Oswald-on-his-own "Phantom Shot" theory should actually give LNs no comfort

[donald willis]

Oswald-on-his-own "Phantom Shot" theory should actually give LNs no
comfort

The authors of "Phantom Shot" apparently posit two shots--and only two
shots--in Dealey, with no missed shots. (Our library doesn't have the
book, and ILL is on hold during the virus crisis, so I have to go on
second-hand reports.) Intriguing. They apparently think that such a
scenario buttresses LN belief that Oswald did all the shooting in the
plaza. That he had plenty of time to take two leisurely shots. And,
well, yes, only two bullets were found, so....

There is, however, a big problem , at the other (depository) end, with
that scenario: *Three* empty hulls were apparently found in the
depository. That would seem to indicate that at least *three* shots were
fired that day in Dealey. I'm sure that the authors deal with that
problem, but apart from an extra hull having been introduced by Homicide
Capt. Fritz, I don't see how that problem can be satisfactorily addressed.
And, yes, there were at least two witnesses--both deputy sheriffs--to
Fritz's having at least picked up the shells, before they were
photographed. Faithful readers of this forum know that I have a different
explanation for Fritz's actions, but I would be only too happy to give it
up if the authors of "Phantom Shot" could convince me re *their*
explanation (assuming that they in fact have one)....

However, in the meantime, three hulls seems to mean at least three shots.
And the "phantom shot" scenario seems to imply, at the least, a cover-up
after-the-fact (by Fritz)... at most, a conspiracy.

dcw

[x]

Not exactly. The rifle could have started out with an empty in the
chamber,. It would have been ejected when the gunman cycled the action to
bring the first live round into battery. That would account for three
empty cases and two shots without having to imaginatively add a pet
theory.

[donald willis]

Unfortunately, most ear-witnesses said they heard three shots. You'd have
to say that they were all wrong. And if you go that route, then those who
say that four or five shots were fired have a rationale: You can't trust
those ear-witnesses! And three shells/three shots is so symmetrical.
Moreover, as LNs will tell you, Harold Norman is the perfect ear-witness
for three shots. Though, as Barb J used to say, It took Norman over a
week to go public with his three-shot ear-witnessing, though he never
wavered after that....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/30/2020 9:25 AM, donald willis wrote:
> Oswald-on-his-own "Phantom Shot" theory should actually give LNs no
> comfort
>
> The authors of "Phantom Shot" apparently posit two shots--and only two
> shots--in Dealey, with no missed shots. (Our library doesn't have the
> book, and ILL is on hold during the virus crisis, so I have to go on
> second-hand reports.) Intriguing. They apparently think that such a
> scenario buttresses LN belief that Oswald did all the shooting in the
> plaza. That he had plenty of time to take two leisurely shots. And,
> well, yes, only two bullets were found, so....
>
> There is, however, a big problem , at the other (depository) end, with
> that scenario: *Three* empty hulls were apparently found in the
> depository. That would seem to indicate that at least *three* shots were

SILLY. the acoustical evidence PROVES that 3 shots were fired from the
sniper's net. Right now it can not tell us which rifle fired the 3 shots.

> fired that day in Dealey. I'm sure that the authors deal with that
> problem, but apart from an extra hull having been introduced by Homicide
> Capt. Fritz, I don't see how that problem can be satisfactorily addressed.
> And, yes, there were at least two witnesses--both deputy sheriffs--to
> Fritz's having at least picked up the shells, before they were
> photographed. Faithful readers of this forum know that I have a different
> explanation for Fritz's actions, but I would be only too happy to give it
> up if the authors of "Phantom Shot" could convince me re *their*
> explanation (assuming that they in fact have one)....
>
> However, in the meantime, three hulls seems to mean at least three shots.

No. Maybe one shell was left in the chamber from before and not ejected
before the shooting

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

And the two-shot, one impact scenario explains that at least as well, if
not better, than Bob Harris' multiple shooters, some silienced weapons,
all the shooters except Oswald never seen, responsible for no damage to
any of the victims, and leave no evidence behind.

Compare and contrast this scenario with Bob Harris' scenario. It's offered
in contrast to his scenario, which is far more complicated and leaves so
many more loose ends.

> You'd have
> to say that they were all wrong. And if you go that route, then those who
> say that four or five shots were fired have a rationale: You can't trust
> those ear-witnesses! And three shells/three shots is so symmetrical.

Tell me, Don, do you believe in just three shots?

> Moreover, as LNs will tell you, Harold Norman is the perfect ear-witness
> for three shots. Though, as Barb J used to say, It took Norman over a
> week to go public with his three-shot ear-witnessing, though he never
> wavered after that....
>

It sounds like you are not sure what you believe.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Saturday, October 3, 2020 at 10:37:22 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Can you say "Moving the Goalposts"? Good. I knew you could.

Moving the Goalposts is defined here:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts

== QUOTE ==
Moving the Goalposts
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and
more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing
to concede or accept the opponent’s argument.
== UNQUOTe ==

Your objection was satisfactorily explained to you... you argued the three
shells meant three shots, it was established it could mean a shot at some
earlier time, with the shell still in the rifle until just before the
assassination attempt. With your objection satisfactorily explained, you
now change tactics to argue for the three heard shots means three shot
scenario, which as I understand your own scenario, is not one you even
believe.

In any case, it's still moving the goalposts.

Hank

[donald willis]

And actually that would account for only two hull-less bullets having been
found. Again, however, this scenario posits the majority of ear-witnesses
being wrong re 3 shots. I know, never trust ear-witnesses. Those
witnesses, however, could counter, Well, weren't 3 hulls found, eh, eh?

dcw

[donald willis]

Oswald was "seen" in the "nest"? Those rotters who saw him yet did not ID
him in a lineup! The curs.... (Note: Brennan's name was not listed in
the first DPD lineup scorecard.)

, responsible for no damage to
> any of the victims, and leave no evidence behind.
>
> Compare and contrast this scenario with Bob Harris' scenario. It's offered
> in contrast to his scenario, which is far more complicated and leaves so
> many more loose ends.
> > You'd have
> > to say that they were all wrong. And if you go that route, then those who
> > say that four or five shots were fired have a rationale: You can't trust
> > those ear-witnesses! And three shells/three shots is so symmetrical.
> Tell me, Don, do you believe in just three shots?

Well, Hank has got me wondering. The two-shot scenario is appealing, but
hardly definitive. As Harris and I have noted, SS agent Kellerman
testified that he heard AT LEAST two shots at the end. "At least"! And I
find Marsh's and Claviger's accounts tantalizing also. There's some
doubt, in other words. Kellerman could be describing a shot from (a) the
depository and/or (b) another location than the depository. But, yes, I
guess I subscribe to three shots. But the number of shells on the 6th
floor is hardly definitive. As I've said, maybe Fritz put down more (or
fewer) shells than were found. I still lean, however, to Location rather
than Number as regards the Fritz problem.

> > Moreover, as LNs will tell you, Harold Norman is the perfect ear-witness
> > for three shots. Though, as Barb J used to say, It took Norman over a
> > week to go public with his three-shot ear-witnessing, though he never
> > wavered after that....
> >
> It sounds like you are not sure what you believe.

Well, I'm glad for you if you're sure....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hilarious. Now you're arguing against your own scenario. I thought you
agreed it was Oswald doing the shooting.

You'll throw your own scenario under the bus, it appears.

> , responsible for no damage to
> > any of the victims, and leave no evidence behind.
> >
> > Compare and contrast this scenario with Bob Harris' scenario. It's offered
> > in contrast to his scenario, which is far more complicated and leaves so
> > many more loose ends.
> > > You'd have
> > > to say that they were all wrong. And if you go that route, then those who
> > > say that four or five shots were fired have a rationale: You can't trust
> > > those ear-witnesses! And three shells/three shots is so symmetrical.
> > Tell me, Don, do you believe in just three shots?
> Well, Hank has got me wondering. The two-shot scenario is appealing, but
> hardly definitive. As Harris and I have noted, SS agent Kellerman
> testified that he heard AT LEAST two shots at the end.

At least two loud sounds, yes.

He said he heard three 'shots'. He described the final two - almost
simultaneous - as a flurry because of a different reason, unrelated to
anything he heard:


== QUOTE ==

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two
additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you
recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots,
or are you able to say with any certainty?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report
and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr.
Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor
Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and
shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three.
There have got to be more than three shots.

Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--

Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.

Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Excuse me, do you have any independent recollection, Mr.
Kellerman, of the number of shots, aside from the inference that you make
as to how many points of wounds there were?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Could you rephrase that, please?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes. You have drawn a conclusion, in effect, by saying that
there were four wounds for the President and three wounds for the
Governor; and from that, you say there must have been more than three
shots in your opinion or your view. But my question is: Do you have any
current recollection of having heard more than three shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No. I don't. I will have to say "No."

== UNQUOTE ==

His conclusions are not evidence. What he heard is evidence. And what he
heard was one shot, then two more almost instantaneous, with a time span
of five seconds in total. That sounds a lot like a shot at Z223 and
another at Z313, with one of the final shots actually the bullet impact on
the head (or the fragments on the limo, or both).

Again, review Clint Hill's statement:
== QUOTE ==

Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear,
because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of
all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double
sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into
it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the
cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably
by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what
caused it.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you
heard on the occasion of the second shot?

Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
...

Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the
first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have
described?

Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
== UNQUOTE ==

And I will ask again, how much time between a shot at Z223 and Z313?

Hank

[x]

>> pet theory>

> Unfortunately, most ear-witnesses said they heard three shots. You'd have
> to say that they were all wrong. And if you go that route, then those who
> say that four or five shots were fired have a rationale: You can't trust
> those ear-witnesses! And three shells/three shots is so symmetrical.
> Moreover, as LNs will tell you, Harold Norman is the perfect ear-witness
> for three shots. Though, as Barb J used to say, It took Norman over a
> week to go public with his three-shot ear-witnessing, though he never
> wavered after that....

Was there a third shot? Or was it the sound of a bullet hitting
JFK's skull and tearing it apart, as someone else has put
forward? Or a backfire? Or people hearing the shock wave of
a bullet separately from the muzzle blast and assuming each
meant a separate shot. There are any number of shot-like
sounds that could be mistaken for gunshot.

That being said...

Long ago, I looked at the witness statements as to how many
shots were fired. I was surprised by how many of witnesses
remembered only two shots, especially within a few days of
the assassination. A number were less specific, only saying
that there were "two or three." And then we have witnesses
who claimed that there were three shots, yet can only recall
actually hearing two of them, like Nellie Connally and SA Greer.

You've mentioned Norman coming to Jesus regarding a third shot.
Bonnie Ray Williams also initially recalled only two shots, but
ultimately said three after he "got [his] memory even a little
better than on the 22d." SA Glen Bennett's initial recollection,
as captured in his 11/22 PM notes, was only two shots. Other
witnesses also succumbed to Bonnie Ray's memory-improvement
program.

If you want to actually dig a little, you'll find that the
eyewitness case for a two shot scenario is much better than
you seem to think.

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm not sure whom you are citing. Can you post a link?
You mean 2 shots hit the same spot?
That seems physically impossible.

> not better, than Bob Harris' multiple shooters, some silienced weapons,
> all the shooters except Oswald never seen, responsible for no damage to
> any of the victims, and leave no evidence behind.
>

Is that really HIS theory or is he discussing someone else's theory?

[Anthony Marsh]

Boy, that's a real tough one. I am not sure that he has a calculator. And
mybe you don't. I do, SUBTRACT 223 from 313 and you get 80 franes, Then we
have to round off because we do not know the exact times, Then we divide
80 by 18,3 and we get 4.4 seconds. In case you are wondering that is
plenty of time for someone to fire 2 shots from a Carcano.

[x]

> Boy, that's a real tough one. I am not sure that he has a calculator.
> And mybe you don't. I do, SUBTRACT 223 from 313 and you get 80 franes,
> Then we have to round off because we do not know the exact times, Then
> we divide 80 by 18,3 and we get 4.4 seconds. In case you are wondering
> that is plenty of time for someone to fire 2 shots from a Carcano.

313-223 is 90 frames, not 80. Divide 90 by 18.3 and you get 4.9 seconds

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you remember Josiah Thompson? He looked at the empty shell with the
dented lip and though it could not have been from a shot fired that do
so the rifle only shot 2 bullets, But I explained to him that sometimes
a shell gets dented after the shot because when you try to reload too
quickly you don't pull the bolt back far enough to eject the shell and
when you then push the bold forward the lip of the empty shell gets
jammed against the mouth of the chamber and and jams the rifle.

[John Corbett]

I disagree with your assessment that Bennett initially remembered only two
shots although the way he worded it in his report could have given that
impression if you focus on just one sentence rather than read the
paragraph whole.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-benne.htm

What is confusing is that he said a second shot followed the one that hit
the president in the back. However if you read the preceding sentences, he
was speaking of the second shot to hit JFK. He had been looking at the
crowd to the right when he heard what sounded like a firecracker. He then
turned toward the President and immediately heard another firecracker
noise and saw that shot hit JFK in the back. That means he saw JFK hit by
the SECOND shot. The head shot was the second shot that hit him. If JFK
was hit in the back by the second shot then it follows that the head shot
was the third shot.

I almost violated my own rule by quoting a phrase out of context so
instead I simply gave my interpretation of what Bennett wrote in his
report which I believe is an accurate one. If someone disagrees, tell me
what you think he meant when he said "At the moment I looked at the back
of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit
the President about four inches down from the right shoulder.". To me he
is clearly saying he heard a second shot and saw that shot hit JFK in the
back. That makes the head shot the third shot. I included the link to his
entire report if anyone wants to see the full context.

[John Corbett]

Better get that calculator checked out. I get 90 frames.

> Then we
> have to round off because we do not know the exact times, Then we divide
> 80 by 18,3 and we get 4.4 seconds. In case you are wondering that is
> plenty of time for someone to fire 2 shots from a Carcano.

90 frames works out to 4.9 seconds. Very close to Clint Hill's estimate
of 5 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK. I suppose we could
nitpick even further by pointing out that the FBI determined Zapruder's
camera filmed at an AVERAGE speed of 18.3 frames per second which implies
it didn't operate at a constant speed but the variation is probably
minimal so 18.3 seems a good enough figure.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

And to get back on track, and ignore Tony's attempted diversion into bogus
math, both Kellerman and Hill described the time between the two shots
they heard as about five seconds. And the shots at Z223 and Z313 were
4.918 seconds about.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Another attempt to redirect the conversation. The pertinent point is Hill
and Kellerman (and others) heard only two shots, about five seconds apart,
and the shots at Z223 and Z313 are an almost perfect match for their
recollections. And the point is that this scenario, with the head impact
the third loud noise, fits the witness recollections better than Robert
Harris four or five or more shots scenario, with unseen shooters firing
unheard bullets from unseen rifles that cause no damage... almost like
those unseen shooters didn't even exist.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before, close enough for government work.
I never objected to a guess. But we used to tease Tink and tell him that
he's had to rename his book to 4.9 Seconds in Dalas.
But where is your miss? Before or after the first hit?
Hoe well eold 11 Seconds in Dallas sell?

> of 5 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK. I suppose we could

Has anyone invented a theory that CONNALLY WAS HIT FIRST?

> nitpick even further by pointing out that the FBI determined Zapruder's
> camera filmed at an AVERAGE speed of 18.3 frames per second which implies

JEEZ, but it's so much fun to nitpick. HOW could yOU determine the exact
speed of the camera during the shots?

> it didn't operate at a constant speed but the variation is probably
> minimal so 18.3 seems a good enough figure.
>

Right, so is the theory that the film rate his higher when it is fully
wound and it gets slower later> Did you know that the CIA analyzed the
Zapruder film? Ever hear of Itek?


>

[John Corbett]

Hank, could you clarify one point. Are you a proponent of the two shot
scenario or are you just pointing it out as a theoretical possibility?

[John Corbett]

When we are talking about estimates, of course close is all we can get. Do
you think Clint Hill had a stopwatch? Hill's estimate was off by .1
seconds. Your calculation was off by .5 seconds. Was that close enough
you?

> I never objected to a guess. But we used to tease Tink and tell him that
> he's had to rename his book to 4.9 Seconds in Dalas.
> But where is your miss? Before or after the first hit?
> Hoe well eold 11 Seconds in Dallas sell?
>

The missed shot was the first shot. That's why Connally remembered hearing
a shot several seconds before he felt the shot that hit him.

