McW himself rules out Jones as the "man" of both his 11/22 affidavit and

[donald willis]

FBI interview.

The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."

Methinks he doth protest too much.

From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.

And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.

On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's a shame that McW's FBI statement is too confused to be possible. This "Oswald" seems to morph into the teenager all within that statement. It could be that Temple Man ("Oswald") really was there but that McW confused him with Milton Jones when the old lady got on. The man, according to McW probably got off south of Saner Ave., which is where Jones later said he got off. But "Oswald" certainly would not have got off that far south. Jones later said that the man was sitting directly behind him, so perhaps McW motioned towards "Oswald," which would be the same direction as Jones, and the old lady took Jones to be the man, and then McWatters went along with Jones being the man. Though, McW does say that the old lady got on at the corner of Vermont and Marsalis, which is also south of where "Oswald" would have got off. So, if "Oswald" had already got off before the old lady had got on, then Jones might have been the only person there where McW indicated to the old lady. Oswald might have got off at Tenth Street, perhaps even with a transfer, before the old lady even got on, making the comedy of errors even more amusing. There's some great potential comedy here.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...


Armstrong pretty much proved the Bus/Taxi Encounter was real via his "Nay-Sayers" sub-chapter...

[donald willis]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...

In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:23:15 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > FBI interview.
> >
> > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> >
> > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> >
> > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> >
> > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
> >
> > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> It's a shame that McW's FBI statement is too confused to be possible. This "Oswald" seems to morph into the teenager all within that statement.

But it's the beginning of the statement that counts. If Oswald got on the bus around Elm & Houston, then he could not have gotten on AND off on Elm. And that intersection is right in the middle of the range that McW gives in his FBI statement. How O ends up a teenager is a secret locked in the mind & memory of McW. Jones obviously was not the man who got on at Elm & Houston! McW would remember WHERE he picked up someone, but not necessarily what he looked like. And he kept saying that there were only two men on the bus....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 9:15:29 AM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:23:15 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > FBI interview.
> > >
> > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > >
> > > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > >
> > > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> > >
> > > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
> > >
> > > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> > It's a shame that McW's FBI statement is too confused to be possible. This "Oswald" seems to morph into the teenager all within that statement.
> But it's the beginning of the statement that counts. If Oswald got on the bus around Elm & Houston, then he could not have gotten on AND off on Elm. And that intersection is right in the middle of the range that McW gives in his FBI statement. How O ends up a teenager is a secret locked in the mind & memory of McW. Jones obviously was not the man who got on at Elm & Houston! McW would remember WHERE he picked up someone, but not necessarily what he looked like. And he kept saying that there were only two men on the bus....

And McW's desperate denial re the Elm around Houston pickup tells you that he knew that he gave away the game right there.

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> FBI interview.
>
> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."

So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.

>
> Methinks he doth protest too much.

Methinks you do.

>
> From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.

How do you get from 'this man' to [the 'short in the temple' man]?

>
> And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.

Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.

>
> On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.

Except we know McWatters was human. And he said he handed out one transfer to a man on that trip, and the guy got on, and then a few blocks later, got off, and obtained a transfer as he left. That transfer was found on Oswald.

CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.

None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > FBI interview.
> >
> > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.

He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.

> >
> > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> Methinks you do.

"No, no sir. I didn't pick up. here I picked up. No, I didn't. I picked... No, sir, I didn't pick up no man.... I sure didn't. No, I didn't." Keep being a smart ass and simply ignore problems with your scenario.

> >
> > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> How do you get from 'this man' to [the 'short in the temple' man]?

Well, I don't want you to go to all the trouble of reading the FBI report, so I'll quote the pertinent section:

"She looked at this man, who was the one who had told McW that the President had been shot in the temple, and said 'Why he's smiling; you're joking!" McW glanced back & this young man did have a sort of grin on his face. The man said nothing at this time.
McW is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston."

That's how.

> >
> > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
> Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.

Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.

> > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> Except we know McWatters was human. And he said he handed out one transfer to a man on that trip, and the guy got on, and then a few blocks later, got off, and obtained a transfer as he left. That transfer was found on Oswald.

The "shot in the temple" man got aboard the bus at Elm around Houston, McW states in two separate interviews. That man could not have been Jones. You place great faith *here*, in what McW says! But he's human, Hank! He may have misremembered the "on" and "off" part....

>
> CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.

"McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.

>
> None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.

And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > FBI interview.
> > >
> > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.
> He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.

So they didn't frame an innocent man. They framed a guilty one? Is that really your argument?

> > >
> > > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > Methinks you do.
> "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. here I picked up. No, I didn't. I picked... No, sir, I didn't pick up no man.... I sure didn't. No, I didn't." Keep being a smart ass and simply ignore problems with your scenario.

The Commission conceded that McWatters himself withdrew his identification of Oswald. I previously quoted that for you. Here it is again:
== quote ==
At about 6:30 p.m. on the day of the assassination, McWatters viewed four men in a police lineup. He picked Oswald from the lineup as the man who had boarded the bus at the "lower end of town on Elm around Houston," and who, during the ride south on Marsalis, had an argument with a woman passenger.425 In his Commission testimony, McWatters said he had been in error and that a teenager named Milton Jones was the passenger he had in mind.425 In a later interview, Jones confirmed that he had exchanged words with a woman passenger on the bus during the ride south on Marsalis.427 McWatters also remembered that a man received a transfer at Lamar and Elm Streets and that a man in the lineup was about the size of this man.428 However, McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus.
== unquote ==

I also asked at that time what difference it made.

> > >
> > > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> > How do you get from 'this man' to [the 'short in the temple' man]?
> Well, I don't want you to go to all the trouble of reading the FBI report, so I'll quote the pertinent section:

I want to read the entire thing, and I've asked you for the link on numerous occasions. You never have provided it.

>
> "She looked at this man, who was the one who had told McW that the President had been shot in the temple, and said 'Why he's smiling; you're joking!" McW glanced back & this young man did have a sort of grin on his face. The man said nothing at this time.
> McW is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston."
>
> That's how.

What part of "McWatters is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus" did you fail to understand?

> > >
> > > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.

Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus? You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.

> > Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.
> Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.

Not ignoring what you wrote. You simply don't understand the limits of human recollection and attempt to use confused statements by witnesses to eliminate Oswald. You still need to cite the evidence for how Oswald came to be in possession of a bus transfer punched by McWatters unique handpunch, if Oswald was not on McWatters bus and didn't receive a transfer from McWatters.

Do explain that, citing the actual evidence.

> > > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> > Except we know McWatters was human. And he said he handed out one transfer to a man on that trip, and the guy got on, and then a few blocks later, got off, and obtained a transfer as he left. That transfer was found on Oswald.
> The "shot in the temple" man got aboard the bus at Elm around Houston, McW states in two separate interviews. That man could not have been Jones.

We covered this ground previously. McWatters said it came from outside the bus:
== quote ==
Senator COOPER - Now was this man that you saw got on the bus the same one who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
Mr. McWATTERS - The man who got on the bus now?
Senator COOPER - Yes. The man to whom you have just referred as getting on the bus near Murphy Street.
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
Senator COOPER - Is he the same man who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
Senator COOPER - Who told you that?
Mr. McWATTERS - A man in an automobile in front of me, in other words, that was sitting in a car come back and told me.
Senator COOPER - I think you have testified that someone, some passenger on the bus, in response to a question that you had asked, "I wonder where they shot the President" said, "They shot him in the temple."
Mr. McWATTERS - Oh, that was now, that was after we had done, that is when I turned on Houston Street, the conversation with the teenage boy.
Senator COOPER - It was the teenage boy who told you that?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; it was the teenage boy, sitting on his right side of the side seat there, the one that I conversationed with about the President being shot in the head or the temple, I don't remember, but the teenage boy was the one.
That was after the man that already got off that had boarded my bus up around Griffin there.
Senator COOPER - Then the one who told you the President had been shot in the temple was not the one you later identified in the police lineup?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
== unquote ==

> You place great faith *here*, in what McW says! But he's human, Hank! He may have misremembered the "on" and "off" part....

The transfer, Don! The transfer! Explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.

> >
> > CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.
> "McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.

So Oswald got off the bus and when he got off the bus, he obtained the transfer? What then are you arguing about?
Your arguments make no sense when analyzed. You are now conceding, it appears, that Oswald obtained a transfer when he left the bus. Yes, I agree.

> >
> > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.
> And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....

Straw man argument. The Commission didn't say, and I didn't say, that Oswald or Jones got on the bus at Elm and Houston. You think every mistake by every witness points to a conspiracy. That's not the way to solve any crime, over-analyze every statement and presume every contradiction between any two witnesses, or even between the same witness at different times, is some big clue to resolving the crime.

You think this kind of game-playing is pertinent. It's not.


>
> dcw

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're probably right, but I don't think the proof to a certainty is there. The McWahWah accounts are too confused to be certain. Proved to a standard of more likely than not. Oswald was on the bus. He said the Temple thing. He got off in Oak Cliff. Most likely. Was not in the Whaley cab. Most likely. Then, if there's just one of these Oswald critters, he probably got a ride from the 10th and Marsalis area to his rooming house and back again. Gotta get the gun, or make it look as though you got the gun. And the jacket. Car 207, and all that. Also, Whaley "saw" Oswald's name bracelet, which he probably did not wear to work. Oswald probably had to go get that at 1026 North Beckley, too. But, if thar be two Oswald critters, then the possibilities become more complex. But, Willis, the important question is, are you trying to say that THEY set up a guilty man? Bwahahahahahahah! Just as the important question regarding Costella's Zapruder film proof is, why did the head move forward? Nutters, at their best, are conniving hypocrites.

[donald willis]

He was innocent in Oak Cliff, guilty in Dealey. So you can't just say he was guilty or innocent.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I agree with Oswald being innocent of any murder in Oak Cliff because nobody was murdered in Oak Cliff. And in Dealey Plaza he might have participated in two murders, or maybe just one. The important issue is not over Oswald's guilt, but the conspiracy that made it all happen.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > FBI interview.
> > > >
> > > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.
> > He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.
> So they didn't frame an innocent man. They framed a guilty one?

He was guilty, I think, "in Dealey", innocent in Oak Cliff.

Is that really your argument?
> > > >
> > > > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > > Methinks you do.
> > "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. here I picked up. No, I didn't. I picked... No, sir, I didn't pick up no man.... I sure didn't. No, I didn't." Keep being a smart ass and simply ignore problems with your scenario.
> The Commission conceded that McWatters himself withdrew his identification of Oswald. I previously quoted that for you. Here it is again:
> == quote ==
> At about 6:30 p.m. on the day of the assassination, McWatters viewed four men in a police lineup. He picked Oswald from the lineup as the man who had boarded the bus at the "lower end of town on Elm around Houston,"

The problem is he tries to "withdraw" his designation of the Oswald pickup spot and--unlike all the other withdrawn statements from his 11/22 affidavit--he can't say that it was Jones there. Doesn't work. Don't you even have a drop of curiosity as to why McW was so adamant about the Elm & Houston stop? He's over the top, like Ball found his sore spot, his weak spot.

and who, during the ride south on Marsalis, had an argument with a woman passenger.425 In his Commission testimony, McWatters said he had been in error and that a teenager named Milton Jones was the passenger he had in mind.425 In a later interview, Jones confirmed that he had exchanged words with a woman passenger on the bus during the ride south on Marsalis.427 McWatters also remembered that a man received a transfer at Lamar and Elm Streets and that a man in the lineup was about the size of this man.428 However, McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus.
> == unquote ==
>
> I also asked at that time what difference it made.
> > > >
> > > > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> > > How do you get from 'this man' to [the 'short in the temple' man]?
> > Well, I don't want you to go to all the trouble of reading the FBI report, so I'll quote the pertinent section:
> I want to read the entire thing, and I've asked you for the link on numerous occasions. You never have provided it.
> >
> > "She looked at this man, who was the one who had told McW that the President had been shot in the temple, and said 'Why he's smiling; you're joking!" McW glanced back & this young man did have a sort of grin on his face. The man said nothing at this time.
> > McW is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston."
> >
> > That's how.
> What part of "McWatters is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus" did you fail to understand?

In his affidavit, he pretty much pinpointed the "point"--he gave a looser designation in his FBI statement. But Elm & Houston is right in the middle of those looser coordinates.

