On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:33:51 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Hmmm. So, your name really is Hank Sienzant, huh? But, I asked you if you
> were the Hank Sienzant who was the VP for Customer Relations with Enhanced
> Retail Solutions, and you said no.
I asked the agency to, ahem, 'eliminate' the other guy, and they did.
I am truly sorry you cannot figure it out, especially since there were
like seven other guys named Ralph Cinque in the state of Texas alone -
where you live (or lived, last time we discussed this under your alias of
Linda Hadley on Amazon).
You kept getting banned from Amazon and popping up anew with different
aliases. What was all that about?
Yes, that's part of the process of elimination, Ralph. Hank Sienzant has
been "retired" since December of 2015.
But it's not the communication on the education forum you mention. Where's
the link to that?
>
> But, moving on:
>
> It cannot be assumed that Oswald was shot when he appeared to be shot, for
> the following reasons:
>
> 1) there was no blood and no trauma, to him or his clothing.
According to whom? Did you inspect his actual clothing and body? What is
your source for this claim?
> When you
> consider what could be shown in a shooting hoax, no more than that was
> shown in this case. So, unless you are going to argue that shooting
> hoaxes are impossible, period, then you have to admit that this could
> be one.
You need to provide the evidence.
>
> 2) the damage from the shot was instantaneous, and that damage was
> devastating; it was catastrophic. But, after the shot, Oswald crumpled
> forward and down, and then he veered backwards, and then he went up on
> his toes like a ballerina, and then he went straight down like a
> freight elevator at the TSBD.
I see him drop like a lead weight after a grunt. Again, your claims are
according to what analysis, where? What's your source?
> That's a lot of activity for a guy with a
> burst aorta. It is medically impossible.
Thank you for your layman's opinion. You have asserted he did something
medically impossible. You haven't established he did something medically
impossible. Do you even understand the point I am making? You had a hard
time understanding the difference between your assertions and proof back
on Amazon, so I am trying to determine whether you've learned how to tell
the difference yet. Have you?
>
> 3) the speed by which Oswald was evacuated from the garage, and the fact
> that no cameraman captured the sight of two men carrying another
> stricken man makes the claim that he was shot very suspicious.
Say what? Are you complaining he was moved too quickly or too slowly? It's
impossible to tell from your language. Your complaint is not evidence of
anything. It's just your opinion, registered as a complaint. Apparently
you still don't understand the difference between opinion and fact. And
why on earth should two men be removed from the garage after being shot?
Pray tell, what nonsense are you trying to sell now?
>
> I pointed out that neither autopsy could distinguish between Oswald being
> shot at 11:21 or shortly thereafter, and therefore YOU can't use the
> autopsy to establish that he was shot at 11:21.
You have one autopsy. Of Oswald. Verified to be of Oswald. There is no
need for a hoax here. You haven't begun to establish a hoax here. Why
would Ruby step up to the plate and pretend to shoot Oswald, and get tried
and convicted for it? And sentenced to death.
>
> And regarding the "pretend" brother and "pretend mother" John Armstrong's
> 1000 page book HARVEY AND LEE can answer all your questions.
No, it can't. Did both Harvey and Lee have living arrangements with
Marina, and couldn't she tell the difference? What did Lee say when he
came home from work and found "Harvey" eating his dinner?
Does John Armstrong mention that? And when Harvey showed up with Marina at
the Oswald Thanksgiving bash in 1962, nobody noticed it wasn't Lee?
Armstrong believes every false recollection or case of mistaken identity
that furthers his argument ever recorded in an FBI memo that furthers his
nonsense.
And you bought into it. I can't help you think, Ralph. You have to do some
of it on your own.
And we're back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not
the recollection of some woman who after the assassination recalled Lee
and his Mom living with Lee's dad in New York City and the mom and dad
being communists.
That recollection is not evidence of anything. Except Armstrong's ability
to spin a tale and get people to buy into it.
But the thing is, I have. Armstrong's case is no more solid that the
spider webs you brush aside when you engage your thinking cap.
>
> And just so you know: you can't dismiss a thousand page book with a
> wisecrack.
He has no evidence. He has a theory supported by recollections recorded in
FBI memos and testimony.
>
> How much blood would I expect? Well, since they claim that Oswald left an
> extensive blood stain on the floor of the jail office,
Who is "They" and where do they say it? You're asserting stuff again,
Ralph. Your assertions are not evidence.
Who says this is blood? Who says it's blood from Oswald? Cite the test
results.
It's a garage floor, right? I could go into any garage in this country and
find dark stains on the floor. Did Oswald bleed in all of them?
>
> And what is wrong with you, Hank? I said that no one saw Oswald being
> carried into the jail office after the shooting, even though it would have
> been hard for eyes and cameras to miss it. And you cite him being loaded
> into the ambulance minutes later? What does one have to do with the other?
No, you said no one saw him removed from the garage.
Let me quote it back to you: "They didn't even see Oswald being removed
from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
cameras didn't see it."
That's what you said. That's what I responded to. There is film of Oswald
being put in the ambulance. You cited it yourself. It shows him being
removed from the garage.
>
> And the point is that Jack Ruby had no direct knowledge or memory of
> having shot Oswald.
Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Does he have a memory of sticking a weapon
in Oswald's gut and NOT firing? No. Your argument fails. Same thing
happened to Sirhan Sirhan. Maybe you should learn how memory works for a
change? Nah. Just go with your gut.
> His own lawyer said so on television the day it
> happened, after speaking to him. Ruby didn't know he shot Oswald until
> Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald. And it was depicted exactly
> that way in the RUBY AND OSWALD television movie, which starred Jim
> Leavelle. So, the story has always been that Ruby shot Oswald with no
> awareness of doing so, and I propose, as an alternative, that he had no
> awareness of it because he didn't do it.
Did he have an awareness of approaching Oswald in the garage, sticking a
gun in Oswald's belly, and NOT shooting? Did he have an awareness of being
asked (or told) to pretend to shoot Oswald by conspirators? Did he have an
awareness of pretending to shoot Oswald?
Your argument fails, because it relies on your pretense that Ruby should
have a memory of shooting Oswald, otherwise he didn't.
But the same argument can be advanced for the flip side, he should have a
memory of pretending to shoot Oswald, and he didn't. Therefore that didn't
happen, because he doesn't remember it.
>
> And no: it wasn't vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is when you
> exterminate someone who murdered an innocent or innocents, and it's the
> innocence of the victim or victims AND YOUR LOVE FOR THEM that creates the
> outrage which demands immediate retribution.
I love how when the facts don't support you, you simply make up new facts.
Definition of vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to
suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are
viewed as inadequate); broadly :a self-appointed doer of justice
"A self-appointed doer of justice". i.e, Ruby.
> None of that applied to
> Oswald, the most hated man in America.
Which is exactly why Ruby extracted vigilante justice.
I have no need to be famous. Unlike Oswald. Or you.
You have yet to present any evidence of anything.
All the best,
Hank