> > of 5 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK. I suppose we could
>
> Has anyone invented a theory that CONNALLY WAS HIT FIRST?
>

Not to my knowledge.

> > nitpick even further by pointing out that the FBI determined Zapruder's
> > camera filmed at an AVERAGE speed of 18.3 frames per second which implies
>
> JEEZ, but it's so much fun to nitpick. HOW could yOU determine the exact
> speed of the camera during the shots?
>

I can't. Nobody can.

> > it didn't operate at a constant speed but the variation is probably
> > minimal so 18.3 seems a good enough figure.
> >
>
> Right, so is the theory that the film rate his higher when it is fully
> wound and it gets slower later> Did you know that the CIA analyzed the
> Zapruder film? Ever hear of Itek?
>

So do you know the variation and that it would be significant enough to
even bother considering?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Over at the International Skeptics forum when Bob Harris was posting in
2015, he kept insisting there was no alternative hypothesis to his own
copyrighted "shots at Z285 and Z313" argument that explained what the
witnesses heard and said about the final two shots being close
together.

I developed the alternative two shot (and one impact sound) hypothesis on
a lark just to show that with the right selection of witness testimony,
you could support a different hypothesis that didn't require multiple
unseen assassins, multiple unseen silenced and unsilenced weapons firing
multiple unseen shots each, causing no damage whatsoever, and then
vanishing without a trace. And still explained what the majority of the
witnesses heard better than his own hypothesis.

I only learned later there was an actual book published with just that
scenario. I also learned later that although Bob like to argue the
witnesses heard the final two shots close together, and argued for those
at Z285 and Z313, he actually favored even more shots after Z313, which
means even his own scenario doesn't account for the witness accounts
correctly.

I also pointed out that it makes no sense to try to frame a lone nut by
shooting JFK with multiple weapons from multiple locations, and no sane
conspirators would attempt to do that, but of course that made no impact
on Bob. No CT ever responds to arguments that questions why the
conspirators would choose to assassinate the President the way they
suggest and then try to frame a lone nut for it as well.

Hank

[John Corbett]

I will give Bob credit for one thing. He is one of the few CTs I have ever
come across that accepted the SBT as valid. If only he wasn't so obsessed
with his pet theory.

Of course it makes no sense to shoot JFK from multiple locations if your
intent is to frame a lone gunman. What if the other shooters were seen?
What if lead from their guns was recovered? What if there were wounds that
could not have been caused by a shot from behind (I know. Marsh claims
there were). As an extension of this, what reason would the conspirators
have for planting CE399 at Parkland. What purpose would that serve? There
are two possible scenarios. One is that they shot JFK using only Oswald's
rifle. If that were true, why would they bother planting another bullet
from that rifle? Why not just allow the bullets that did kill JFK tpo
speak for themselves. On the other hand, if they used one or more rifles
that were not Oswald's Carcano, how would they know bullets from those
other rifles would not be recovered? If you have bullets in evidence from
more than one rifle, it would be pointless to try to frame a lone
assassin. Of course CTs rarely think these things through.

[Anthony Marsh]

> ]

Silly boy. Professsional assassins should not leave their rifles behind.
They need them for the next job.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/9/2020 9:11 PM, John Corbett wrote:

Of course it makes sense to shoot dfrom multiple locations. Other
assassinations have done that. One shot might br blocked by a tree ehile
the other sshooter has a clear shot.

> intent is to frame a lone gunman. What if the other shooters were seen?

WHAT OTHER SHOOTERS WERE SEEN? No shooters were scene.

> What if lead from their guns was recovered? What if there were wounds that

No problem. The government can cover up anything. You must believe
whatever the government says,

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I would suggest they could always buy another weapon cheaply. Or have
another weapon stashed somewhere. That's what Oswald did - he left his
rifle behind and went to his rooming house to pick up his revolver.

What "professional assassins" used rifles as a matter of course? Mafia hit
men took out their victims in a variety of different ways, but mostly
using cheap handguns. I cannot recall any using a rifle to shoot someone
from long distance. Can you name any professional assassins that used a
rifle?

Hank

[John Corbett]

Professional assassins get paid well enough that they can afford a new
rifle for their next hit.

"Leave the gun. Take the Cannoli."

[John Corbett]

Right. They did such a bang up job of covering up Watergate.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't want to get too technical on you, but using a revolver in
Dealey plaza would be extremely diffucult, At those ranges you need a
rifle. That's why all militaries and spy agencies teach snipers to use
rifles.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. You know absolutely nothing about rifles and rifles.
You don't know how to zero in a rifle.

> "Leave the gun. Take the Cannoli."
>

I don't remember that TV ad.

[Anthony Marsh]

BUt for the courage of one man who blew the whistle. THEY ALMOST GoT AWAY
WITH IT.
They got away with it long enough for Nixon to get reelected,
If not for one lone Senator who told Nixon thar he would be impeached
and removed, Nixon would have still been in power.

[John Corbett]

Goldwater told Nixon if he didn't resign he would be impeached and
convicted. He did nothing but spell out the reality for Nixon. He had lost
all his allies in both chambers of the Congress. All the GOP members of
the House Judiciary committee who had voted not to forward the articles of
impeachment to the full House changed their position once the tapes were
made public. Had the vote been held after the tapes came out, it would
have been 33-0 for impeachment. Had he not resigned, Nixon would have been
impeached and convicted within a month.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

I don't want to get too technical on you, but my argument wasn't that the
purported additional assassins choice was to use a rifle or handgun to
shoot JFK.

My argument was that these supposed assassins could afford another weapon,
like Oswald (who worked at a minimum wage job) had two.

You claimed above that "Professsional assassins should not leave their

rifles behind. They need them for the next job."

They don't. They could afford to buy another weapon for their next job.

But you accomplished your task. Nobody is talking about the rebuttal
argument Bob Corbett put forward here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/FJ9N6Crdw2g/m/yeop68l1BgAJ
== QUOTE ==

Of course it makes no sense to shoot JFK from multiple locations if your
intent is to frame a lone gunman. What if the other shooters were seen?
What if lead from their guns was recovered? What if there were wounds that
could not have been caused by a shot from behind (I know. Marsh claims
there were). As an extension of this, what reason would the conspirators
have for planting CE399 at Parkland. What purpose would that serve? There
are two possible scenarios. One is that they shot JFK using only Oswald's
rifle. If that were true, why would they bother planting another bullet
from that rifle? Why not just allow the bullets that did kill JFK tpo
speak for themselves. On the other hand, if they used one or more rifles
that were not Oswald's Carcano, how would they know bullets from those
other rifles would not be recovered? If you have bullets in evidence from
more than one rifle, it would be pointless to try to frame a lone
assassin. Of course CTs rarely think these things through.

== UNQUOTE ==

Congratulations... you successfully misdirected another thread.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Not if you intend to frame a lone nut for the assassination. The other
shooters might be seen shooting. They might leave bullets or fragments
behind in the limo or the victim(s) that establish a second gun. The
autopsy might reveal the victim(s) were shot from multiple directions.
There might be film or photos showing these other shooters.

A lot can go wrong if you're trying to frame a lone nut and using multiple
shooters.

> > intent is to frame a lone gunman. What if the other shooters were seen?
> WHAT OTHER SHOOTERS WERE SEEN? No shooters were scene.

Exactly! And they left behind no weapons. And there were no bullets or
shells or fragments recovered that had sufficient markings to be traced
that weren't traced to Oswald's rifle. And they were never seen. And no
rifle was seen. And no damage to either of the victims that wasn't from
Oswald's location (above and behind).

Gee, it's almost like they never existed.

Check that... it's exactly like they never existed.

> > What if lead from their guns was recovered? What if there were wounds that
> No problem. The government can cover up anything. You must believe
> whatever the government says,

You're begging the question on both fronts. You're asserting but not
proving that the government covered up anything regarding the supposed
other shooters that you conjecture but do not prove.