> > > >
> > > > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
> Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus?

It would, but if Oswald got on at Elm & Houston, then the story is different, if not the bus.

You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.
> > > Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.
> > Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.
> Not ignoring what you wrote. You simply don't understand the limits of human recollection and attempt to use confused statements by witnesses to eliminate Oswald. You still need to cite the evidence for how Oswald came to be in possession of a bus transfer punched by McWatters unique handpunch, if Oswald was not on McWatters bus and didn't receive a transfer from McWatters.
>
> Do explain that, citing the actual evidence.

There was a transfer on Oswald. Apparently punched by McW. But was it the same transfer later in evidence? You'd have to have a photo (a close-up) of the transfer being taken out of O's pocket to prove that.

> > > > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> > > Except we know McWatters was human. And he said he handed out one transfer to a man on that trip, and the guy got on, and then a few blocks later, got off, and obtained a transfer as he left. That transfer was found on Oswald.
> > The "shot in the temple" man got aboard the bus at Elm around Houston, McW states in two separate interviews. That man could not have been Jones.
> We covered this ground previously. McWatters said it came from outside the bus:
> == quote ==
> Senator COOPER - Now was this man that you saw got on the bus the same one who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
> Mr. McWATTERS - The man who got on the bus now?
> Senator COOPER - Yes. The man to whom you have just referred as getting on the bus near Murphy Street.
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
> Senator COOPER - Is he the same man who told you that the President had been shot in the temple?
> Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
> Senator COOPER - Who told you that?
> Mr. McWATTERS - A man in an automobile in front of me, in other words, that was sitting in a car come back and told me.
> Senator COOPER - I think you have testified that someone, some passenger on the bus, in response to a question that you had asked, "I wonder where they shot the President" said, "They shot him in the temple."
> Mr. McWATTERS - Oh, that was now, that was after we had done, that is when I turned on Houston Street, the conversation with the teenage boy.
> Senator COOPER - It was the teenage boy who told you that?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; it was the teenage boy, sitting on his right side of the side seat there, the one that I conversationed with about the President being shot in the head or the temple, I don't remember, but the teenage boy was the one.
> That was after the man that already got off that had boarded my bus up around Griffin there.
> Senator COOPER - Then the one who told you the President had been shot in the temple was not the one you later identified in the police lineup?
> Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.

That's about the third McW version of the "shot in the temple" phrase. Or maybe the 2nd--I think Jones was the third version.

> == unquote ==
> > You place great faith *here*, in what McW says! But he's human, Hank! He may have misremembered the "on" and "off" part....
> The transfer, Don! The transfer! Explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.

See above.

> > >
> > > CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.
> > "McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.
> So Oswald got off the bus and when he got off the bus, he obtained the transfer? What then are you arguing about?
> Your arguments make no sense when analyzed. You are now conceding, it appears, that Oswald obtained a transfer when he left the bus. Yes, I agree.

We don't know for sure where or when he got it. As I've said before, back in the days when I took the bus, I sometimes got a transfer when I got on.

> > >
> > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....
> Straw man argument. The Commission didn't say, and I didn't say, that Oswald or Jones got on the bus at Elm and Houston. You think every mistake by every witness points to a conspiracy.

So you're saying that McW's "Elm around Houston" in his affidavit was a mistake? Well, yes, I guess you'd have to--because that puts him on the bus to Oak Cliff....

dcw

[donald willis]

New to me.

And in Dealey Plaza he might have participated in two murders, or maybe just one. The important issue is not over Oswald's guilt, but the conspiracy that made it all happen.

Ah! agreed.

[Hank Sienzant]

So why did they bother to frame him for the murder of Tippit? Your answer above, to avoid WWIII, makes zero sense.
Again, I ask you to walk through that argument slowly, citing all the evidence you can muster along the way.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The new to you: Mal Couch saw a puddle of blood near the TSBD. This was Tippit's blood. Tippit brought his son to Dealey Plaza and ended up getting shot there himself. Perhaps Oswald shot him there. But, that would be very hard to explain as a Lone Nut Event. This is why THEY set up Oswald for the Tippit murder on 10th Street. Whether or not he really did shoot Tippit, and I think probably not, they wanted a Lone Nut, and it's very tough to work that out from the 6th floor window. So they kept Tippit on Ambulance 601 while RC Nelson impersonated Tippit in Oak Cliff. Nelson probably faked Tippit's postmortem radio transmissions, unless THEY had already prepared prior recordings of Tippit for postmortem use. Or perhaps, some other officer impersonated Tippit on the radio, as was done with two Sgt. Harkness transmissions. Ambulance 602 picks up Nelson on 10th Street and delivers him back to his squad car in Dealey Plaza while Ambulance 601 delivers Tippit to Methodist Hospital. Much evidence is explained by this scenario. I have a video which shows much of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13QCC8VEDA

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > FBI interview.
> > > > >
> > > > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > > > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.
> > > He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.

> > So they didn't frame an innocent man. They framed a guilty one? Is that really your argument?

> He was guilty, I think, "in Dealey", innocent in Oak Cliff.

What does framing him for yet another murder do? Does it strengthen the case against him for assassinating the President one iota? No, it doesn't.

> > > > >
> > > > > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > > > Methinks you do.
> > > "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. here I picked up. No, I didn't. I picked... No, sir, I didn't pick up no man.... I sure didn't. No, I didn't." Keep being a smart ass and simply ignore problems with your scenario.
> > The Commission conceded that McWatters himself withdrew his identification of Oswald. I previously quoted that for you. Here it is again:
> > == quote ==
> > At about 6:30 p.m. on the day of the assassination, McWatters viewed four men in a police lineup. He picked Oswald from the lineup as the man who had boarded the bus at the "lower end of town on Elm around Houston,"
> The problem is he tries to "withdraw" his designation of the Oswald pickup spot and--unlike all the other withdrawn statements from his 11/22 affidavit--he can't say that it was Jones there. Doesn't work. Don't you even have a drop of curiosity as to why McW was so adamant about the Elm & Houston stop? He's over the top, like Ball found his sore spot, his weak spot.

I have yet to see this 11/22/63 affidavit you reference. Despite repeated requests, you have yet to link to it. You're asking me to comment on something I don't even know exists. You previously quoted language that put it "around" that area. Now you're saying it was at that specific location. But Mcwatters himself said he couldn't pick up passengers at that intersection because he is making a left turn at that corner and he has to be in the left lane to make that turn:
== unquote ==
Mr. McWATTERS - In other words, my last stop, in other words at this comer right here on Record Street, all buses turning to the left have to stop at this corner right here.
Mr. BALL - At Record and Elm?
Mr. McWATTERS - At Record and Elm.
Mr. BALL - Do you have a bus stop at Houston and Elm?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; there is a bus stop there for the buses that go on under the underpass.
Mr. BALL - Is there a bus stop for the buses that go south on Houston?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; all the buses, we have to get in, this is a one-way street and you have to get over in this lane here.
Mr. BALL - By the lane you mean the extreme left lane?
Mr. McWATTERS - The extreme left lane to make--
Mr. BALL - To make the left turn south on Houston Street?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
== unquote ==

> and who, during the ride south on Marsalis, had an argument with a woman passenger.425 In his Commission testimony, McWatters said he had been in error and that a teenager named Milton Jones was the passenger he had in mind.425 In a later interview, Jones confirmed that he had exchanged words with a woman passenger on the bus during the ride south on Marsalis.427 McWatters also remembered that a man received a transfer at Lamar and Elm Streets and that a man in the lineup was about the size of this man.428 However, McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus.
> > == unquote ==
> >
> > I also asked at that time what difference it made.
> > > > >
> > > > > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.

The pickup spot for Oswald in McWatter's testimony was between Field and Griffin. He gave the same man a transfer after a few blocks when the bus got stuck in traffic and the man departed.
== quote ==
Mr. BALL - Well then, do you remember picking up a passenger at a place other than at a bus stop as you went down Elm?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
As I left Field Street, I pulled out into the, in other words, the first lane of traffic and traffic was beginning to back up then; in other words, it was blocked further down the street, and after I pulled out in it for a short distance there I come to a complete stop, and when I did, someone come up and beat on the door of the bus, and that is about even with Griffin Street.
In other words, it is a street that dead ends into Elm Street which there is no bus stop at this street, because I stopped across Field Street in the middle of the intersection and it is just a short distance onto Griffin Street, and that is when someone, a man, came up and knocked on the door of the bus, and I opened the door of the bus and he got on.
Mr. BALL - You were beyond Field and before you got to Griffin?
Mr. McWATTERS - That is right. It was along about even with Griffin Street before I was stopped in the traffic.
Mr. BALL - And that is about seven or eight blocks from the Texas Book Depository Building, isn't it?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir. It would be seven, I would say that is seven, it would be about seven blocks.
Mr. BALL - From there?
Mr. McWATTERS - From there, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What did the man look like who knocked on your door and got on your bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I didn't pay any particular attention to him. He was to me just dressed in what I would call work clothes, just some type of little old jacket on, and I didn't pay any particular attention to the man when he got on-
Mr. BALL - Paid his fare, did he?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; he just paid his fare and sat down on the second cross seat on the right.
Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not you gave him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Not when he got on; no, sir.
Mr. BALL - You didn't. Did you ever give him a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; I gave him one about two blocks from where he got on.
Mr. BALL - Did he ask you for a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
== unquote ==

> > > > How do you get from 'this man' to [the 'short in the temple' man]?
> > > Well, I don't want you to go to all the trouble of reading the FBI report, so I'll quote the pertinent section:
> > I want to read the entire thing, and I've asked you for the link on numerous occasions. You never have provided it.

Still haven't provided it.

> > >
> > > "She looked at this man, who was the one who had told McW that the President had been shot in the temple, and said 'Why he's smiling; you're joking!" McW glanced back & this young man did have a sort of grin on his face. The man said nothing at this time.
> > > McW is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston."
> > >
> > > That's how.
> > What part of "McWatters is unable to state at what point this man got on his bus" did you fail to understand?
> In his affidavit, he pretty much pinpointed the "point"--he gave a looser designation in his FBI statement. But Elm & Houston is right in the middle of those looser coordinates.

Unfortunately, you can't board the bus there, because his bus is in the left lane to make the left turn. It doesn't pull to the curb there.

> > > > >
> > > > > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.

I never thought JOnes was the man. Jones was already on the bus when the man boarded. Jones said so.

> > Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus?
> It would, but if Oswald got on at Elm & Houston, then the story is different, if not the bus.

Except Oswald couldn't board at Elm & Houston, and didn't. So your whole argument here goes kaput.

> You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.

So how could McWatters pick Oswald out, thinking he was Jones, if Jones wasn't even on McWatters bus? Your attempt to put both Oswald and Jones on different buses makes no sense. Don't let that stop you. It never has in the past.

> > > > Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.
> > > Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.
> > Not ignoring what you wrote. You simply don't understand the limits of human recollection and attempt to use confused statements by witnesses to eliminate Oswald. You still need to cite the evidence for how Oswald came to be in possession of a bus transfer punched by McWatters unique handpunch, if Oswald was not on McWatters bus and didn't receive a transfer from McWatters.
> >
> > Do explain that, citing the actual evidence.
> There was a transfer on Oswald. Apparently punched by McW. But was it the same transfer later in evidence? You'd have to have a photo (a close-up) of the transfer being taken out of O's pocket to prove that.

Hilarious. I said *cite the actual evidence*. Instead, you speculate about a swap of transfers there is zero evidence for.

Mcwatters said he gave out only two transfers on that trip, and only one to a man (the other went to a woman). So if this was not a transfer taken off Oswald, how did the police obtain it to plant on Oswald? Why did they bother?

And note the level of evidence you want to have to put the transfer McWatters said he gave to a man who left the bus after only a few blocks in Oswald's legitimate possession! You want a film of it being taken from Oswald's pocket!

But if such a film existed, you would claim it was faked, that *they* could have started filming after *they* put the fake transfer in Oswald's pocket, and besides, why would *they* film that anyway?

Wouldn't you?

You merely speculated it was planted, and the legitimate transfer removed. When push comes to shove, like all CTs, you argue the evidence against Oswald was faked. But you never show evidence of this fakery.

I remind you Jones said a man got on the bus and left after only a few blocks.
I remind you McWatters said a man got on the bus and left after only a few blocks.
I remind you Bledsoe said a man got on the bus and left after only a few blocks. And she identified that man as Oswald.

