a straight face again...
Another perfect prediction...
>> >> >> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Run coward... RUN!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> >> >> fellow believer?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On what do we disagree?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> >> >> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >> >
>> >> > A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>> >>
>> >> A simple question mark sends you running.
>> >
>> > You claimed I disagreed with someone else. I asked you "How so?"
>> > and you had nothing.
>>
>> You agreed that it *IS* what Henry Sienzant claimed it wasn't.
>>
>> Go ahead and deny it moron...
Puddy couldn't.
Anyone notice how much running Puddy does? Perhaps he's trying out for
the Olympic team.
And I predicted that you'd refuse to do so.
Keep running Puddy.
>> >> >> > The key is to determine how Gannaway came to think what he related
>> >> >> > is true, but since conspiracy folks like to play silly games they try
>> >> >> > to justify their silly ideas using whatever they think they can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then simply produce his Warren Commission testimony where he was
>> >> >> questioned on this point
>> >>
>> >> You couldn't.
>> >>
>> >> > Lane wrote what Lane wrote. Had he any interest in the truth he
>> >> > would have tried to determine how Gannaway came to believe what he
>> >> > related.
>> >>
>> >> The Warren Commission wrote their report.
>> >
>> > Why the misdirection? We are examining what Lane wrote.
>>
>> Why the misdirection? We are examing the lies told by the Warren
>> Commission.
>
> You`re lying. Check the first post.
>> >> Had they any interest in the
>> >> truth they would have tried to determine what the witnesses ACTUALLY
>> >> said.
>> >
>> > What did they need to ask Gannaway about?
>>
>> They needed to establish that he was lying,
>
> Why would they think he was?
Sienzant got caught lying. Mark Lane told the truth, AND IS SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE.
Then try to deny it with a straight face again...
>> >> >> Mark Lane did indeed make a case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Run coward... RUN!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But don't you know it's against McAdam's rules to disagree with a
>> >> >> >> fellow believer?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On what do we disagree?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you're too stupid to figure it out, I'll leave it as an exercise
>> >> >> for any lurkers who might be interested.
>> >> >
>> >> > A simple "how so?" always takes the hot air out of your sails.
>> >>
>> >> A simple question mark sends you running.
>> >
>> > You claimed I disagreed with someone else. I asked you "How so?"
>> > and you had nothing.
>>
>> You agreed that it *IS* what Henry Sienzant claimed it wasn't.
>>
>> Go ahead and deny it moron...
the Olympic team.
0 new messages