And you're asserting but not proving that people who disagree with you do
so because they believe whatever the government says, rather that
understanding that those who disagree with you might actually have studied
the case evidence, and reached the only reasonable conclusion one can
reach... one lone shooter, with a grudge and a gun, shooting the most
powerful man in the free world from his place of work because happenstance
put the shooter in a location to do so, and happenstance brought the
President to that location.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You are assuming Kennedy needed to be shot from a distance. He didn't.
Oswald had a choice of two weapons, shooting JFK from a distance with a
rifle or shooting JFK from close range as he drove past with a revolver.
Ditto with any "professional" assassins you might choose to conjecture.

The close range shot is typically preferred by assassins. You might want
to dwell on why Oswald choose to leave his revolver at the rooming house
and take his rifle to the depository.

If he used the revolver to shoot Kennedy, he wouldn't have an opportunity
to go to the Paine home and pick up the rifle and shoot General Walker.

If he uses the rifle to shoot Kennedy, he does have an opportunity to go
to the rooming house and pick up the revolver.

Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.

That was still unfinished, and they can only fry you once, regardless of
how many people you kill. That's why he had no compunction about killing
Tippit when Tippit appeared to be in a position to thwart his plans.

But I digress. Your argument presumes the shooting had to be from a
distance. It didn't. Oswald could have elected to jump out of the crowd on
Elm or on Main and charge the limo, shooting at the President with his
revolver.

Hank

[John Corbett]

If you have even a competent sniper, one shooter is all you need. If he
was really good, one shot is all he would need. Oswald was competent but
no expert with a rifle. That's why he needed three shots to get it done.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, any professional assassin would use a rifle from a distance.

[Anthony Marsh]

WE PTOVED THAT A LONG TIME AGO.

> And you're asserting but not proving that people who disagree with you do
> so because they believe whatever the government says, rather that

That is the logical assumption. If they did not accept the government's
conclusions then they would be conapiracy beleievers, I OFTEN DISAGREE
WITH OTHER CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS.

> understanding that those who disagree with you might actually have studied
> the case evidence, and reached the only reasonable conclusion one can

Who? Not you, not WC defenders.

> reach... one lone shooter, with a grudge and a gun, shooting the most

What gudge did Frank Bender have. Does a professional assassin always
need to have a grudge or does he just take the mony?
You have a childish view of the world.

> powerful man in the free world from his place of work because happenstance
> put the shooter in a location to do so, and happenstance brought the
> President to that location.
>

They could have shot him anywhere. But they had to go where they knew
JFK would be.

> Hank
>

[x]

On 10/13/2020 5:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
[...]

>
> Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.

Walker lived on Turtle Creek Blvd, North of downtown.
Oswald's trajectory after grabbing the revolver took
him South, deeper into Oak Cliff. How do you reconcile
your belief with Oswald's movementd?

[John Corbett]

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom, Captain Obvious. It is also irrelevant
to the point Hank made.

[John Corbett]

You disagree with everybody. Sometimes you even disagree with yourself.

>
> > understanding that those who disagree with you might actually have studied
> > the case evidence, and reached the only reasonable conclusion one can
>
> Who? Not you, not WC defenders.
>
> > reach... one lone shooter, with a grudge and a gun, shooting the most
>
> What gudge did Frank Bender have. Does a professional assassin always
> need to have a grudge or does he just take the mony?
> You have a childish view of the world.
>

There is no evidence Frank Bender fired a shot at JFK. There is no
evidence Frank Bender was even in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. You have
imagined all of that.

> > powerful man in the free world from his place of work because happenstance
> > put the shooter in a location to do so, and happenstance brought the
> > President to that location.
> >
>
> They could have shot him anywhere.

"They" could have but Oswald couldn't have. He had a very small window of opportunity.

> But they had to go where they knew JFK would be.

Since they could have shot him anywhere, they didn't need to do it in
Dallas. Oswald needed to do it there.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Really? I missed the news of the arrests of the other conspirators, and
their convictions.

> > And you're asserting but not proving that people who disagree with you do
> > so because they believe whatever the government says, rather that
> That is the logical assumption.
> If they did not accept the government's
> conclusions then they would be conapiracy beleievers, I OFTEN DISAGREE
> WITH OTHER CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS.
> > understanding that those who disagree with you might actually have studied
> > the case evidence, and reached the only reasonable conclusion one can
> Who? Not you, not WC defenders.

No, you're missing my point.

I've read the WC Volumes (not the report) multiple times. The evidence
therein convinces me that Oswald shot the President. It's not because of
anything the Warren Commission concluded.

> > reach... one lone shooter, with a grudge and a gun, shooting the most
> What gudge did Frank Bender have. Does a professional assassin always
> need to have a grudge or does he just take the mony?

You're missing my point. There's no evidence Bender shot the President.
His rifle wasn't recovered in the Depository. Shells from his weapon
weren't found there. Large bullet fragments from his weapon weren't found
in the limo. What was recovered was Oswald's rifle, Oswald's shells,
Oswald's fragments.

> You have a childish view of the world.
> > powerful man in the free world from his place of work because happenstance
> > put the shooter in a location to do so, and happenstance brought the
> > President to that location.
> >
> They could have shot him anywhere. But they had to go where they knew
> JFK would be.

Oswald couldn't get close to JFK in the White House. Happenstance brought
JFK to Oswald. That's what the evidence indicates.

If there were conspirators, which you have yet to prove, they could have
simply have released info on his mistresses. JFK would not have been
re-elected the following year. That's not a treasonous activity. Instead,
you claim they'd rather shoot the President and risk death by firing
squad. Sorry, the risk / reward balance there seems heavily weighted
toward risk. Why not just release the details of his sexcapades and if he
still got re-elected, ramp up the conspiracy then?

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but snipers are often sent out in teams of 2. Thr other person is
called the spotter, One of his jobs is to protect the sniper from
enemy fire like someone sneaking behind him.
As I said before, the sniper on the grassy knoll shooter was there only
for the insurance shot. He did not fire at the beginning, only at the
end, when the TSBD shooter kept misssing.
Do we know anyone who keeps missing.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

> > Elm or on Main and charge the limo, shooting at the President with his
> > revolver.
> Yes, any professional assassin would use a rifle from a distance.

Not talking about a professional. Oswald did it for free.

And I already pointed out your claim is untrue. You need to claim that to
support that Kennedy was shot from a distance by conspirators. But Mafia
hit men (who were certainly professional) didn't use rifles to kill their
victims. Those guys typically used cheap revolvers if they used firearms
at all. Stabbing and garroting were also favored methods.


> >
> > Hank
> >
> >

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, for thr grassy knoll shot the HSCA tested boh a rifle and a
revolver. Which one won?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/15/2020 6:48 PM, x wrote:
> On 10/13/2020 5:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.
>
> Walker lived on Turtle Creek Blvd, North of downtown.
> Oswald's trajectory after grabbing the revolver took

> him South, deeper into Oak Cliff.?? How do you reconcile

> your belief with Oswald's movementd?
>

ARE YOU ASKING hANK? hOW RUDE. hE WON'T EVEN ADMIT ANYTHING.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe they did. Maybe that was their last chance.

>

[John Corbett]

I guess if you don't require evidence, you can dream up any scenario you
like.

[John Corbett]

I liked Goodfellas when Tommy (Joe Pesci) shoved the icepick into the back
of Murray's head. The there was Casino where Pesci's character settled out
of court with the woman who was suing their Casino.

[Eric Beren]

You.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did Frank Bender do it for free for fun?

> And I already pointed out your claim is untrue. You need to claim that to
> support that Kennedy was shot from a distance by conspirators. But Mafia

WELL, THERE USED TO BE SOME KOOK WHO SAID that JFK was shot from the SS
car. But maybe he died.

> hit men (who were certainly professional) didn't use rifles to kill their
> victims. Those guys typically used cheap revolvers if they used firearms

Who> Nane names and show me,

> at all. Stabbing and garroting were also favored methods.
>

Of Whom? SHow me the cases.