Please tell me how they determined it was McWatters who was the bus driver of the bus Oswald was on.
Do you know?
Do you have any speculation?

> > > >
> > > > CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.
> > > "McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.
> > So Oswald got off the bus and when he got off the bus, he obtained the transfer? What then are you arguing about?
> > Your arguments make no sense when analyzed. You are now conceding, it appears, that Oswald obtained a transfer when he left the bus. Yes, I agree.
> We don't know for sure where or when he got it. As I've said before, back in the days when I took the bus, I sometimes got a transfer when I got on.

You could get it if you knew you needed to take a second bus. But what if the bus got stuck in traffic, which you couldn't know about in advance? Wouldn't you ask for a transfer when leaving?

Isn't that exactly what two people did?

> > > >
> > > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > > And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....

> > Straw man argument. The Commission didn't say, and I didn't say, that Oswald or Jones got on the bus at Elm and Houston. You think every mistake by every witness points to a conspiracy. That's not the way to solve any crime, over-analyze every statement and presume every contradiction between any two witnesses, or even between the same witness at different times, is some big clue to resolving the crime.

> So you're saying that McW's "Elm around Houston" in his affidavit was a mistake? Well, yes, I guess you'd have to--because that puts him on the bus to Oak Cliff....

It is a mistake, because as McWatters explains, the route his bus takes demands he make a left onto Houston at Elm, and that means he can't pull to the curb to pick up passengers at that corner, because he has to be in the left lane to make that left turn.


>
> dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

You determined this how? Explain the methodology you used to narrow it down to J.D.Tippit, since this is decades before DNA testing was available. At that time, the best that could be done was to determine if the blood was the same blood type. So paternity tests could not determine who the father of a child was, they could only eliminate men of the wrong blood type.

Do walk us through how you determined "This was Tippit's blood".

> Tippit brought his son to Dealey Plaza and ended up getting shot there himself. Perhaps Oswald shot him there. But, that would be very hard to explain as a Lone Nut Event.

It's hard to explain any way at all. Out of about 500 people in Dealey Plaza at the time, no one witnessed this second shooting?

> This is why THEY set up Oswald for the Tippit murder on 10th Street. Whether or not he really did shoot Tippit, and I think probably not,

You just claimed Tippit's blood was seen in front of the TSBD by Malcolm Couch, and you suggested it was Oswald who shot him there. Now, a few sentences later, you're questioning whether Oswald shot Tippit at all.

And you also claimed Tippit wasn't shot in Oak Cliff whatsoever: "I agree with Oswald being innocent of any murder in Oak Cliff because nobody was murdered in Oak Cliff."

So the witnesses all imagined a shooting there? The ambulance didn't pick up Tippit's body there? Aquila Clemons didn't see two gunmen flee in different directions there? Reynolds didn't follow the gunman until he got to the parking lot?
None of that happened?

> they wanted a Lone Nut, and it's very tough to work that out from the 6th floor window.

Who is "they" in the above? No, the hard evidence like a rifle owned by Oswald does that nicely.
How does a right wing domestic conspiracy start WWIII?

> So they kept Tippit on Ambulance 601 while RC Nelson impersonated Tippit in Oak Cliff.

Evidence cited? None.

> Nelson probably faked Tippit's postmortem radio transmissions, unless THEY had already prepared prior recordings of Tippit for postmortem use.

Evidence cited? None.

> Or perhaps, some other officer impersonated Tippit on the radio, as was done with two Sgt. Harkness transmissions.

Evidence cited? None.

> Ambulance 602 picks up Nelson on 10th Street and delivers him back to his squad car in Dealey Plaza while Ambulance 601 delivers Tippit to Methodist Hospital.

Evidence cited? None.

> Much evidence is explained by this scenario.

Ah, I see.
You don't cite the evidence to establish your scenario.
You cite your scenario to explain away the evidence.

> I have a video which shows much of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13QCC8VEDA

Congratulations, you are now granted exalted Bob Harris status. You have videos that assert everything you want to assert. And none of that silly bickering over whether you have any evidence that establishes what you assert.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's just the best explanation of the evidence. Of course, best explanations are not good enough for you. If you like, present a better one. Ah yes, but it is not your burden to do so. Your only burden is to harass people who would like to know how JFK was murdered.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 12:05:25 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...

> I don't even know who Greg Parker is.

ROFLMAO. Anyone who posts something that Brian
doesn't completely agree with is automatically a Greg Parker stooge.

Doesn't matter if you know Parker or not.
Welcome to the club.
ROFLMAO

[Hank Sienzant]

Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need and post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an assertion.

> Of course, best explanations are not good enough for you.

I’ve never heard yours. I’m waiting.

> If you like, present a better one.

Than your non-existent explanation you have yet to present?
How funny is that?

> Ah yes, but it is not your burden to do so.

Especially since one has been on the table since September of 1964.
Present a better one, not just assertions that you have one that fits the evidence better (apparently it’s a secret you can’t share at the moment).

> Your only burden is to harass people who would like to know how JFK was murdered.

If you don’t want people to assess and critique your beliefs, stop posting them. I keep trying to enlighten you, but you seemingly don’t want to be enlightened.

You would have to understand what is evidence and what is not, among numerous other issues you have, to understand how JFK was murdered. You’d also have to let go of your undying belief in a conspiracy instead of clinging to your mythology.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 5:11:20 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > FBI interview.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > > > > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.
> > > > He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.
> > > So they didn't frame an innocent man. They framed a guilty one? Is that really your argument?
> > He was guilty, I think, "in Dealey", innocent in Oak Cliff.
> What does framing him for yet another murder do? Does it strengthen the case against him for assassinating the President one iota? No, it doesn't.

It could be that if Oswald was on trial for the one, the other murder wouldn`t even be allowed to be mentioned in court.

Anyway, let me attempt a reasoned assessment of Don`s ideas, what they suggest, what they imply, what they require, how fantastic they are, ect.

Of course the biggest and most fantastic aspect if the DPD working so the murderer of one of their own goes free. That alone has the weight to crush his ideas, but other aspects are almost as devastating, including how complex an endeavor this would need to be (of course as we all know "they" can do anything conspiracy ideas require). Even discounting the people who said it was Oswald at Tenth and Patton with a gun and the shell evidence at the scene there are still a truckload of other considerations given no regard. There seems two possibilities, either the Tippit shooting was orchestrated to implicate Oswald further or it was a separate, unrelated murder seized upon to further implicate Oswald. Both are incredibly fantastic, as I will explain.

Orchestrated (which I think Don adheres to) has a lot of requirements...

Oswald needs to clear the TSBD and get to Oak Cliff.
Tippit`s location needs to be known.
Oswald needs to be in the vicinity where Tippit is to be murdered.
Oswald`s location needs to be known.
Oswald needs to be carrying a handgun.
Oswald needs to be carrying the same sort of handgun the create the unusual rifling characteristics found on the bullets in Tippit`s body.
They go to the trouble of using a gun that matches the unusual rifling characters of Oswald`s gun, but don`t bother to use a revolver. (in fact I`ve never seen it shown that it was possible for the marking characteristics of the bullets found in Tippit`s body can be produced by an automatic. Are they barreled like Oswald gun was?)
A shooter needs to be placed in Oak Cliff, waiting for the go ahead.
The real shooter has to match Oswald`s general appearance.
The real shooter cannot be shot by Tippit.
The real shooter cannot be captured.
Apparently a jacket is brought and planted to aid in the framing, placed along the route the real shooter travelled (and putting more and more ordinary patrolmen in-on-it).
It is assumed that anybody needed to frame Oswald will be able to be coerced to get on board.
The implication also is that Don is so astute that he can pick up from snippits of written information things that escape the real criminal investigators with front row seats.

That this was an unrelated murder seized upon to further implicate Oswald is just a bad, it has all the same requirements, but they must be ascribed to shear luck, not design.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oh look at that! Hank's Tag Team Mental Midget Mud Wrestling partner, Li'l Bud, is attempting to reason! How cute!

[Bud]

Look at that, the swine is not impressed with the pearls.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oh look at that! Li'l Bud thinks he's Jesus Christ! How cute!

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:11:20 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > FBI interview.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> > > > > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.
> > > > He was guilty in Dealey. And I don't think that McW knew what his re-writing was all about.
> > > So they didn't frame an innocent man. They framed a guilty one? Is that really your argument?
> > He was guilty, I think, "in Dealey", innocent in Oak Cliff.
> What does framing him for yet another murder do? Does it strengthen the case against him for assassinating the President one iota? No, it doesn't.

Capt. Fritz wanted immediate evidence (witness or otherwise) against Oswald and instructed his men to round up witnesses in Oak Cliff. Apparently, the witness evidence in Dealey was iffy. See "With Malice".

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> > > > > Methinks you do.
> > > > "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. here I picked up. No, I didn't. I picked... No, sir, I didn't pick up no man.... I sure didn't. No, I didn't." Keep being a smart ass and simply ignore problems with your scenario.
> > > The Commission conceded that McWatters himself withdrew his identification of Oswald. I previously quoted that for you. Here it is again:
> > > == quote ==
> > > At about 6:30 p.m. on the day of the assassination, McWatters viewed four men in a police lineup. He picked Oswald from the lineup as the man who had boarded the bus at the "lower end of town on Elm around Houston,"
> > The problem is he tries to "withdraw" his designation of the Oswald pickup spot and--unlike all the other withdrawn statements from his 11/22 affidavit--he can't say that it was Jones there. Doesn't work. Don't you even have a drop of curiosity as to why McW was so adamant about the Elm & Houston stop? He's over the top, like Ball found his sore spot, his weak spot.
> I have yet to see this 11/22/63 affidavit you reference. Despite repeated requests, you have yet to link to it. You're asking me to comment on something I don't even know exists.

I guess you're not kidding me. I've had copies of the handwritten and typewritten 11/22/63 McW affidavit for years. I'm not an internet whiz--I don't know how to do "links", and I've told you that before. But I can print up documents.

Well, our conversation here will have to start all over. The only place online I see it now (it used to be available on other sites) is The Portal to Texas History, but it won't let me paste it here, if that's what you mean by a link. My bad--I assumed you had McW's original affidavit. Look up the Portal....

You previously quoted language that put it "around" that area. Now you're saying it was at that specific location. But Mcwatters himself said he couldn't pick up passengers at that intersection because he is making a left turn at that corner and he has to be in the left lane to make that turn:

He also said that Elm & Houston was a transfer point for busses. So he'd have to stop there if someone seemed to be transferring from another bus.

> == unquote ==
> Mr. McWATTERS - In other words, my last stop, in other words at this comer right here on Record Street, all buses turning to the left have to stop at this corner right here.
> Mr. BALL - At Record and Elm?
> Mr. McWATTERS - At Record and Elm.
> Mr. BALL - Do you have a bus stop at Houston and Elm?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; there is a bus stop there for the buses that go on under the underpass.
> Mr. BALL - Is there a bus stop for the buses that go south on Houston?
> Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir; all the buses, we have to get in, this is a one-way street and you have to get over in this lane here.
> Mr. BALL - By the lane you mean the extreme left lane?
> Mr. McWATTERS - The extreme left lane to make--
> Mr. BALL - To make the left turn south on Houston Street?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes.
> == unquote ==
> > and who, during the ride south on Marsalis, had an argument with a woman passenger.425 In his Commission testimony, McWatters said he had been in error and that a teenager named Milton Jones was the passenger he had in mind.425 In a later interview, Jones confirmed that he had exchanged words with a woman passenger on the bus during the ride south on Marsalis.427 McWatters also remembered that a man received a transfer at Lamar and Elm Streets and that a man in the lineup was about the size of this man.428 However, McWatters' recollection alone was too vague to be a basis for placing Oswald on the bus.
> > > == unquote ==
> > >
> > > I also asked at that time what difference it made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> The pickup spot for Oswald in McWatter's testimony was between Field and Griffin. He gave the same man a transfer after a few blocks when the bus got stuck in traffic and the man departed.
> == quote ==
> Mr. BALL - Well then, do you remember picking up a passenger at a place other than at a bus stop as you went down Elm?
> Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
> As I left Field Street, I pulled out into the, in other words, the first lane of traffic and traffic was beginning to back up then; in other words, it was blocked further down the street, and after I pulled out in it for a short distance there I come to a complete stop, and when I did, someone come up and beat on the door of the bus

Damn! Thank you. Yesterday (or the day before) I ransacked McW's testimony for that reference. I could only find passages where he said someone knocked on the bus door or something like that. Not too memorable. But if the man "beat on the door of the bus" that would stick in one's memory. So, if that one element of his testimony is true, then the man "beat on the door of the bus" at Elm around Houston! He just switched the site later....

