The Stupidity of Crackhead Gil

[Christopher Strimbu]

Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the idiot that he is?

Alright, let's see.

>>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<

No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.

See? We're starting off easy.

>>>>2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away, rather than burying it with the body ?<<<<

I mean, that wasn't the only possibility for the ultimate fate of Kennedy's brain. There was also the possibility that he buried the brain with the body when JFK was reinterred in March 1967. But the main motivation cited is that he didn't want the brain to be a freak exhibit.

>>>>3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".<<<<

You saw this all the way back in 2010. Here is Bud explaining it in more detail:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/J-PZMCTgGm8/m/LvONoklrAgAJ

>>>>4. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck.

http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html

Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidence" existed that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book Depository.

In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?<<<<

Wait, it was 51? Strange. McAdams did a poll and the number was 33:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/shots.htm

Also, many of those witnesses put all the shots as coming from the knoll. Do you think this is the case? Or did they all miss the shots coming from the TSBD?

>>>>5. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the "Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the autopsy ?<<<<

WTF?

Where the hell did you get the idea that the autopsy photos show the skull *intact*?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Top_of_JFK%27s_Head_during_autopsy.jpg

Does this look like an intact skull to you? Get real.

>>>>6. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to the assassination ?<<<<

Simple. They didn't:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#underworld

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#employee

>>>>7. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows no entry wound anywhere in the neck, yet the Humes- supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base of the neck.

Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the location of the wound ?<<<<

So Gil is giving us two options here:

A.) The autopsy photos are faked, which proves a conspiracy.

B.) Humes lied, which proves a conspiracy.

I'm going to circle option C.) It was a mistake by Rydberg.

>>>>8. Prior to 11/22/63, can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy specifically ?<<<<

I can't name one. So where does this go?

>>>>9. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition ?<<<<

The evidence he purchased any 6.5mm ammunition was that he fired three at Kennedy and had a fourth in the chamber just in case.

>>>>10. How did a "Defector" ( with an undesirable discharge ) get employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?<<<<

Because the people who hired him knew nothing about his defection and his undesirable discharge. See the testimony of John Graef.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/graef.htm

== QUOTE ==
Mr. JENNER. What inquiries did you make of him with respect to your qualifications for this position--his prior experience, if any?
Mr. GRAEF. None--none. I assumed that--now, he was sent over, if I remember right--I was also told by this Mrs. Latham, something about that he had perhaps some photographic experience in the Marines or there was some--there was some quality there that helped. And I believe it was that he had had a little bit of photograph experience in the Marines that might be helpful. In other words, he was a little familiar with the processing of film and so forth and, of course, this would add a little weight to his becoming a successful employee.
Mr. JENNER. I take it from your recital up to this moment that you are primarily interested at this point, having in mind the nature of the business, that this man would embrace ultimately what you were looking more for--let's say--general character, whether he seemed like a man who was going to be in this community a while?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Whether he was sincerely interested in obtaining employment that you expected to rely upon your teaching--I mean your company--under your supervision and direction--the teaching and training of this man for the position which you ultimately would seek to fill.
Mr. GRAEF. Yes; very well put.
Mr. JENNER. And it might even have been that if this man had no photographic experience whatsoever, but seemed--well, let's say clean cut and eager and intelligent, just out of the Marines and seeking to obtain employment and settle down, that that might have been sufficient qualifications for you?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes--if, of course, there was no one with any better promise that came along.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
== UNQUOTE ==

>>>>11. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?<<<<

Because maybe bullets don't keep blood on them from being in someone's pants pocket all the way on a flight to Washington D.C? Just a thought.

>>>>12. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic
when gun shells are clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always identified by that label ?<<<<

He assumed they were automatics due to the fact that were spaced very close together.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/murder-of-jd-tippit-part-1.html

>>>>13. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?<<<<

Nitrate tests were often used for coercing a suspect to confess.

>>>>14. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI examined any of the evidence ?<<<<

Well, since the 2022 conspiracy docu series JFK: Destiny Betrayed quoted Hoover saying the case against Oswald wasn't strong enough to obtain a conviction, I'll say after.