>
>>>
>>> Hank
>>>
>>>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I have evidencce AND science on my sie. All you have are the lies of the
WC.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 7:31:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/14/2020 2:23 PM, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 6:41:28 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> >> On Sunday, October 11, 2020 at 8:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>> On 10/9/2020 9:11 PM, John Corbett wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, October 9, 2020 at 6:28:50 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

vvvvv> >>>>> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 7:38:39 PM UTC-4, John Corbett

There is as much evidence for a grassy knoll sniper as there is for pink
unicorns. The supposed sniper you assert (but do not prove) was not seen
arriving or departing, his weapon was not seen, his bullet(s) caused no
damage and were never found. Like I point out to Bob Harris, it's almost
like this supposed sniper you conjecture never existed. In fact, it's
exactly like this supposed sniper never existed. Him and his pink unicorn
spotter.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 8:50:30 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/16/2020 7:31 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 11:24:56 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2020 6:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:

> >>> On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 10:46:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrotevvvvvv:

And that's the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. The classic example is "Do you still beat your wife?"
Begging the Question is where you insert in your argument the very point you must prove. Frank Bender shooting from the knoll is unproven. Anyone shooting from the knoll is unproven.

> > And I already pointed out your claim is untrue. You need to claim that to
> > support that Kennedy was shot from a distance by conspirators. But Mafia
> WELL, THERE USED TO BE SOME KOOK WHO SAID that JFK was shot from the SS
> car. But maybe he died.

You're missing my point. We both know Kennedy was shot from a distance.
But the null argument here is one shooter, and more than one must be
established by you (since Kennedy was shot, you cannot have zero shooters,
one therefore is the default argument or the null). The burden of prove is
on your shoulders to erstablish more, not mine. And since JFK was shot
from a distance, you need argue for a military style ambush with multiple
teams of shooters and spotters. You need to establish all that and do so
in a way that takes the weapon out of Oswald's hands. The case against
Oswald is well known, and well-established. It was his weapon, his place
of employment, his long package brought to work, his fingerprints on the
recovered weapon and long package, his shells from his weapon at the
window a shooter was seen, his bullet fragments from his weapon recovered
from the limo, and his nearly whole bullet from his weapon recovered from
the hospital.

> > hit men (who were certainly professional) didn't use rifles to kill their
> > victims. Those guys typically used cheap revolvers if they used firearms
> Who> Nane names and show me,

G. Robert Blakey's book is full of them.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-plot-to-kill-the-president_richard-n-billings_g-robert-blakey/286339/all-editions/

> > at all. Stabbing and garroting were also favored methods.
> >
> Of Whom? SHow me the cases.

Robert Blakey's book is full of them.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-plot-to-kill-the-president_richard-n-billings_g-robert-blakey/286339/all-editions/

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Oswald could catch a bus on Jefferson heading within a few blocks of
Walker's residence. He asked for and retained the bus transfer from his
short bus trip with McWatters, I believe, to use on that bus. There was a
transfer point on Jefferson that was within a few blocks of the Texas
Theatre that would take him near Walker's residence. Oswald was familiar
with that route, as that was most likely how he scoped out the Walker
residence and took photos of that area in March of 1963. After the
shooting of Tippit, Oswald obviously had to change his plans and get off
the street. Hence his abandonin g his jacket (to change his appearance)
and ducking into the Texas Theatre. But neither of those were in his
original plan. If Tippit hadn't intercepted Oswald, Walker might have been
Oswald's second assassination (and fourth victim) struck by Oswald's
gunfire.

Details in this book, which doesn't get much recognition nowadays, but it
was one of the early defenses of the Warren Commission conclusions (published
1970):
https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=LCCN69013404
_THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY - The Reasons Why_ by Albert H. Newman.

But it went beyond that to discuss Oswald's motives and the reasons behind
some of his actions the Warren Commission couldn't figure out (or didn't
want to figure out). Like Oswald's devotion to Marxism and his latest
love, Cuba. And what Kennedy and Walker had in common. - both were opposed
to Castro in Cuba and wanted Castro out.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

You can *conjecture* whatever you wish. Establishing those things require
evidence. Where's the evidence of a "spotter" next to Oswald in the
Depository? When Oswald trained in the Marine Corps on the line, did each
man on the line have a "spotter" to help him, or did he shoot alone, at
his own target with no "spotter"?

> Thr other person is
> called the spotter, One of his jobs is to protect the sniper from
> enemy fire like someone sneaking behind him.

Who was going to sneak up behind the shooter in the Depository during the
eight or so seconds the shooting took? Same question for any of the
conjectured other shooter locations conspiracy theorists conjecture --
from the Dal-Tex building, the west end of the Depository, the grassy
knoll, the driver's seat in the limo, the storm drain, the overpass, the
umbella man's location, or the Criminal Courts building? Did I miss any?
What's the need of a spotter whatsoever?

> As I said before, the sniper on the grassy knoll shooter was there only
> for the insurance shot. He did not fire at the beginning, only at the
> end, when the TSBD shooter kept misssing.

Some small details you overlooked -- except for the autopsy and ballistic
evidence, which says the shooter in the TSBD didn't miss.

> Do we know anyone who keeps missing.

You miss something in every post.

Hank

[John Corbett]

Tell us your evidence that your grassy knoll shooter was only there to
take an insurance shot. How do you know he wasn't intending to shoot at
JFK no matter what. That seems like something only an insider would know.

[John Corbett]

Maybe he escaped on a pink unicorn.

[John Corbett]

Perhaps the clincher is the fresh fibers on the butt plate of the rifle
that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. That pretty much
kills the argument that someone else shot JFK using Oswald's rifle unless
one wants to argue that by an amazing coincidence, the shooter was wearing
the same kind of shirt Oswald was.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 11:14:46 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:48:23 PM UTC-4, x wrote:
> > On 10/13/2020 5:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.
> > Walker lived on Turtle Creek Blvd, North of downtown.
> > Oswald's trajectory after grabbing the revolver took
> > him South, deeper into Oak Cliff. How do you reconcile
> > your belief with Oswald's movementd?
>
> Oswald could catch a bus on Jefferson heading within a few blocks of
> Walker's residence. He asked for and retained the bus transfer from his
> short bus trip with McWatters, I believe, to use on that bus. There was a
> transfer point on Jefferson that was within a few blocks of the Texas
> Theatre that would take him near Walker's residence. Oswald was familiar
> with that route, as that was most likely how he scoped out the Walker
> residence and took photos of that area in March of 1963. After the
> shooting of Tippit, Oswald obviously had to change his plans and get off
> the street. Hence his abandonin g his jacket (to change his appearance)
> and ducking into the Texas Theatre. But neither of those were in his
> original plan. If Tippit hadn't intercepted Oswald, Walker might have been
> Oswald's second assassination (and fourth victim) struck by Oswald's
> gunfire.
>

Interesting theory. It's hard to figure Oswald's movements after he left
the rooming house with his revolver but fascinating to try. In 2008 I
visited Dallas and walked from his rooming house to the spot Tippit was
killed. It took me about 12 minutes at a fast walk with a brief stop at a
traffic light. Of course I don't know at what point he turned off Beckley.
The interesting question is why he didn't just stay on Beckley. That would
be the most direct route to Jefferson. What was his reason for taking that
turn and where was he heading. We can't know. We can only guess.

> Details in this book, which doesn't get much recognition nowadays, but it
> was one of the early defenses of the Warren Commission conclusions (published
> 1970):
> https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=LCCN69013404
> _THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY - The Reasons Why_ by Albert H. Newman.
>
> But it went beyond that to discuss Oswald's motives and the reasons behind
> some of his actions the Warren Commission couldn't figure out (or didn't
> want to figure out). Like Oswald's devotion to Marxism and his latest
> love, Cuba. And what Kennedy and Walker had in common. - both were opposed
> to Castro in Cuba and wanted Castro out.
>

It is impossible to get into the mind of Oswald because he left so few
clues. It is fun to guess though. It really isn't necessary to know why he
did it. We only know that he did do it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the same. So, how did YOU ANSWer?
Seems that whenever I menttion a logical fallacy you use it for
everything.

> Begging the Question is where you insert in your argument the very point you must prove. Frank Bender shooting from the knoll is unproven. Anyone shooting from the knoll is unproven.
>
>
>>> And I already pointed out your claim is untrue. You need to claim that to
>>> support that Kennedy was shot from a distance by conspirators. But Mafia
>> WELL, THERE USED TO BE SOME KOOK WHO SAID that JFK was shot from the SS
>> car. But maybe he died.
>
> You're missing my point. We both know Kennedy was shot from a distance.
> But the null argument here is one shooter, and more than one must be

No, that is not the null argument. YOU are the null.