Okay. Gotta hop off now. Meet you back at the ranch later, when I hope you'll have found McW's 11/22 affidavit. I have to admit I didn't know about his 11/22 FBI interview. Skyqueen880 found that recently. Good find.
dcw CUT

[Scrum Drum]

You're gas-lighting Gil...


Point is, the Bus/Taxi Encounter is real as proven by Armstrong...


It is evidence of two Oswalds leaving the Depository...Harvey & Lee...


Parker and his forum are dumb enough that recently they don't realize they are denying both the Bus/Taxi Encounter and Station Wagon...That's what happens when you have a troll forum of unchecked skepticism...

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:11:20 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wro

CUT

Here's where I left off:

> I never thought JOnes was the man. Jones was already on the bus when the man boarded. Jones said so.
> > > Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus?
> > It would, but if Oswald got on at Elm & Houston, then the story is different, if not the bus.
> Except Oswald couldn't board at Elm & Houston, and didn't. So your whole argument here goes kaput.

I believe I answered this in Part I here.....

> > You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.
> So how could McWatters pick Oswald out, thinking he was Jones, if Jones wasn't even on McWatters bus?

You're going along with the later, backtracking McW: "thinking he was Jones". You're getting stuck in the molasses of McW's mind....

Your attempt to put both Oswald and Jones on different buses makes no sense. Don't let that stop you. It never has in the past.
> > > > > Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.
> > > > Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.
> > > Not ignoring what you wrote. You simply don't understand the limits of human recollection and attempt to use confused statements by witnesses to eliminate Oswald. You still need to cite the evidence for how Oswald came to be in possession of a bus transfer punched by McWatters unique handpunch, if Oswald was not on McWatters bus and didn't receive a transfer from McWatters.
> > >
> > > Do explain that, citing the actual evidence.
> > There was a transfer on Oswald. Apparently punched by McW. But was it the same transfer later in evidence? You'd have to have a photo (a close-up) of the transfer being taken out of O's pocket to prove that.
> Hilarious. I said *cite the actual evidence*. Instead, you speculate about a swap of transfers there is zero evidence for.

And I'm saying there is no conclusive "evidence" that the transfer taken off O & the one in evidence are the same transfer.

>
> Mcwatters said he gave out only two transfers on that trip

Again, you're taking your lead from the later (that is, post -1/22 affidavit) McW.

, and only one to a man (the other went to a woman). So if this was not a transfer taken off Oswald, how did the police obtain it to plant on Oswald? Why did they bother?
>
> And note the level of evidence you want to have to put the transfer McWatters said he gave to a man who left the bus after only a few blocks in Oswald's legitimate possession! You want a film of it being taken from Oswald's pocket!

Failing that, feh--

>
> But if such a film existed, you would claim it was faked

That's hearsay.

He also said that cops stopped the bus he was on for an hour and boarded it. That's not McW's bus.

> I remind you McWatters said a man got on the bus and left after only a few blocks.
> I remind you Bledsoe said a man got on the bus and left after only a few blocks. And she identified that man as Oswald.

And I remind you that that's kind of an amazing coincidence that they should be on the same bus at the same time.

>
> Please tell me how they determined it was McWatters who was the bus driver of the bus Oswald was on.
> Do you know?
> Do you have any speculation?
> > > > >
> > > > > CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.
> > > > "McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.
> > > So Oswald got off the bus and when he got off the bus, he obtained the transfer? What then are you arguing about?
> > > Your arguments make no sense when analyzed. You are now conceding, it appears, that Oswald obtained a transfer when he left the bus. Yes, I agree.
> > We don't know for sure where or when he got it. As I've said before, back in the days when I took the bus, I sometimes got a transfer when I got on.
> You could get it if you knew you needed to take a second bus. But what if the bus got stuck in traffic, which you couldn't know about in advance? Wouldn't you ask for a transfer when leaving?
>
> Isn't that exactly what two people did?

It was said that they did, but they don't even know who the woman was.

> > > > >
> > > > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > > > And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....
> > > Straw man argument. The Commission didn't say, and I didn't say, that Oswald or Jones got on the bus at Elm and Houston. You think every mistake by every witness points to a conspiracy. That's not the way to solve any crime, over-analyze every statement and presume every contradiction between any two witnesses, or even between the same witness at different times, is some big clue to resolving the crime.
> > So you're saying that McW's "Elm around Houston" in his affidavit was a mistake? Well, yes, I guess you'd have to--because that puts him on the bus to Oak Cliff....
> It is a mistake, because as McWatters explains, the route his bus takes demands he make a left onto Houston at Elm, and that means he can't pull to the curb to pick up passengers at that corner, because he has to be in the left lane to make that left turn.

The revised story has him picking up two passengers where there was no bus stop, in the middle of a block. I forget, did he say he pulled to the curb?

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

'Tis a pity we can't accuse you of attempting to reason.

The most you can work up is another logical fallacy - ad hominem.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:38:00 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:11:20 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wro
> CUT
>
> Here's where I left off:
> > I never thought JOnes was the man. Jones was already on the bus when the man boarded. Jones said so.
> > > > Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus?
> > > It would, but if Oswald got on at Elm & Houston, then the story is different, if not the bus.
> > Except Oswald couldn't board at Elm & Houston, and didn't. So your whole argument here goes kaput.
> I believe I answered this in Part I here.....
> > > You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.
> > So how could McWatters pick Oswald out, thinking he was Jones, if Jones wasn't even on McWatters bus?

> > Your attempt to put both Oswald and Jones on different buses makes no sense. Don't let that stop you. It never has in the past.
> You're going along with the later, backtracking McW: "thinking he was Jones". You're getting stuck in the molasses of McW's mind....

Sorry, your excuse still makes no sense. How could McWatters be thinking of Jones as his passenger if Jones was on a different bus that day, as you insist?

> > > > > > Yes, as everyone but CTs realize, memory is a good part reconstruction and a good part recollection. Stuff you read or heard can become part of memory and recited as if true when you are questioned about it.
> > > > > Yes, please continue to generalize and ignore what I wrote.
> > > > Not ignoring what you wrote. You simply don't understand the limits of human recollection and attempt to use confused statements by witnesses to eliminate Oswald. You still need to cite the evidence for how Oswald came to be in possession of a bus transfer punched by McWatters unique handpunch, if Oswald was not on McWatters bus and didn't receive a transfer from McWatters.
> > > >
> > > > Do explain that, citing the actual evidence.
> > > There was a transfer on Oswald. Apparently punched by McW. But was it the same transfer later in evidence? You'd have to have a photo (a close-up) of the transfer being taken out of O's pocket to prove that.
> > Hilarious. I said *cite the actual evidence*. Instead, you speculate about a swap of transfers there is zero evidence for.
> And I'm saying there is no conclusive "evidence" that the transfer taken off O & the one in evidence are the same transfer.

There is. You just reject it.
== quote ==
Mr. BALL. When you took Oswald down for the first showup and waited in the room outside, the showup room, you searched him?
Mr. SIMS. Yes; Boyd and I.
Mr. BALL What did you find?
Mr. SIMS. I found a bus transfer slip in his shirt pocket.
Mr. BALL. And what else?
Mr. SIMS. Well, Boyd found some .38 cartridges in his pocket.
Mr. BALL. How many?
Mr. SIMS. I don't know--I have it here ---I believe it's five rounds of .38 caliber pistol shells in his left front pocket.
Mr. BALL. Left-front shirt pocket?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir; they were in his pants pocket.
Mr. BALL. Left front?
Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Where was the transfer?
Mr. SIMS. The transfer was in his shirt pocket.
Mr. BALL. Would that be on the left side, I suppose?
Mr. SIMS. I don't know if he's got two pockets or not.
Mr. BALL. Let's take a look at it.
Mr. SIMS. (Examined Exhibit hereinafter referred to).
Mr. BALL. Commission Exhibit 150 is being exhibited for the witness' examination.
Mr. SIMS. Well, he's got two pockets in here and let's see if I have it on here--what pocket it was--I didn't say--I don't remember what pocket he had that in.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the transfer?
Mr. SIMS. I went back up to the office and I believe initialed it and placed it in an envelope for identification.
Mr. BALL. Who did you turn it over to?
Mr. SIMS. I don't remember.
Mr. BALL. You don't remember?
Mr. SIMS. No, sir; it was either in the lieutenant's desk or Captain Fritz' desk.
== unquote ==

The transfer is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0499b.htm

The evidence envelope is signed by Sims and Boyd.

> >
> > Mcwatters said he gave out only two transfers on that trip
> Again, you're taking your lead from the later (that is, post -1/22 affidavit) McW.

Show the third or fourth transfer. Show McWatters was lying. Merely asserting something is NOT the same as establishing it.

> > , and only one to a man (the other went to a woman). So if this was not a transfer taken off Oswald, how did the police obtain it to plant on Oswald? Why did they bother?
> >
> > And note the level of evidence you want to have to put the transfer McWatters said he gave to a man who left the bus after only a few blocks in Oswald's legitimate possession! You want a film of it being taken from Oswald's pocket!
> Failing that, feh--

Not a response. You'll accept any kind of reason to exclude evidence pointing to Oswald, raising all kinds of barriers to your acceptance of it. But anything pointing away, that's a different story. If one witness contradicts another on anything, you use that to throw out the testimony or evidence you don't like.

You demanded film of the transfer being removed from Oswald's pocket! That establishes right there you are biased.

> >
> > But if such a film existed, you would claim it was faked
> That's hearsay.

You would, and we both know it.

> , that *they* could have started filming after *they* put the fake transfer in Oswald's pocket, and besides, why would *they* film that anyway?
> >
> > Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you? Anything pointing to Oswald, you question.

Apparently Don has no clue how they narrowed the bus to McWatters.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > CTs will do everything to void that transfer. Ben asks where's the transfer book (as if not producing an empty checkbook means those checks were never written or cashed. Gil tries to argue a fraudulent transfer was introduced into the record. And Don tries to pretend somebody else not named Oswald was the guy who got off the bus and obtained the transfer as leaving.
> > > > > "McW is speaking... of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus TRANSFER." CAPS for those with very short memories.
> > > > So Oswald got off the bus and when he got off the bus, he obtained the transfer? What then are you arguing about?
> > > > Your arguments make no sense when analyzed. You are now conceding, it appears, that Oswald obtained a transfer when he left the bus. Yes, I agree.
> > > We don't know for sure where or when he got it. As I've said before, back in the days when I took the bus, I sometimes got a transfer when I got on.
> > You could get it if you knew you needed to take a second bus. But what if the bus got stuck in traffic, which you couldn't know about in advance? Wouldn't you ask for a transfer when leaving?
> >
> > Isn't that exactly what two people did?
> It was said that they did, but they don't even know who the woman was.

Sorry, is she accused of a crime? How is her identity pertinent? You're raising meaningless issues to deflect from the fact that McWatters, Jones, and Bledsoe all said a man got on that bus, rode it a few blocks, and then departed the bus. McWatters said he gave that man a transfer, and that transfer somehow was found in Oswald's possession when searched. Bledsoe said the man in question was Oswald. You can't explain any of that, so you pretend the woman's identity is somehow pertinent.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > > > > And Hank can't explain how, somehow, Oswald (or Jones) got on the bus at Elm & Houston after he got on and off earlier. Well, busses were slow that day, and I guess Oswald could have run down to Elm & Houston to get back on the bus....
> > > > Straw man argument. The Commission didn't say, and I didn't say, that Oswald or Jones got on the bus at Elm and Houston. You think every mistake by every witness points to a conspiracy. That's not the way to solve any crime, over-analyze every statement and presume every contradiction between any two witnesses, or even between the same witness at different times, is some big clue to resolving the crime.
> > > So you're saying that McW's "Elm around Houston" in his affidavit was a mistake? Well, yes, I guess you'd have to--because that puts him on the bus to Oak Cliff....
> > It is a mistake, because as McWatters explains, the route his bus takes demands he make a left onto Houston at Elm, and that means he can't pull to the curb to pick up passengers at that corner, because he has to be in the left lane to make that left turn.
> The revised story has him picking up two passengers where there was no bus stop, in the middle of a block. I forget, did he say he pulled to the curb?