>>>>15. Name the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and the date he picked it up.<<<<

I cannot answer that one. Nor do I see how it matters.

>>>>16. Name the person at the REA office who handed Oswald the handgun and the date he picked it up.<<<<

Same answer as #15

>>>>17. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE1952) ?<<<<

Same answer as #16

>>>>18. The path of the "magic bullet" transiting through Kennedy would have resulted in damage to his vertebra and yet there was no such damage. Why is that ?<<<<

Establish that the bullet should've caused damage to the vertebrae. Then come to me and explain why the HSCA and Clark Panel agreed with the Warren Commission on this point.

>>>>19. How did Oswald know he could bring a 35 inch package to work without being seen ?<<<<

Correction: 38 inches. And he fully expected to be seen, otherwise he wouldn't have made the curtain rods lie for Buell Frazier.

>>>>20. Why did Oswald leave his revolver in his rented room, a revolver he could have concealed on his person and which he would have needed to facilitate his escape ?<<<<

A weapon on him would've hindered his escape when you think about it. If he's searched when escaping, that's going to be an issue.

>>>>21. Why didn't "psycho killer" Oswald just step off the curb and shoot Kennedy point-blank with his revolver ?<<<<

Same answer as #17.

>>>>22. Name one witness who identified Oswald as the shooter in the TSBD ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.<<<<

I cannot, because it doesn't exist. Now what?

>>>>23. Why did Emory Roberts order agents Ready and Hill to return to the follow-up car when the shooting began ?<<<<

Actually, it was after the headshot. Ready was trying to reach the limousine but Roberts thought he wouldn't catch it since it was speeding up.

>>>>24. What did the Warren Commission conclude was the motive for Oswald killing President Kennedy ?<<<<

They couldn't establish a firm motive for the deed, so they didn't. They speculated, but they didn't put the lid on it.

>>>>25. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm or .38 SPL ammunition ?<<<<

For the 6.5mm ammo, see #9.

For the .38 SPL, it's the fact he fired 5 of them at Tippit, had 6 of them in his revolver when he was arrested and an additional 5 on his person.

>>>>26. Why weren't the bullet fragments photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?<<<<

Because they were found by being disturbed. When you disturb evidence, you don't put it back in its original place.

>>>>27. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable fingerprints on it ?<<<<

He did leave fingerprints on it, which were photographed in 1963 and identified in 1993 by Oswald's by Vincent Scalice.

>>>>28. Why were overpass witnesses James Simmons and Richard C. Dodd never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<

See #21

>>>>29. Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses
to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<

See #28

>>>>30. Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the triggerguard of the rifle. Why didn't he photograph the palm print on the rifle when he found it ?<<<<

== quote ==
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
== unquote ==

>>>>31. Why couldn't the FBI find any identifiable prints on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?<<<<

Kinda hard to find prints that were already lifted, don't you think?

>>>>32. What make and model rifle has a recoil so powerful as to shake a floor violently enough to make plaster fall from the ceiling on the level below ?<<<<

Jesus, who said the recoil did that? That's the sound waves.

>>>>33. Why did the Dallas Police not tape Oswald's interrogation ?<<<<

Because that wasn't the standard thing to do in 1963.

>>>>34. If Sgt. Hill was mistaken in his description of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene, why did he describe them in such detail
when he radioed in that "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" ?<<<<

Already asked and already answered for #12.

>>>>35. Why did Kennedy's bodyguards stay up all night drinking in Fort Worth the night before the assassination ?<<<<

See #29.

>>>>36. Nine SS agents drank liquor at the Fort Worth Press Club on the night before the assassination, in violation of SS regulations prohibiting agents from drinking while on "travel status". Why weren't they reprimanded ?<<<<

See #35. Actually, I can answer this one, but it's irrelevant.

>>>>37. Was any blood found on the bullet fragments recovered from inside the limousine ?<<<<

Maybe.

==QUOTE==
Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
==UNQUOTE==

>>>>38. Who was the Dallas Post Office employee who handed Oswald his mail-order rifle ?<<<<

See #36.

>>>>39. Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?<<<<

Where in 846.5h does it say anything about part 3 of the post office application?