> established by you (since Kennedy was shot, you cannot have zero shooters,
> one therefore is the default argument or the null). The burden of prove is
> on your shoulders to erstablish more, not mine. And since JFK was shot
> from a distance, you need argue for a military style ambush with multiple

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzridiculous. No one has an arguumrnt that
there were NO shooters. You are being silly.

> teams of shooters and spotters. You need to establish all that and do so

I HAVE,

> in a way that takes the weapon out of Oswald's hands. The case against

Oswald does not have to be a shooter.

> Oswald is well known, and well-established. It was his weapon, his place

He was not that well known before the shooting, except to th
intelligence services.

> of employment, his long package brought to work, his fingerprints on the

NOT LONG.
shORT ENOUGH TO TUcK UNDER HIS armpit.

you still have not replicatated that. So lazy!

> recovered weapon and long package, his shells from his weapon at the
> window a shooter was seen, his bullet fragments from his weapon recovered
> from the limo, and his nearly whole bullet from his weapon recovered from
> the hospital.
>

SOMEONE WAS SEEN UP THERE AND the acoustical evidence proved that 3
shots were fired from that window, not WHO fired them.

>>> hit men (who were certainly professional) didn't use rifles to kill their
>>> victims. Those guys typically used cheap revolvers if they used firearms
>> Who> Nane names and show me,
>
> G. Robert Blakey's book is full of them.
> https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-plot-to-kill-the-president_richard-n-billings_g-robert-blakey/286339/all-editions/
>
>>> at all. Stabbing and garroting were also favored methods.
>>>
>> Of Whom? SHow me the cases.
>
> Robert Blakey's book is full of them.
> https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-plot-to-kill-the-president_richard-n-billings_g-robert-blakey/286339/all-editions/
>

You are full of it.

> Hank
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/19/2020 11:14 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:48:23 PM UTC-4, x wrote:
>> On 10/13/2020 5:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.
>> Walker lived on Turtle Creek Blvd, North of downtown.
>> Oswald's trajectory after grabbing the revolver took
>> him South, deeper into Oak Cliff. How do you reconcile
>> your belief with Oswald's movementd?
>
> Oswald could catch a bus on Jefferson heading within a few blocks of
> Walker's residence. He asked for and retained the bus transfer from his
> short bus trip with McWatters, I believe, to use on that bus. There was a
> transfer point on Jefferson that was within a few blocks of the Texas
> Theatre that would take him near Walker's residence. Oswald was familiar
> with that route, as that was most likely how he scoped out the Walker
> residence and took photos of that area in March of 1963. After the
> shooting of Tippit, Oswald obviously had to change his plans and get off

> the street. Hence his abandonin= his jacket (to change his appearance)

> and ducking into the Texas Theatre. But neither of those were in his
> original plan. If Tippit hadn't intercepted Oswald, Walker might have been
> Oswald's second assassination (and fourth victim) struck by Oswald's
> gunfire.
>
> Details in this book, which doesn't get much recognition nowadays, but it
> was one of the early defenses of the Warren Commission conclusions (published
> 1970):
> https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=LCCN69013404
> _THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY - The Reasons Why_ by Albert H. Newman.
>
> But it went beyond that to discuss Oswald's motives and the reasons behind
> some of his actions the Warren Commission couldn't figure out (or didn't
> want to figure out). Like Oswald's devotion to Marxism and his latest
> love, Cuba. And what Kennedy and Walker had in common. - both were opposed
> to Castro in Cuba and wanted Castro out.
>

Which rnmins me of a cute movie I saw last night. I was trying out the
free app on Xfinity and it listed a bunch of Sci-Fi movies for free from
MST3K and I picked one called Red Zone Cuba, These 3 bums are wondering
around broke and see an offer to get $1000 to join the fight against
Castro in Cuba. but they screw up abd get captured.


It was one of the worse moviies the could find. I fell aslpeep halfway
through, I think what happened was that there were freed and sent back to
the US where they wonadered around committing petty crimes. Then one day
hopped on a frighttrain and ended up in Dealey Plaza where they shot
JFK for lunch money. They became known as The Three Tramps.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. That fiber could have been left there days before. You can't prove
that it was left there on 11/22/63.

>
>

[John Corbett]

For once you are right. Oswald didn't have to be a shooter. He chose to be.

> > Oswald is well known, and well-established. It was his weapon, his place
>
> He was not that well known before the shooting, except to th
> intelligence services.
>

That changed when he fired the shots at JFK.

> > of employment, his long package brought to work, his fingerprints on the
>
> NOT LONG.
> shORT ENOUGH TO TUcK UNDER HIS armpit.
>

According to ONE witness. Aren't you the guy who is always telling us not
to rely on witnesses. I guess only you are allowed to rely on witnesses
when it suits your purpose. The physical evidence gives us a bag that was
long enough and it had Oswald's fingerprint on that. But ignore that
because you have a witness that says otherwise.

> you still have not replicatated that. So lazy!
>
>
> > recovered weapon and long package, his shells from his weapon at the
> > window a shooter was seen, his bullet fragments from his weapon recovered
> > from the limo, and his nearly whole bullet from his weapon recovered from
> > the hospital.
> >
>
> SOMEONE WAS SEEN UP THERE AND the acoustical evidence proved that 3
> shots were fired from that window, not WHO fired them.
>

There was lots of proof before anyone looked at the accoustics evidence.
We have Oswald's fingerprints there. We have shells from Oswald's rifle
there. We have a bag with Oswald's prints found next to the nest. We have
recovered bullets from Oswald's rifle. We have Oswald's rifle found a
short distance away. We have fibers matching Oswald's shirt on the butt
plate of the rifle. We have an eyewitness who IDed Oswald. So who fired
Oswald's rifle? HHHMMMMM??? That's a real stumper. Where's Sherlock Holmes
when you need him?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/20/2020 9:00 PM, John Corbett wrote:

The WC was ordered to not specilate about motive. What are you trying to
do, start WWIII?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2020 9:56 PM, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 9:59:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/19/2020 11:14 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>>
>>> established by you (since Kennedy was shot, you cannot have zero shooters,
>>> one therefore is the default argument or the null). The burden of prove is
>>> on your shoulders to erstablish more, not mine. And since JFK was shot
>>> from a distance, you need argue for a military style ambush with multiple
>>
>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzridiculous. No one has an arguumrnt that
>> there were NO shooters. You are being silly.
>>
>>> teams of shooters and spotters. You need to establish all that and do so
>>
>> I HAVE,
>>
>>> in a way that takes the weapon out of Oswald's hands. The case against
>>
>> Oswald does not have to be a shooter.
>>
> For once you are right. Oswald didn't have to be a shooter. He chose to be.
>
>>> Oswald is well known, and well-established. It was his weapon, his place
>>
>> He was not that well known before the shooting, except to th
>> intelligence services.
>>
>
> That changed when he fired the shots at JFK.
>

Did you know that Oswald shot and killed a cop?
Most people seem to forget that.

>>> of employment, his long package brought to work, his fingerprints on the
>>
>> NOT LONG.
>> shORT ENOUGH TO TUcK UNDER HIS armpit.
>>
>
> According to ONE witness. Aren't you the guy who is always telling us not
> to rely on witnesses. I guess only you are allowed to rely on witnesses

Not to rely. But don't ignore.

> when it suits your purpose. The physical evidence gives us a bag that was
> long enough and it had Oswald's fingerprint on that. But ignore that

SHOW ME his fingerprints.
Did you know it was his rifle? I bet if YOU owned a riflr we could find
YOUR fingerpreints on it. That does not ptove whom you shot when.

> because you have a witness that says otherwise.
>
>> you still have not replicatated that. So lazy!
>>
>>

No ansewer to my challenge.
You know you would fail. Like Dan Rather.

>>> recovered weapon and long package, his shells from his weapon at the
>>> window a shooter was seen, his bullet fragments from his weapon recovered
>>> from the limo, and his nearly whole bullet from his weapon recovered from
>>> the hospital.
>>>
>>
>> SOMEONE WAS SEEN UP THERE AND the acoustical evidence proved that 3
>> shots were fired from that window, not WHO fired them.
>>
>
> There was lots of proof before anyone looked at the accoustics evidence.
> We have Oswald's fingerprints there. We have shells from Oswald's rifle
> there. We have a bag with Oswald's prints found next to the nest. We have
> recovered bullets from Oswald's rifle. We have Oswald's rifle found a
> short distance away. We have fibers matching Oswald's shirt on the butt
> plate of the rifle. We have an eyewitness who IDed Oswald. So who fired
> Oswald's rifle? HHHMMMMM??? That's a real stumper. Where's Sherlock Holmes
> when you need him?
>

Do you understand the difference between between physical evidence and
circumstanial evidence? No, I didn't think so.