== quote ==

Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
As I left Field Street, I pulled out into the, in other words, the first lane of traffic and traffic was beginning to back up then; in other words, it was blocked further down the street, and after I pulled out in it for a short distance there I come to a complete stop, and when I did, someone come up and beat on the door of the bus, and that is about even with Griffin Street.
In other words, it is a street that dead ends into Elm Street which there is no bus stop at this street, because I stopped across Field Street in the middle of the intersection and it is just a short distance onto Griffin Street, and that is when someone, a man, came up and knocked on the door of the bus, and I opened the door of the bus and he got on.

== unquote ==

I've had buses stop for me once they've pulled into traffic. Note he said both 'beat on the door' and 'knocked on the door'.

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...

> In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.

Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".

[Hank Sienzant]

Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.

Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon

Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The first wife was smarter than Hank. Probably why she dumped him.

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 8:38:00 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:11:20 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 12:43:04 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:03:27 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:56:07 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wro
> > CUT
> >
> > Here's where I left off:
> > > I never thought JOnes was the man. Jones was already on the bus when the man boarded. Jones said so.
> > > > > Doesn't that put Milton Jones on his bus?
> > > > It would, but if Oswald got on at Elm & Houston, then the story is different, if not the bus.
> > > Except Oswald couldn't board at Elm & Houston, and didn't. So your whole argument here goes kaput.
> > I believe I answered this in Part I here.....
> > > > You keep arguing, as I understand your argument, that Milton Jones was on a different bus than McWatters bus.
> > > So how could McWatters pick Oswald out, thinking he was Jones, if Jones wasn't even on McWatters bus?
> > > Your attempt to put both Oswald and Jones on different buses makes no sense. Don't let that stop you. It never has in the past.
> > You're going along with the later, backtracking McW: "thinking he was Jones". You're getting stuck in the molasses of McW's mind....
> Sorry, your excuse still makes no sense. How could McWatters be thinking of Jones as his passenger if Jones was on a different bus that day, as you insist?

Hard to make sense of anything in McW's testimony. And Jones' FBI report rules him in (the on & off story) & out (1 hour delay) at the same time. Don't know who to believe--Jones or Jones....

Yes, Fritz's boys, who went along with Fritz's I didn't touch the shells, which even Mooney, who found them, disagrees with.

> > >
> > > Mcwatters said he gave out only two transfers on that trip
> > Again, you're taking your lead from the later (that is, post -1/22 affidavit) McW.
> Show the third or fourth transfer. Show McWatters was lying. Merely asserting something is NOT the same as establishing it.

Taking McW at his word is dangerous. For instance, he ID'd O in the lineup, then disavowed that, then disavowed his disavowal.

> > > , and only one to a man (the other went to a woman). So if this was not a transfer taken off Oswald, how did the police obtain it to plant on Oswald? Why did they bother?
> > >
> > > And note the level of evidence you want to have to put the transfer McWatters said he gave to a man who left the bus after only a few blocks in Oswald's legitimate possession! You want a film of it being taken from Oswald's pocket!
> > Failing that, feh--
> Not a response. You'll accept any kind of reason to exclude evidence pointing to Oswald, raising all kinds of barriers to your acceptance of it. But anything pointing away, that's a different story. If one witness contradicts another on anything, you use that to throw out the testimony or evidence you don't like.
>
> You demanded film of the transfer being removed from Oswald's pocket! That establishes right there you are biased.
> > >
> > > But if such a film existed, you would claim it was faked
> > That's hearsay.
> You would, and we both know it.
> > , that *they* could have started filming after *they* put the fake transfer in Oswald's pocket, and besides, why would *they* film that anyway?
> > >
> > > Wouldn't you?
> Wouldn't you? Anything pointing to Oswald, you question.

I assume that you mean re Oak Cliff, not Dealey.

I already noted that.

dcw

[donald willis]

Have you found McW's 11/22 affidavit yet?

[Greg Parker]

Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame. That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > >
> > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> >
> > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> >
> > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.

If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.

> That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.

I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.

[Greg Parker]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > >
> > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > >
> > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > >
> > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.

Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.

So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context? How often does this happen? Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.

I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.

> > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.

> I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.

My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
>
> So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context? How often does this happen?

How does your great desire to believe there was a conspiracy cause you to stand on your head to look at information?

>Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.

Contrive any reason you like to dismiss things that go against the stupid things you are desperate to believe, it is what you do best.

> I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.

All he said is he wasn`t sure why you brought it up. Perhaps your sensitivity is causing you to read too much into it.

> > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
>
> > I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.
> My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.

It`ll dry.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

>> FBI interview.
>>
>> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
>
>So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.

There you go again with the logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Again, I ask you to walk through that argument slowly, citing all the evidence you can muster along the way.

Why do you keep asking questions that *YOU YOURSELF* refuse to answer?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need
> and post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
> assertion.

Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need and
post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
assertion.

But you won't.

You and other believers flat REFUSE to do so.

[Ben Holmes]

Or it could simply be that honest people don't need aliases...

[Greg Parker]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:00:09 PM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> > Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
> >
> > So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context? How often does this happen?
> How does your great desire to believe there was a conspiracy cause you to stand on your head to look at information?

Nonsensical blather.

> >Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> Contrive any reason you like to dismiss things that go against the stupid things you are desperate to believe, it is what you do best.

And answering posts not made is what you do best.

> > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.

> All he said is he wasn`t sure why you brought it up. Perhaps your sensitivity is causing you to read too much into it.

LOL. How can you sit at your keyboard and flat out lie about what was said a couple posts ago that is still in plain sight?

Here is was Joe said:
----------------QUOTE ON

Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.

----------------QUOTE OFF

NOWHERE there does he say he is unsure why I brought it up. But in any case, once again, the context was clearly to identify a point in time.

> > > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
> >
> > > I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.
> > My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.
> It`ll dry.

Maybe the egg on the face will take a bit longer though.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:56:37 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:00:09 PM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > > > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> > > Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
> > >
> > > So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context? How often does this happen?
> > How does your great desire to believe there was a conspiracy cause you to stand on your head to look at information?
> Nonsensical blather.

One man`s nonsensical blather is another man`s accurate assessment.

> > >Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> > Contrive any reason you like to dismiss things that go against the stupid things you are desperate to believe, it is what you do best.
> And answering posts not made is what you do best.

I saw exactly what you did. Hank constantly points out the flaws in your ideas, so you contrived a reason you are comfortable with as to why they should be ignored.

> > > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.
>
> > All he said is he wasn`t sure why you brought it up. Perhaps your sensitivity is causing you to read too much into it.
> LOL. How can you sit at your keyboard and flat out lie about what was said a couple posts ago that is still in plain sight?
>
> Here is was Joe said:
> ----------------QUOTE ON
> Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.

What in what Hank wrote was directed at you, stupid? He was speaking generally about how CTers made an issue about this in *the past* (not you in this post). Apparently you have a complex where you think everything is about you.

The only part that was specifically directed at you was "...or why you bring it up still."

> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> ----------------QUOTE OFF
>
> NOWHERE there does he say he is unsure why I brought it up. But in any case, once again, the context was clearly to identify a point in time.
> > > > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
> > >
> > > > I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.
> > > My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.
> > It`ll dry.
> Maybe the egg on the face will take a bit longer though.

You imagine egg on my face because you are comfortable thinking you bested me somehow. Everything you think is designed to keep you in your comfort zone.

[Hank Sienzant]

Did I misstate Don's premise? Did he say I did that?
I'm awaiting Don's clarification of his point.
Note that Don has drawn a lot of conclusions from McWatters testimony, yet on the other hand, dismissed any questions about his conclusions concerning McWatters testimony with a "Hard to make sense of anything in McW's testimony."

So it appears from here he's seeking to have it both ways, McWatters was an accurate witness when Don needs him to be, and wholly inaccurate and nonsensical when Don needs him to be.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:

> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > >
> > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> >
> > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> >

> > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of [being] a member [of] some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.

> Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you?

Ad hominem. As I said, "Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past ... or why you bring it up still Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make."

From your responses, it appears that way.

> I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.

Or you could have said "About 2012" (or whatever year/timeframe you were referencing). Wouldn't that have been clearer to everyone? You really expect every reader to know or accurately recall when I was actively posting under the alias of Joe Zircon? Do you even know what years that was?

> That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger.

More ad hominem.


> Never mind, Petal.

More ad hominem.

> I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.

And even more ad hominem. Wow, you really can't attack my points, can you?

[Hank Sienzant]

You're presuming what you need to prove. You learn what logical fallacy that is yet?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

What? You mean she killed herself because she couldn't stand you?

[donald willis]

His 11/22/63 affidavit was perfectly straightforward, Mr. Sienzant. It's his WC testimony which was cockeyed. I've said that many times, but if you prefer to misstate me, just continue....

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 5:12:50 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:56:37 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:00:09 PM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > > > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > > > > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> > > > Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
> > > >
> > > > So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context? How often does this happen?
> > > How does your great desire to believe there was a conspiracy cause you to stand on your head to look at information?
> > Nonsensical blather.
> One man`s nonsensical blather is another man`s accurate assessment.

Yeah... if that other man is typing from a padded cell...

> > > >Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> > > Contrive any reason you like to dismiss things that go against the stupid things you are desperate to believe, it is what you do best.
> > And answering posts not made is what you do best.
> I saw exactly what you did. Hank constantly points out the flaws in your ideas, so you contrived a reason you are comfortable with as to why they should be ignored.

More blather.

> > > > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.
> >
> > > All he said is he wasn`t sure why you brought it up. Perhaps your sensitivity is causing you to read too much into it.
> > LOL. How can you sit at your keyboard and flat out lie about what was said a couple posts ago that is still in plain sight?
> >
> > Here is was Joe said:
> > ----------------QUOTE ON
> > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> What in what Hank wrote was directed at you, stupid? He was speaking generally about how CTers made an issue about this in *the past* (not you in this post). Apparently you have a complex where you think everything is about you.

Again you pretend to know what is in Hank's mind. His post was a direct reply to my post.

> The only part that was specifically directed at you was "...or why you bring it up still."

Is Hank your sock puppet or are you his? Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know the answer.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > ----------------QUOTE OFF
> >
> > NOWHERE there does he say he is unsure why I brought it up. But in any case, once again, the context was clearly to identify a point in time.
> > > > > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
> > > >
> > > > > I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.
> > > > My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.
> > > It`ll dry.
> > Maybe the egg on the face will take a bit longer though.
> You imagine egg on my face because you are comfortable thinking you bested me somehow. Everything you think is designed to keep you in your comfort zone.

LOL Projection much? "Comfort zone" is the exact reason you want to turn this into a LN/CT shit fight. Not happening, but fuck you very much, anyway.

[Greg Parker]

You're pretending you know what you're talking about, so enlighten us all.

[Hank Sienzant]

It's still an attempt to shift the burden of proof. You keep quoting from this alleged document as it suits you, but you have yet to produce a link to it or quote it in its entirety. It's not my job to disprove your contentions, it's your job to prove them. You can start by producing this affidavit.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> >> He was innocent in Oak Cliff, guilty in Dealey. So you can't just say he was guilty or innocent.
> > So why did they bother to frame him for the murder of Tippit? Your answer above, to avoid WWIII, makes zero sense.

> > Again, I ask you to walk through that argument slowly, citing all the evidence you can muster along the way.
>
> Why do you keep asking questions that *YOU YOURSELF* refuse to answer?

How can I answer for Don? I don't share his beliefs that framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit would somehow prevent WWIII.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>

Let's restore some context, shall we?

>>>>> Much evidence is explained by this scenario.
>>>> Ah, I see.
>>>>You don't cite the evidence to establish your scenario.
>>>> You cite your scenario to explain away the evidence.
>>>>> I have a video which shows much of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13QCC8VEDA
>>>> Congratulations, you are now granted exalted Bob Harris status. You have videos that assert everything you want to assert. And none of that silly bickering over whether you have any evidence that establishes what you assert.
>> > It's just the best explanation of the evidence.

> > Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need
> > and post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
> > assertion.
>
> Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need and
> post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
> assertion.
> But you won't.
>
> You and other believers flat REFUSE to do so.

