Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 30

28 views
Skip to first unread message

Gil Jesus

unread,
Oct 28, 2023, 4:53:11 AM10/28/23
to
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?

Was it shipped free of charge ?

Bud

unread,
Oct 28, 2023, 4:59:44 AM10/28/23
to
Unknown.

NEXT!

John Corbett

unread,
Oct 28, 2023, 6:59:32 AM10/28/23
to
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Why do you obsess over the trivialities and ignore the important stuff?

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Oct 29, 2023, 11:04:43 PM10/29/23
to
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?
>

You mean this or something else?
https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/receipt-verifying-delivery-of-revolver-that-lee-harvey-news-photo/576878028

> Was it shipped free of charge ?

Do shipping receipts normally show the shipping charges? Can you cite an example from 1963 from the same company showing the shipping charges, or are you simply assuming they should?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 30, 2023, 8:38:46 AM10/30/23
to
On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:04:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:42 AM10/30/23
to
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 03:59:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:53:11?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>>
>> QUESTION # 30: Why doesn't the shipping receipts for the handgun show the shipping charges ?
>>
>> Was it shipped free of charge ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 30, 2023, 9:19:42 AM10/30/23
to
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 01:59:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
0 new messages