>

[John Corbett]

Is that so? There's a whole section of the WCR devoted to Oswald's
possible motives. See Chapter 7.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hialrious. Critics always take the approach of the guy accused of having
sex with an underage girl, backtracking all the way:

1. I didn't know her.
2. I never touchded her.
3. She told me she was over 18.

Critics are much the same way, so we get arguments like:
1. Oswald never owned a rifle.
2. Oswald never owned THAT rifle.
3. Oswald might have left the fibers days prior to the assassination.

They never seem to understand that this claim isn't proof he didn't fire
the weapon, but it does put the lie to excuses 1 and 2. But when this is
pointed out, they typically go right back to arguing Oswald never owned a
rifle.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:29:55 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Like all conspiracy theorists, you make grand pronouncements you cannot
support. Here is another one.

Please show us the order where the Warren Commission was ordered not to
speculate about motive.

You cannot, because such an order does not exist.


Moreover, the claim you make is easily disproven, because the Warren
Commission did speculate about motive. It's almost like you never read the
Warren Report.

Chapter seven is entitled: "Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible
Motives"

In that chapter, they examine Oswald's life from birth through his death,
and do speculate as to his motives:

Here, let me quote their speculations for you:
=== UNQUOTE ===

Conclusion

Many factors were undoubtedly involved in Oswald's motivation for the assassination, and the Commission does not believe that it can ascribe to him any one motive or group of motives. It is apparent, however, that Oswald was moved by an overriding hostility to his environment. He does not appear to have been able to establish meaningful relationships with other people. He was perpetually discontented with the world around him. Long before the assassination he expressed his hatred for American society and acted in protest against it. Oswald's search for what he conceived to be the perfect society was doomed from the start. He sought for himself a place in history--a role as the "great man" who would be recognized as having been in advance of his times. His commitment to Marxism and communism appears to have been another important factor in his motivation. He also had demonstrated a capacity to act decisively and without regard to the consequences when such action would further his aims of the moment. Out of these and the many other factors which may have molded the character of Lee Harvey Oswald there emerged a man capable of assassinating President Kennedy.
=== UNQUOTE ===

On what basis do you assert the Warren Commission was ordered to not
speculate? That claim has no basis in fact because they did in fact
speculate.

Hank

[John Corbett]

No, I had never heard that, Captain Obvious.

> You know you would fail. Like Dan Rather.
>

WTF???

>
> >>> recovered weapon and long package, his shells from his weapon at the
> >>> window a shooter was seen, his bullet fragments from his weapon recovered
> >>> from the limo, and his nearly whole bullet from his weapon recovered from
> >>> the hospital.
> >>>
> >>
> >> SOMEONE WAS SEEN UP THERE AND the acoustical evidence proved that 3
> >> shots were fired from that window, not WHO fired them.
> >>
> >
> > There was lots of proof before anyone looked at the accoustics evidence.
> > We have Oswald's fingerprints there. We have shells from Oswald's rifle
> > there. We have a bag with Oswald's prints found next to the nest. We have
> > recovered bullets from Oswald's rifle. We have Oswald's rifle found a
> > short distance away. We have fibers matching Oswald's shirt on the butt
> > plate of the rifle. We have an eyewitness who IDed Oswald. So who fired
> > Oswald's rifle? HHHMMMMM??? That's a real stumper. Where's Sherlock Holmes
> > when you need him?
> >
>
> Do you understand the difference between between physical evidence and
> circumstanial evidence? No, I didn't think so.
>

It's always humorous when you can't argue with the point being made and
attempt a diversion like the one above.

[Anthony Marsh]

But nothing about Oswald working for Castro.

[Anthony Marsh]

Please try to stay on topic. We are not here to discuss Trump's sex life
or even tthe newest assassin.

> 1. I didn't know her.
> 2. I never touchded her.
> 3. She told me she was over 18.
>

That's what Trump said. He paid her to not tell her story. Why would he
[ay all that money if there was no story to tell?

> Critics are much the same way, so we get arguments like:
> 1. Oswald never owned a rifle.

Silly. I never said that. Go yell at someone else.

> 2. Oswald never owned THAT rifle.

Isn't that the same thing?

> 3. Oswald might have left the fibers days prior to the assassination.
>

Well, Duh. How could he leave the fibers after the assassination?

> They never seem to understand that this claim isn't proof he didn't fire
> the weapon, but it does put the lie to excuses 1 and 2. But when this is
> pointed out, they typically go right back to arguing Oswald never owned a
> rifle.
>

Well, we know your habit of misreprsenting the evidence.

> Hank
>

[x]

On 10/19/2020 10:14 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:48:23 PM UTC-4, x wrote:
>> On 10/13/2020 5:41 PM, Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Why pick up the revolver? I believe to shoot Walker.
>> Walker lived on Turtle Creek Blvd, North of downtown.
>> Oswald's trajectory after grabbing the revolver took
>> him South, deeper into Oak Cliff. How do you reconcile
>> your belief with Oswald's movementd?
>
> Oswald could catch a bus on Jefferson heading within a few blocks of
> Walker's residence. He asked for and retained the bus transfer from his
> short bus trip with McWatters, I believe, to use on that bus. There was a
> transfer point on Jefferson that was within a few blocks of the Texas
> Theatre that would take him near Walker's residence. Oswald was familiar
> with that route, as that was most likely how he scoped out the Walker
> residence and took photos of that area in March of 1963. After the
> shooting of Tippit, Oswald obviously had to change his plans and get off

> the street. Hence his abandonin= his jacket (to change his appearance)

> and ducking into the Texas Theatre. But neither of those were in his
> original plan. If Tippit hadn't intercepted Oswald, Walker might have been
> Oswald's second assassination (and fourth victim) struck by Oswald's
> gunfire.
>
> Details in this book, which doesn't get much recognition nowadays, but it
> was one of the early defenses of the Warren Commission conclusions (published
> 1970):
> https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=LCCN69013404
> _THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY - The Reasons Why_ by Albert H. Newman.
>
> But it went beyond that to discuss Oswald's motives and the reasons behind
> some of his actions the Warren Commission couldn't figure out (or didn't
> want to figure out). Like Oswald's devotion to Marxism and his latest
> love, Cuba. And what Kennedy and Walker had in common. - both were opposed
> to Castro in Cuba and wanted Castro out.

I dimly remember Newman's book, but it's been a long
time, and I remember something about his argument.
Vaguely. I wonder how many other transfer points there
were in Oak Cliff that would have been as near or nearer
(or more convenient, for that matter) to the Beckley
St boarding house, and how many of these would have
allowed Oswald to catch a DTS bus to a stop near Walker.
The latter, BTW, is likely to be most or all of the
former; transit systems are intended to get you from
where you are to where you want to go, after all.
I don't think Newman's take can be considered to be
anything other than an informed guess.

[John Corbett]

Another lame attempt to divert attention away from your latest blunder.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

We can always count on you for a logical fallacy. This one is moving the
goalposts. It might also be labelled a non sequitur (it doesn't follow
from anything said previously). Some might call it a red herring (changing
the subject).

You might want to reconsider your approach. If your arguments rely on
deflecting from the fact your prior claim was false, you don't have an
argument worthy of consideration. You have a belief system based on faith
of the validity of your conclusion.

Your claim was that the Warren Commission was ordered to not "specilate"
about Oswald's motive. That was established to be false by quoting from
the Warren Report itself. They did in fact speculate about Oswald's
motive.

Did you retract your claim? No. Did you apologize for posting false
information? No. Did your reassess your arguments in light of the
discovery that one of your supposed facts were wrong? No.

Instead, you now argue they should have said something about Oswald
working for Castro and their failure to do so means something (exactly
what, you don't say).