Burden shifting. The case we believe in was laid out in September of 1964. You've professed to be very knowledgeable about it. Why do you therefore need anyone to go through it again, if you know the case and where to find the evidence? As the opposition to that case, you need to present your argument against and make a case for a better scenario, that explains more of the known evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

What part of "my first wife insisted I not use my real name..." did you fail to understand?

[donald willis]

(chuckle!) document as it suits you, but you have yet to produce a link to it or quote it in its entirety. It's not my job to disprove your contentions, it's your job to prove them. You can start by producing this affidavit.

How many times to do I have to tell you that I don't know anything about your goddamn "links" or how to copy & paste the affidavit from The Portal. YOU can start by... well, that would be ad hominem.... Hard to converse with LNs when they don't have essential documents or books, such as "Picture of the Pain". Ignorance is bliss....

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.

Ad hominem once more. Almost like you can't rebut what I said.

>
> So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context?

Straw man.

> How often does this happen? Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.

Still a straw man. Rebut the points I made, not the ones you wish I made.

>
> I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.

I'm not at all sensitive. Ben and Sky Throne calls me all manner of names in an attempt to deflect from their inability to rebut the points I make. Ben calls me a liar and suggests I molest children. Sky Throne suggests I kill babies and eat them. I simply point out their failures and move on. You think what you said meant anything to me? Hilarious.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

And Ben didn't wait to exemplify the problem Bud spoke of.

The best part is when some CT using an alias accuses me of using an alias.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hilarious. What part of "Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past... or why you bring it up still" did you not understand? Did you not understand that "Not sure" means "unsure"? Did you think I was talking about somebody else when I said I was "...not sure... why you bring it up still"?

> But in any case, once again, the context was clearly to identify a point in time.

Nyah. That could have been done more clearly and effectively by naming a year. You were simply trying to deflect the conversation from Don Willis being unable to recall you by bringing me into it:

== quote ==

> > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
>
> Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".

== unquote ==

[Hank Sienzant]

Both. 8 hours a day I man the CIA disinformation desk, using a multitude of aliases, and then Bud comes in and replaces me, and then a third person fills in the other eight hours.

> Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know the answer.

I hereby designate Bud to speak for me. Happy? You CTs will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you?

Greg, why not just stick to the JFK assassination instead of advancing ad hominem logical fallacies about other posters on this board? You only know I was Joe Zircon because I mentioned it. If there was anything nefarious behind the name, why would I mention it?

[Hank Sienzant]

And you don't know how to type it in here either, apparently.

It's still your burden of proof. Produce this document.

> YOU can start by... well, that would be ad hominem.... Hard to converse with LNs when they don't have essential documents or books, such as "Picture of the Pain".

You make a number of unfounded assumptions above. Like which books or documents are essential, and what I have and don't have. I have "Pictures of the Pain" but it's in my basement and I am not about to run downstairs and rummage through my collection every time you reference something you think is "essential" from that book or any of the other 500 or so I own.


> Ignorance is bliss..

What remains to determine is just who is the ignorant one here.

[Bud]

Even if that were the case.

> > > > >Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> > > > Contrive any reason you like to dismiss things that go against the stupid things you are desperate to believe, it is what you do best.
> > > And answering posts not made is what you do best.
> > I saw exactly what you did. Hank constantly points out the flaws in your ideas, so you contrived a reason you are comfortable with as to why they should be ignored.
> More blather.

One man`s blather is another man`s accurate assessment.

> > > > > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.
> > >
> > > > All he said is he wasn`t sure why you brought it up. Perhaps your sensitivity is causing you to read too much into it.
> > > LOL. How can you sit at your keyboard and flat out lie about what was said a couple posts ago that is still in plain sight?
> > >
> > > Here is was Joe said:
> > > ----------------QUOTE ON
> > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > What in what Hank wrote was directed at you, stupid? He was speaking generally about how CTers made an issue about this in *the past* (not you in this post). Apparently you have a complex where you think everything is about you.
> Again you pretend to know what is in Hank's mind.

He expressed his thoughts using words, words you apparently didn`t understand.

>His post was a direct reply to my post.
> > The only part that was specifically directed at you was "...or why you bring it up still."
> Is Hank your sock puppet or are you his?

I was trying to help you out, the words he used seemed to have stumped you.

> Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know the answer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > ----------------QUOTE OFF
> > >
> > > NOWHERE there does he say he is unsure why I brought it up. But in any case, once again, the context was clearly to identify a point in time.
> > > > > > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger. Never mind, Petal. I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I`m sure your ass in big enough to fit your whole head.
> > > > > My ass and head or normal size. I'm not an American. Maybe you should try pulling yours out once in a while. It might allow you to see when you are just about to paint yourself into another corner.
> > > > It`ll dry.
> > > Maybe the egg on the face will take a bit longer though.
> > You imagine egg on my face because you are comfortable thinking you bested me somehow. Everything you think is designed to keep you in your comfort zone.
> LOL Projection much? "Comfort zone" is the exact reason you want to turn this into a LN/CT shit fight. Not happening, but fuck you very much, anyway.

Frame it any way you are comfortable with.

You don`t like your ideas critically examined because they can`t stand the scrutiny.

[donald willis]

See below

> > YOU can start by... well, that would be ad hominem.... Hard to converse with LNs when they don't have essential documents or books, such as "Picture of the Pain".
> You make a number of unfounded assumptions above. Like which books or documents are essential, and what I have and don't have. I have "Pictures of the Pain" but it's in my basement and I am not about to run downstairs and rummage through my collection every time you reference something you think is "essential" from that book or any of the other 500 or so I own.
>

Hilarious! And hypocritical. You don't want to take the time to run downstairs for me. Aw! But you want me to take the time to type up an affidavit. You are a true PoH--Purveyor of Hilarity and Hypocrisy

> > Ignorance is bliss..
>
> What remains to determine is just who is the ignorant one here.

Speaking of ignorant, what use is it to have 500 books and not be able to use them?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

500 JFK books? Well there's the problem. Who the hell could think straight after reading 500 books on the topic, plus those 26 volumes...twice? It's a wonder that Hank can even put his pants on in the morning, which I'm only assuming that he does. I cannot quote the documents to prove that he does. I merely deduce that he wears trousers, but I suppose that I should not jump to such a conclusion without proof that would hold up in a criminal trial. I withdraw the statement. I do not assert that Hank wears trousers. Never mind.

[Greg Parker]

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:19:59 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > >
> > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > >
> > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > >
> > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of [being] a member [of] some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you?
> Ad hominem. As I said, "Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past ... or why you bring it up still Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make."

Not ad hom when it is relevant to the point being discussed.

> From your responses, it appears that way.

Nope. You call anything you don't like a "logical fallacy".

No "points" you've ever made were part of the discussion. You were used to reference a point in time and that was enough to set you crying about being bullied over your past username. Feigning victimhood is just another diversionary tactic.

> > I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.

> Or you could have said "About 2012" (or whatever year/timeframe you were referencing). Wouldn't that have been clearer to everyone?

I wasn't addressing "everyone". I was addressing Donald.

You really expect every reader to know or accurately recall when I was actively posting under the alias of Joe Zircon? Do you even know what years that was?

Don't give shit what readers know about you and your posting history. Don knows what I was referencing.

> > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger.

> More ad hominem.

Your demonstrated level of reading comprehension is a valid point in this discussion and therefore not ad hom.

> > Never mind, Petal.
>
> More ad hominem.

Ad hom is designed to reduce the acceptance of your argument. You haven't made any argument. You are complaining about me bringing up your previous username.

But if you are going to be the ad hom police, you should be talking to Bud about his use of terms like "conspiracy hobbyists". That is ad hom designed to denigrate the target of the claim and thus an attempt to reduce the impact of the argument being put.

> > I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.

> And even more ad hominem. Wow, you really can't attack my points, can you?

See above.

[Greg Parker]

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:59:25 PM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> > Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
> Ad hominem once more. Almost like you can't rebut what I said.
> >
> > So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context?
> Straw man.

Bud insists your "sensitivity" is due to being bullied in the past over your previous username. Since you did miss the context of my use of it, it follows logically that your sensitivity caused your emotional response which as I say, clearly missed the context.

So your calling it a straw man is actually a straw man in itself.

> > How often does this happen? Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> Still a straw man. Rebut the points I made, not the ones you wish I made.

You never made any point. You were too busy playing the victim.

> > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.
> I'm not at all sensitive. Ben and Sky Throne calls me all manner of names in an attempt to deflect from their inability to rebut the points I make.

So? We were not discussing any points. You keep forgetting that.

> Ben calls me a liar and suggests I molest children. Sky Throne suggests I kill babies and eat them. I simply point out their failures and move on. You think what you said meant anything to me? Hilarious.

It sure seemed to from the emotional response.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> FBI interview.
>
> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
>

> Methinks he doth protest too much.
>

> From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
>
> And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
>
> On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.

This might be of interest to Willis, if he doesn't already know about it, a 12-1-63 newspaper reference to the McWatters bus story. It names McWatters and relates a story about a "laughing teen" who said, "I'll bet someone has shot the president." The date of publication comes after the McWatters affidavit and FBI interview, but before any other official McWaters statements, and also before Milton Jones is interviewed. The teen is mentioned in the FBI interview of 11-22-63, but can the FBI be the source? It sounds as if somebody had interviewed McWatters and got this story from him, but the source is not given. https://postimg.cc/BtHV1XjX

[donald willis]

It is interesting. Dialogue by McW & passengers I've never seen before. Maybe they pre-selected a generic "teen", then pasted Jones into that picture. In the story, a man from a stalled car tells McW JFK was shot; in the FBI version, McW himself hears it over a radio. And I see the companion story re Whaley has him saying that O said "500 block". Poor bastard Whaley (as per the WR), though, later said he had Dallas streets intersecting when they didn't intersect. Maybe W & O didn't intersect....

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I think there is some fictional writing going on somewhere, but I don't know whether it's the reporters, the police, the FBI or McWatters' memory. Milton Jones might have been assigned the role ex post facto. It's a pity he has such a common last name. He did marry a Hunt, but that is also a very common name. "Roy Milton" makes it easy to find him, but being a "Jones" makes it difficult to know whether or not he might be related to a cop or some other official.

[donald willis]

That about sums it up here.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This probably has nothing to do with anything, but when I went searching for "Marylou Hunt," the name of the girl whom Milton Jones married two years after the assassination, I came up with a Twitter page for that name which had a quotation in Russian, giving me the wacky apparent coincidence of Milton Jones marrying a Russian-speaking woman and being mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald, who was also married to a Russian-speaking woman. But, probably this Marylou Hunt is not the one whom Milton Jones married. But it is fun...https://postimg.cc/w351shLt

[Hank Sienzant]

Still waiting for you to produce this document.

> > > YOU can start by... well, that would be ad hominem.... Hard to converse with LNs when they don't have essential documents or books, such as "Picture of the Pain".
> > You make a number of unfounded assumptions above. Like which books or documents are essential, and what I have and don't have. I have "Pictures of the Pain" but it's in my basement and I am not about to run downstairs and rummage through my collection every time you reference something you think is "essential" from that book or any of the other 500 or so I own.
> >
> Hilarious! And hypocritical. You don't want to take the time to run downstairs for me. Aw! But you want me to take the time to type up an affidavit. You are a true PoH--Purveyor of Hilarity and Hypocrisy
> > > Ignorance is bliss..
> >
> > What remains to determine is just who is the ignorant one here.
> Speaking of ignorant, what use is it to have 500 books and not be able to use them?

Isn't it amazing how frequently these knowledgeable conspiracy theorists would rather talk about me than discuss all the knowledge they've gleaned from their research into the Kennedy assassination?

[Hank Sienzant]

I am constantly amazed at how frequently these knowledgeable conspiracy theorists would rather talk about me than discuss all the knowledge they've gleaned from their research into the Kennedy assassination.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 10:51:37 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:19:59 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > >
> > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of [being] a member [of] some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you?
> > Ad hominem. As I said, "Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past ... or why you bring it up still Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make."
> Not ad hom when it is relevant to the point being discussed.

Ad hominem is hominem. Attack the message, not the messenger. Above you attacked the messenger, calling me a delicate little petal. Please explain how that wording is relevant to the point being discussed. Go ahead, we'll wait.

> > From your responses, it appears that way.
> Nope. You call anything you don't like a "logical fallacy".

No, I call logical fallacies logical fallacies. Your logical fallacy above was ad hominem.

>
> No "points" you've ever made were part of the discussion. You were used to reference a point in time and that was enough to set you crying about being bullied over your past username.

Straw man argument. Another logical fallacy. Please quote me saying anything about me "crying about being bullied over ...[my] past username. It's also Circular reasoning. You invent things, then use those invented things to further attack me, justifying the continued attack by reference to the original attack. I note you're not interested in discussing the bus transfer anymore.

> Feigning victimhood is just another diversionary tactic.

I'm not a victim of anything. Nor did I ever say I was. You have no points of mine to attack, so you simply attack me, putting words in my mouth.

> > > I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
>
> > Or you could have said "About 2012" (or whatever year/timeframe you were referencing). Wouldn't that have been clearer to everyone?
> I wasn't addressing "everyone". I was addressing Donald.

Isn't Donald a subset of everyone?

> You really expect every reader to know or accurately recall when I was actively posting under the alias of Joe Zircon? Do you even know what years that was?
> Don't give shit what readers know about you and your posting history.

Well, that's untrue. Because your reference was to me and my posting history: "We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates..."

You brought it up, now you claim it's immaterial.

> Don knows what I was referencing.

Again, what purpose was served in throwing my use of an alias into the mixed that couldn't have been made more clear by simply referencing the year?

> > > That should have been obvious from the context. But then, I already knew your reading comprehension was lower than than a dead dingo's donger.
>
> > More ad hominem.
> Your demonstrated level of reading comprehension is a valid point in this discussion and therefore not ad hom.

Circular reasoning. Again, you pretend my reading comprehension is an issue, then justify further remarks about it by referring to the original pretense.

> > > Never mind, Petal.
> >
> > More ad hominem.
> Ad hom is designed to reduce the acceptance of your argument. You haven't made any argument.

So why are using it?

> You are complaining about me bringing up your previous username.

I merely explained the previous username to any new readers who might be unfamiliar with it.
I am now pointing out all you've done since is ad hominem and circular reasoning.

>
> But if you are going to be the ad hom police,

I'm not. I am justified in pointing out your usage of ad hominem against me.

> you should be talking to Bud about his use of terms like "conspiracy hobbyists". That is ad hom designed to denigrate the target of the claim and thus an attempt to reduce the impact of the argument being put.

Why? Is that something you can't argue with Bud about on your own?
Do I need to carry your water?

> > > I'm sure Chuck or Bud have big enough bosoms to offer some comfort.
>
> > And even more ad hominem. Wow, you really can't attack my points, can you?
> See above.

Yep. As I said.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 10:58:42 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:59:25 PM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 11:15:34 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:04:49 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:48:32 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:44:48 AM UTC+10, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
> > > > > > > > In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
> > > > > > Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a thought.
> > > > > Wow, you are really just a delicate little flower, aren't you? I mentioned your previous handle by way of pinpointing a time-frame.
> > > > If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.
> > > Nice of you to speak for the poor little petal, Bud, almost like you know what is in his mind.
> > Ad hominem once more. Almost like you can't rebut what I said.
> > >
> > > So you are claiming that this CT induced "sensitivity" causes him to misread and take things out of context?
> > Straw man.
> Bud insists your "sensitivity" is due to being bullied in the past over your previous username.

Bud was incorrect to read sensitivity into my explanation.

> Since you did miss the context of my use of it,

According to you.

> it follows logically that your sensitivity caused your emotional response which as I say, clearly missed the context.

False premises lead to false conclusions. And circular reasoning besides.

>
> So your calling it a straw man is actually a straw man in itself.

I made no such argument, but you are attempting to rebut my points by pretending I did.
Rebut what I said, not what you wish I said.

> > > How often does this happen? Makes me wonder if his replies to CT's (a group I despise far more than you or Joe does) have been affected by this psychological affliction to the point of rendering them meaningless in terms of direct responses.
> > Still a straw man. Rebut the points I made, not the ones you wish I made.
> You never made any point. You were too busy playing the victim.

Another ad hominem attack. Still inventing things I never said, I see.

> > > I would suggest that if Joe is truly that sensitive, her needs to quit these forums. They are deleterious to his mental health.
> > I'm not at all sensitive. Ben and Sky Throne calls me all manner of names in an attempt to deflect from their inability to rebut the points I make.
> So? We were not discussing any points. You keep forgetting that.

The discussion was about a bus transfer, remember?

> > Ben calls me a liar and suggests I molest children. Sky Throne suggests I kill babies and eat them. I simply point out their failures and move on. You think what you said meant anything to me? Hilarious.
> It sure seemed to from the emotional response.

Again, begged question. You are asserting what you need to prove. You keep inventing things and then assume they are true.

I am constantly amazed at how frequently these knowledgeable conspiracy theorists would rather talk about me than discuss all the knowledge they've gleaned from their research into the Kennedy assassination. You would think they'd be more eager to impart that knowledge than discuss the reading comprehension or sensitivity or psychological makeup of anyone else on this board. But I guess not, as demonstrated above, by Greg, Don, and Sky Throne. They've got nothing better to do than discuss me at this point in time.

[donald willis]

Here's something for you. A good comment is worth repeating. (I know that you believe that, for yourself at least.): Hilarious! And hypocritical. You don't want to take the time to run downstairs for me. Aw! But you want me to take the time to type up an affidavit. You are a true PoH--Purveyor of Hilarity and Hypocrisy

Poor guy. I hope you're not *just* waiting. You should eat and sleep, too.

[donald willis]

Okay. I tried scan/copy/paste from the handwritten version of McW's affidavit. I used to do that with Windows 7. Can't figure how to do it with Windows 10.

dcw

[Bud]

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/?q=mcwatters

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> FBI interview.
>
> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
>

> Methinks he doth protest too much.
>

> From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
>

> And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
>
> On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.

Your problem is one of cherry-picking. The other three people on the bus involved all put Oswald boarding and leaving the bus before Elm and Houston.

But you rely on the initial statement of McWatters (a man you say we should not rely on, and call his testimony loony) as posted by Bud here:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/?q=mcwatters

Jones: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
Summarizing: Says the driver made his last passenger pickup about six blocks before Houston Street. He recalls a man and a woman boarding at that time. He puts the man leaving the bus by the front door after the bus was stopped by traffic, but before any police arrived. The man was on the bus only a few blocks.

Bledsoe: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
Summarizing: Knew Oswald as he rented a room from her in early October for one week. Saw him board the bus. While the bus was stuck in traffic, Oswald left the bus. Oswald was on the bus only a few blocks.

Oswald: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm (Fritz, Dallas Police)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323a.htm (Bookhout, FBI)
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm (Kelley, Secret Service)
Summarizing: Says he caught a bus and then a cab to get to his rooming house. Correcting his previous statement where he said he rode the bus to his rooming house. Admitted he left the bus after only a few blocks. Tells essentially the same story as Whaley about a woman approaching the cab after Oswald got in.

You yourself admitted it would be a mistake to rely on anything what McWatters said. You did that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jcVur0spE5Q/m/p2TTonIdAgAJ
Allow me to quote from your post:
== quote ==
That "thinking it was Jones" is about the looniest assertion McW makes in his generally loony testimony.... As I recall, McW's"thinking it was Jones" was the lead in, in McW's testimony, to his reverting to saying yes it was Oswald in the lineup. But this Oswald was not the Oswald he originally thought was Oswald. Good thing the whole case didn't depend on McW's thinking!
== unquote ==

Here's one place where you suggested Jones wasn't on McWatters' bus:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jcVur0spE5Q/m/p2TTonIdAgAJ
== quote ==
A final clue that Jones was not McWatters' man, the man "who told [him] the president was shot in the temple", a clue that Jones was perhaps not even on the same bus as Oswald... What bus was McWatters driving? What planet was he on? Not Jones' bus, at least. Maybe not Jones' planet.
== unquote ==

As I pointed out, you flit from one argument to the next. Jones wasn't on McWatters bus, Jones was on McWatters bus, McWatters said this and we can take it to the bank, McWatters is unreliable and even loony. And round and round we go.

You seldom answer any of the questions I ask. The one I've been asking for about two weeks is why would the Dallas police be happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of Officer Tippit, and let Tippit's real killer go free?

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:15:35 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > FBI interview.
> >
> > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
> >
> > Methinks he doth protest too much.
> >
> > From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
> >
> > And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
> >
> > On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
> Your problem is one of cherry-picking.

"Cherry picking"? To believe an affidavit made on 11/22? I think you're stretching the term....

>The other three people on the bus involved all put Oswald boarding and leaving the bus before Elm and Houston.

And I quoted 4 or 5 witnesses putting the Dealey shooter at a wide open window. If you want to go by sheer numbers of witnesses, you have to accept that too. Cherry picking would be to accept Euins' partly-closed window, yet you do. Perhaps the preponderance of witness evidence here should trump the other evidence which puts the shooter on the 6th floor. And Euins apparently originally said that the shooter was a black man on the 5th floor. Was there not a black man on the 5th floor?

>
> But you rely on the initial statement of McWatters (a man you say we should not rely on, and call his testimony loony)

Yes, "testimony", as opposed to his perfectly reasonable affidavit. This is not a fine distinction.

as posted by Bud here:
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/?q=mcwatters
>
> Jones: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
> Summarizing: Says the driver made his last passenger pickup about six blocks before Houston Street. He recalls a man and a woman boarding at that time. He puts the man leaving the bus by the front door after the bus was stopped by traffic, but before any police arrived. The man was on the bus only a few blocks.
>
> Bledsoe: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
> Summarizing: Knew Oswald as he rented a room from her in early October for one week. Saw him board the bus. While the bus was stuck in traffic, Oswald left the bus. Oswald was on the bus only a few blocks.
>
> Oswald: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm (Fritz, Dallas Police)
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323a.htm (Bookhout, FBI)
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325b.htm (Kelley, Secret Service)
> Summarizing: Says he caught a bus and then a cab to get to his rooming house. Correcting his previous statement where he said he rode the bus to his rooming house. Admitted he left the bus after only a few blocks. Tells essentially the same story as Whaley about a woman approaching the cab after Oswald got in.

Anything to ignore McW's same-day affidavit. Even his voluminous testimony couldn't explain why he said that he picked up a man at Elm & Houston. That man couldn't have been Jones. It could have been Oswald.

>
> You yourself admitted it would be a mistake to rely on anything what McWatters said. You did that here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jcVur0spE5Q/m/p2TTonIdAgAJ

Look a little closer. "Here" I'm clearly speaking only of McW's testimony, not his affidavit. I've tried to straighten you out a few times.

> Allow me to quote from your post:
> == quote ==
> That "thinking it was Jones" is about the looniest assertion McW makes in his generally loony testimony.... As I recall, McW's"thinking it was Jones" was the lead in, in McW's testimony, to his reverting to saying yes it was Oswald in the lineup. But this Oswald was not the Oswald he originally thought was Oswald. Good thing the whole case didn't depend on McW's thinking!
> == unquote ==
>
> Here's one place where you suggested Jones wasn't on McWatters' bus:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jcVur0spE5Q/m/p2TTonIdAgAJ
> == quote ==
> A final clue that Jones was not McWatters' man, the man "who told [him] the president was shot in the temple", a clue that Jones was perhaps not even on the same bus as Oswald... What bus was McWatters driving? What planet was he on? Not Jones' bus, at least. Maybe not Jones' planet.
> == unquote ==
>
> As I pointed out, you flit from one argument to the next. Jones wasn't on McWatters bus, Jones was on McWatters bus

As I noted elsewhere, there's witness evidence both that Jones was and that he wasn't. His own statement can be cherry picked to say one thing or the other.

, McWatters said this and we can take it to the bank

Yes, his affidavit.

, McWatters is unreliable and even loony.

Yes, his testimony.

And round and round we go.
>
> You seldom answer any of the questions I ask. The one I've been asking for about two weeks is why would the Dallas police be happy to frame an innocent man for the murder of Officer Tippit, and let Tippit's real killer go free?

I think you were asking ST about that, not me. And the answer is, Fritz was in on the frame. (And how many cops would be willing to contradict the head of homicide?) I've said that many times. In one ear....

And still, you only indirectly referred to McW's 11/22 affidavit. Did you look at Bud's good work?

dcw

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the >transfer in Oswald's possession.

It was never in his possession. Sims and Boyd lied. Oswald was completely searched TWICE before their alleged discoveries.