But there is no evidence Oswald was working for Castro, so you lose that
argument as well. There was evidence he was enamored with the Castro
revolution in Cuba, and they mentioned THAT aplenty, covering the time
from before his defection (while he served in the Marine Corps) and after
his return to the U.S. After getting this much wrong about what the Warren
Commission concluded, one might reasonably conclude you don't know as much
about the Warren Commission's conclusions as you claim you do.

== QUOTE ==
Lieutenant Donovan testified that Oswald thought that "there were many grave injustices concerning the affairs in the international situation." He recalled that Oswald had a specific interest in Latin America, particularly Cuba, and expressed opposition to the Batista regime and sympathy for Castro, an attitude which, Donovan said, was "not ... unpopular" at that time. Donovan testified that he never heard Oswald express a desire personally to take part in the elimination of injustices anywhere in the world and that he "never heard him in any way, shape or form confess that he was a Communist, or that he ever thought about being a Communist." Delgado testified that Oswald was "a complete believer that our way of government was not quite right" and believed that our Government did not have "too much to offer," but was not in favor of "the Communist way of life." Delgado and Oswald talked more about Cuba than Russia, and sometimes imagined themselves as leaders in the Cuban Army or Government, who might "lead an expedition to some of these other islands and free them too."

Thornley also believed that Oswald's Marxist beliefs led to an extraordinary view of history under which:

He looked upon the eyes of future people as some kind of tribunal, and he wanted to be on the winning side so that 10,000 years from-now people would look in the history books and say, "Well, this man was ahead of his time." ... The eyes of the future became ... the eyes of God.... He was concerned with his image in history and I do think that is why he chose ... the particular method [of defecting] he chose and did it in the way he did. It got him in the newspapers. It did broadcast his name out.

Thornley thought that Oswald not only wanted a place in history but also wanted to live comfortably in the present. He testified that if Oswald could not have that "degree of physical comfort that he expected or sought, I think he would then throw himself entirely on the other thing he also wanted, which was the image in history. ...

I think he wanted both if he could have them. If he didn't, he wanted to die with the knowledge that, or with the idea that he was somebody."
== UNQUOTE ==

They went on to point out all of this:
=== QUOTE ===
Oswald's activities with regard to Cuba raise serious questions as to how much he might have been motivated in the assassination by a desire to aid the Castro regime, which President Kennedy so out-spokenly criticized. For example, the Dallas Times Herald of November 19, 1963, prominently reported President Kennedy as having "all but invited the Cuban people today to overthrow Fidel Castro's Communist regime and promised prompt U.S. aid if they do." The Castro regime severely attacked President Kennedy in connection with the Bay of Pigs affair, the Cuban missile crisis, the ban on travel to Cuba, the economic embargo against that country, and the general policy of the United States with regard to Cuba. An examination of the Militant, to which Oswald subscribed, for the 3-month period prior to the assassination reflects an extremely critical attitude toward President Kennedy and his administration concerning Cuban policy in general as well as on the issues of automation and civil rights, issues which appeared to concern Oswald a great deal. The Militant also reflected a critical attitude toward President Kennedy's attempts to reduce tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. It also dealt with the fear of the Castro regime that such a policy might result in its abandonment by the Soviet Union.

The October 7, 1963, issue of the Militant reported Castro as saying Cuba could not accept a situation where at the same time the United States was trying to ease world tensions it also. "was increasing its efforts to 'tighten the noose' around Cuba." Castro's opposition to President Kennedy's attempt to reduce world tensions was also reported in the October 1, 1963, issue of the Worker, to which Oswald also subscribed. In this connection it should be noted that in speaking of the Worker, Oswald told Michael Paine, apparently in all seriousness, that "you could tell what they wanted you to do ... by reading between the lines, reading the thing and doing a little reading between the lines.."

The general conflict of views between the United States and Cuba was, of course, reflected in other media to such an extent that there can be no doubt that Oswald was aware generally of the critical attitude that Castro expressed about President Kennedy. Oswald was asked during the New Orleans radio debate in which he engaged on August 21, 1963, whether or not he agreed with Castro that President Kennedy was a "ruffian and a thief." He replied that he "would not agree with that particular wording." It should also be noted, however, that one witness testified that shortly before the assassination Oswald had expressed approval of President Kennedy's active role in the area of civil rights.

Although Oswald could possibly have been motivated in part by his sympathy for the Castro government, it should be remembered that his wife testified that he was disappointed with his failure to get to Cuba and had lost his desire to do so because of the bureaucracy and red tape which he had encountered. His unhappy experience with the Cuban consul seems thus to have reduced his enthusiasm for the Castro regime and his desire to go to Cuba.
=== UNQUOTE ===

Typical of conspiracy theorists I've encountered on the web, you don't deal with the false claim you made whatsover, you just move the goal post and pretend your false claim never happened. And also typical of conspiracy theorists, your moved goalpost fact is false as well.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

A simple fact that thr WC was not allowed to speculate that the JFK
assassination had something to do with Castro.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Add analogies to the list of things you don't understand.

> > Critics are much the same way, so we get arguments like:
> > 1. Oswald never owned a rifle.
> Silly. I never said that. Go yell at someone else.

Since when are you "critics"?
Add plurals as another thing you don't understand.

> > 2. Oswald never owned THAT rifle.
> Isn't that the same thing?

No. Add specifics as another thing thing you don't understand.

Some critics argue Oswald never owned any rifle, trying to be consistent
with Oswald's denials in custody that he only owned a revolver, no rifle.
Other critics suggest Oswald did own a rifle (to explain away the backyard
photos and the testimony of the DeMohrenschildt's and Marina Oswald, but
NOT the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 that was recovered from the
Depository.

> > 3. Oswald might have left the fibers days prior to the assassination.
> >
> Well, Duh. How could he leave the fibers after the assassination?

False dichotomy. There is a third possibility you're ignoring... the
fibers from his shirt could have gotten on his rifle during the
assassination. The only possibilities are NOT "days before the
assassination (your original suggestion) and "after the assassination (the
possibility you exclude now).

In addition, you claimed elsewhere that the bag and the blanket were
photoraphed in close contact with one another after the assassination, and
that established the fibers from the blanket could have gotten into that
bag through that incidental contact. What you never did was document when
the fibers were collected and when the photo in question was taken. For a
guy who used this provably false excuse to explain away the blanket fibers
in the bag to ask how they could have gotten from the shirt to the rifle
after the assassinations seems a bit lacking in imagination for a critic,
don't you think"

> > They never seem to understand that this claim isn't proof he didn't fire
> > the weapon, but it does put the lie to excuses 1 and 2. But when this is
> > pointed out, they typically go right back to arguing Oswald never owned a
> > rifle.
> >
> Well, we know your habit of misreprsenting the evidence.

Curiously, this is another thing you constantly assert but never attempt
to establish. Perhaps you think if you repeat the same false claim enough
times, it becomes true. Maybe if you close your eyes, click your Ruby red
shoes together, and say "Hank misrepresents the evidence" enough times,
you will find yourself in a wondrous land where everyone believes in a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

For myself, I prefer to follow the evidence.

Hank

[Mark]

No, Marsh, you're right. They weren't allowed to go there. But surely
you know why. Because they, the WC, were not given the information by the
CIA.

And why didn't the CIA give up the info? One large reason is the CIA --
John and Robert's favorite federal agency -- did not want to spill the
beans and rain on John and Robert's legacy and future political
aspirations. The spooks weren't going to say the Kennedy brothers wanted
Castro dead yesterday. Mark

[John Corbett]

Outstanding rebuttal to Marsh's latest ploy. I didn't feel like making the
effort to explain all the ways Marsh's latest reply was illogical, opting
for a one liner instead. You did the job in great detail. Kudos.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not all of it. Most of whaat the CIA gave them they covered up.

> And why didn't the CIA give up the info? One large reason is the CIA --

Some information they could not give up because it involved sources and
methods.

> John and Robert's favorite federal agency -- did not want to spill the
> beans and rain on John and Robert's legacy and future political

No, that makes no sense.

> aspirations. The spooks weren't going to say the Kennedy brothers wanted
> Castro dead yesterday. Mark
>

Excuse me? Sources and mthods.

But they never revealed that Helms went around Kennedy and authorize the
Castro assasssination without getting authorization from JFK.
That is covered in his Rockefeller Committee testimony, which you never
bothered to read. That would be too much like research and you might get
banned.