He was completely searched by Bentley
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png

And completely searched a second time by C T Walker
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/image003.png

McWatters testified that he had been stopped by the Dallas Police around 6:15 or 6:20 pm on the day of the assassination and asked to come to the station and answer some questions. ( 2 H 267-268 )
Milton Jones told the FBI that McWatters told him that the Dallas Police questioned him about the man on the bus until 1 am Saturday. ( 25 H 901 )
That's 6 1/2 hours of questioning.
There's no way they would have asked him that many questions about a guy who was on the bus for two blocks.
This witness wasn't just questioned, he was interrogated.
And he wasn't released until he told them what they wanted to hear.

[donald willis]

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:05:21 AM UTC-7, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the >transfer in Oswald's possession.
>
> It was never in his possession. Sims and Boyd lied.

Fritz was their boss. That was their job.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:05:21 AM UTC-7, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the >transfer in Oswald's possession.
> >
> > It was never in his possession. Sims and Boyd lied.
> Fritz was their boss. That was their job.

Except: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png

But it says above that Fritz agreed Oswald was searched and allowed to keep nothing. Would you care to venture a guess why Fritz would say that, instead of "I guess the original searches missed the thin paper bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket"?

Wouldn't Fritz cover for his men who were lying for him?

Or maybe they weren't lying for him, and the initial searches simply missed the small bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket during a pat-down.

Willis to pretend he never saw this. Like he pretends he never saw my question, "Why would the Dallas Police frame an innocent man and let the guilty one go free"?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:05:21 AM UTC-7, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the >transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > >
> > > It was never in his possession. Sims and Boyd lied.
> > Fritz was their boss. That was their job.
> Except: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
>
> But it says above that Fritz agreed Oswald was searched and allowed to keep nothing. Would you care to venture a guess why Fritz would say that, instead of "I guess the original searches missed the thin paper bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket"?
>
> Wouldn't Fritz cover for his men who were lying for him?
>
> Or maybe they weren't lying for him, and the initial searches simply missed the small bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket during a pat-down.
>
> Willis to pretend he never saw this. Like he pretends he never saw my question, "Why would the Dallas Police frame an innocent man and let the guilty one go free"?

I guess I should respond in kind: "Why would Hank pretend he never saw my answer to his question, above?"

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Hank can't seem to understand that the murderers did not want to frame themselves, so they framed Oswald. Whether Oswald was "innocent" or not, he was a Dirty Red who had defected to the Soviet Union, so to the murderers he deserved death anyway. Oswald was a free corpse which could be used any way they liked.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 19:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>> More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
>>>>> In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
>>>>
>>>> Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
>>>
>>>Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
>>>
>>>Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
>>>
>>> Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony
>>> Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern
>>> California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade
>>> ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a
>>> thought.
>>

>> Or it could simply be that honest people don't need aliases...
>
>What part of "my first wife insisted I not use my real name..." did you fail to understand?

What part of "excuses are like assholes, everybody has one" did you
fail to understand?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 20:02:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 07:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:17:11 AM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 2:05:25 AM UTC+10, donald willis wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 7:57:58 AM UTC-7, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>> More micro-management BS designed to steer people towards Greg Parker's garbage...
>>>>> In other words, you have nothing to say. I don't even know who Greg Parker is.
>>>>
>>>> Come now Donald. We go way back to the glory days of this group when Hank was just a common mineral source of zirconium belonging to the group of nesosilicates, and everyone else except me and you, was named "Jerry,".
>>>
>>>Yeah, my first wife insisted I not use my real name, so I took the name Joe Zircon from the novel Winter Kills by Richard Condon, where a Joe Diamond (“Jack Ruby”) kills the accused assassin before he can be brought to trial.
>>>
>>>Jack Ruby > Joe Diamond > Joe Zircon
>>>
>>> Not sure why CTs made a big deal over that alias in the past (Tony
>>> Marsh accused me of a member some elite SWAT team in Southern
>>> California) or why you bring it up still. I last used it over a decade
>>> ago. Perhaps it’s because they cannot attack the points I make. Just a
>>> thought.
>> Or it could simply be that honest people don't need aliases...
>

>And Ben didn't wait ...

And Huckster jumps in with more logical fallacies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 19:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:33:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>Let's restore some context, shall we?
>
>>>>>> Much evidence is explained by this scenario.
>>>>> Ah, I see.
>>>>>You don't cite the evidence to establish your scenario.
>>>>> You cite your scenario to explain away the evidence.
>>>>>> I have a video which shows much of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I13QCC8VEDA
>>>>> Congratulations, you are now granted exalted Bob Harris status. You have videos that assert everything you want to assert. And none of that silly bickering over whether you have any evidence that establishes what you assert.
>>>> It's just the best explanation of the evidence.
>>> Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need
>>> and post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
>>> assertion.
>>
>> Then, by all means, explain. Go ahead, take all the time you need and
>> post the evidence and the supporting argument. Make a case, not an
>> assertion.
>> But you won't.
>>
>> You and other believers flat REFUSE to do so.
>
>Burden shifting.

You carry the SAME burden anyone does.

To be able to defend your beliefs.

> The case we believe in was laid out in September of 1964.

No it wasn't.

What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 19:43:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:49:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 01:31:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> He was innocent in Oak Cliff, guilty in Dealey. So you can't just say he was guilty or innocent.
>>> So why did they bother to frame him for the murder of Tippit? Your answer above, to avoid WWIII, makes zero sense.
>>> Again, I ask you to walk through that argument slowly, citing all the evidence you can muster along the way.
>>
>> Why do you keep asking questions that *YOU YOURSELF* refuse to answer?
>
>How can I answer for Don?

Logical fallacy. I didn't speak about Don. I asked **YOU** why
**YOU** keep asking questions that **YOU YOURSELF** refuse to answer.

Now, would you like to show your cowardice yet again, and run from the
question a second time?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:48:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

>>>> FBI interview.
>>>>
>>>> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
>>>

>>>So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.

>> There you go again with the logical fallacies.
>
>Did I misstate Don's premise?

Yes, you outright LIED about what Don said.

The fact that you cannot QUOTE him saying what you claimed he said is
all the evidence anyone needs to prove you a liar.

But this is normal for you - you cannot refute what others post, so
you simply LIE about what they post so you'll have a strawman to flog.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 15:05:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>>> Still waiting for you to produce this document.
>> Okay. I tried scan/copy/paste from the handwritten version of McW's affidavit. I used to do that with Windows 7. Can't figure how to do it with Windows 10.
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340552/m1/1/?q=mcwatters

Chickenshit proves to Huckster that not all believers are morons who
can't use Google.

Now Huckster will have to deal with the topic.

[Ben Holmes]

for about two weeks is have you stopped molesting the neighborhood
children yet?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:15:35 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>> FBI interview.
>>>
>>> The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."
>>>
>>> Methinks he doth protest too much.
>>>
>>> From his 11/22 FBI interview: "McWatters is unable to state at which point this man [the "shot in the temple" man] got on his bus, but believes it was between the corner of Poydras and Elm and the corner of Commerce and Houston...." That area includes "Elm around Houston", but not Field before Griffin, the pickup spot for O as designated in McW's testimony.
>>>
>>> And that interview also eliminates Milton Jones as the "man" of both McW's 11/22 statements, FBI and county. In his Commission testimony, McWatters stated that he picked up Jones "one block before St. Paul", on Elm. That is about 6 (long) blocks from the outer limit of "Poydras and Elm" in his FBI interview.
>>>
>>> On 11/22, McWatters is speaking, on the record, then, of only Oswald, not Jones, when he talks about "shot him in the temple", the lineup, and the bus transfer. And he puts Oswald still on his bus, then, as far as Marsalis in Oak Cliff.
>> Your problem is one of cherry-picking.
>
>"Cherry picking"? To believe an affidavit made on 11/22? I think you're stretching the term....

Huckster's not merely stretching the term... he's AVOIDING THE
EVIDENCE.

He knows full well that the evidence contradicts ALL OVER THIS CASE -
yet rather than publicly acknowledge that fact, and explain how he
decides what evidence to accept as accurate - he simply avoids the
issue entirely.

You know, I know, and Huckster knows that the evidence he accepts is
precisely what supports the WCR, and none other.

But he can't publicly admit that.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 4:56:07 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 10:48:03 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > FBI interview.
> > >
> > > The one thing which Cecil McWatters' "impressions" of Oswald/Jones could not retrospectively explain away in his 11/22/63 affidavit were virtually his first words on the subject: "I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston." When confronted by Counsel Ball, all he could say was, "No, no sir. I didn't pick up. I made a statement here I picked up--. No, I didn't. I picked-- "I picked a man up at the lower end of town at Elm.... No, sir, I didn't picked up no man. No, I was tied up in traffic there. Market Street is the--I must not have read that very good when I signed that because I sure didn't. No, I didn't."

> > So McWatters lied to frame a innocent man is what you are saying.

McW's affidavit statement--"I picked up a man on the lower end of town on Elm around Houston"--still stands, and the man could not have been Jones. From beginning to end, the only man that McW is talking about in his 11/22 affidavit is Oswald, who worked just across the street. McW couldn't deal with that fact, and neither can HS....

dcw

>

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 9:29:34 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:36:32 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 11:22:07 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 4:05:21 AM UTC-7, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:52:32 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > None of them do an adequate job of citing the evidence for how the transfer wound up in Oswald's possession. It's all assertions all the way down. Nobody cites a shred of evidence establishing how they explain the >transfer in Oswald's possession.
> > > >
> > > > It was never in his possession. Sims and Boyd lied.
> > > Fritz was their boss. That was their job.
> > Except: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/105-82555-Sec-78-pg-14-1.png
> >
> > But it says above that Fritz agreed Oswald was searched and allowed to keep nothing. Would you care to venture a guess why Fritz would say that, instead of "I guess the original searches missed the thin paper bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket"?
> >
> > Wouldn't Fritz cover for his men who were lying for him?
> >
> > Or maybe they weren't lying for him, and the initial searches simply missed the small bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket during a pat-down.
> >
> > Willis to pretend he never saw this. Like he pretends he never saw my question, "Why would the Dallas Police frame an innocent man and let the guilty one go free"?
> I guess I should respond in kind: "Why would Hank pretend he never saw my answer to his question, above?"

I saw your answer. Like CTs everywhere, when you don't like the evidence, you dismiss the evidence by calling the testimony a lie.
But you offer no evidence of that.

You and Gil avoided the question I asked:
== quote ==

But it says above that Fritz agreed Oswald was searched and allowed to keep nothing. Would you care to venture a guess why Fritz would say that, instead of "I guess the original searches missed the thin paper bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket"?

== unquote ==

Any idea why Fritz would throw Sims under the bus instead of backing his story, if Fritz was the mastermind behind the murder of Tippit and Oswald was framed?

Any idea why the police would be keen to frame Oswald for the murder of a fellow police officer and let the real killer go free?

[Hank Sienzant]

Begged. You need to show there were murderers other than Oswald, not just assert it.

> Whether Oswald was "innocent" or not, he was a Dirty Red who had defected to the Soviet Union, so to the murderers he deserved death anyway.

Still begged.

> Oswald was a free corpse which could be used any way they liked.

Still begged. You don't seem to understand the problem with utilizing logical fallacies to make your point.

[Hank Sienzant]

Still ad hominem. Ben is attacking my use of an alias about two decades ago to make my first wife happy. Ben pretends this is a reason to call me dishonest. Ben is trolling.

[Hank Sienzant]

> >And Ben didn't wait to exemplify the problem Bud spoke of. ("If Hank seems a little sensitive it is only because CTers have many, many time tried to make hay out of the fact that he used a nom de plume before.") Here Ben is suggesting I'm dishonest merely because I used an alias. And how does Ben know I used an alias? I admitted to it when, after not posting for a few years, I came back to start posting again, this time using my real name.

> >
> >The best part is when some CT using an alias accuses me of using an alias.

>
> And Huckster jumps in with more logical fallacies...

Please explain how the above is a logical fallacy. Gregr... referenced my using an alias. You suggested I was a dishonest person for doing so.

I'm still amazed at how desperate CTs are to talk about me instead of all the evidence of a conspiracy they have supposedly accumulated over the years.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I don't need to do anything for you, Hank. That's what your nurse is for, and the nice young men in the white shirts. They will take care of you.