>>>>40. Why was "the man with the football", the general who carried the briefcase with the codes for launching US nuclear weapons and who sat in the front seat between the SS agents, removed from the front seat of the limousine at the last minute ?<<<<

See #38.

>>>>41. Why was the Mannlicher-Carcano in the "backyard" photograph equipped for a bottom mounted sling and the TSBD Carcano was not ?<<<<

The HSCA stated the rifle in the BY photos and the one found in the Book Depository were the same rifle.

>>>>42. On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a rifle
from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a police lineup ?<<<<

Wait, when did Mercer first make that claim? There's your answer.

>>>>43. The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.
How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?<<<<

No one can see bullets flying by, so zero.

>>>>44. Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A on the night of the assassination.
But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
the Paine residence. How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not yet been found ?<<<<

Michael Paine's recollection is faulty. Simple as that.

>>>>45. How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as having a brown shirt ?<<<<

Oswald was wearing a zipped jacket. I don't think I need to elaborate.

>>>>46. Why did the Warren Commission question members of the Oswald family as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was left or right handed ?<<<<

The scope was misunderstood to be mounted for a lefty.

>>>>47. Why was Lee Harvey Oswald reading rifle magazines at Alba's Garage in New Orleans and collecting coupons for mail-order weapons,
when BOTH of HIS weapons had already been purchased ?<<<<

Maybe he was looking for a better one. We can't know.

>>>>48. Why was Oswald fingerprinted at 12:35am and arraigned at 1:35am on Saturday morning ?<<<<

See #40.

>>>>49. If Oswald travelled the ten blocks from his roominghouse to the scene of the Tippit murder in 5 to 10 minutes,
why did it take him 30 minutes to travel the seven blocks between the Tippit murder scene and the Texas Theater ?<<<<

He may or may not had to stop to dump his jacket and hide in Johnny Brewer's place. Maybe.

>>>>50. Why did the Dallas Police come looking for Oswald at the roominghouse BEFORE they arrested him in the Texas Theater ?<<<<

Wait, they did? Never knew that. Please elaborate, you great researcher.

>>>>52. Cecil Stoughton's negative of the famous photo showing Rep. Albert Thomas winking at LBJ aboard Air Force One is missing.
Anyone know what happened to it ?<<<<

No one knows, and no one cares.

>>>>53. Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor,
called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<

What could he give them that his film couldn't?

>>>54. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ?<<<<

The rifle was received by Oswald.

>>>>55. If Ruby didn't know Oswald, how did he know enough to correct Henry Wade that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" ?<<<<

This information was broadcast all over the radio and news networks after his arrest.

>>>>56. The jacket which was found after the Tippit murder and identified as being owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and discarded by him in his escape, had a tag on it from a dry cleaning store.

The identification of the store that attached that tag and the record of the cleaning would have been evidence that proved that the jacket indeed belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

What was the name of the store and when was that jacket cleaned ?<<<<

No one knows.

>>>>57. How did Oswald manage to load the rifle without leaving any fingerprints on the ammunition clip or the cartridges ?<<<<

Because when people touch objects, their fingerprints don't go all over it.

>>>>58. Where are the three pieces of metal that were removed from General Walker's arm ?<<<<

One of these days, Gil will ask us what the serial numbers of the dollar bills Oswald had on him when he was arrested and pretend it's important. Spoiler: It isn't. Neither is this.

>>>>59. In the FBI's transcript of the DPD radio transmissons for November 22, 1963, (CE 1974, pg. 48 )

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0444a.htm

there are two broadcasts at 1:08 pm by unit # 58 first, then unit # 488. Both attempts to reach the dispatcher are labelled by the FBI as "garbled".
Who were the officers designated #s 58 and 488 ?<<<<

Don't know, don't care. Tell us how this is important.

>>>>60. Name someone who witnessed Oswald's rifle scores of 190 and 212.<<<<

Can't name any. Does that mean his scores were falsified?

>>>>61. Name Oswald's Communist associates in the US and their group affiliations.<<<<

Can't name any. Fully expected it from an antisocial loner.

>>>>62. What evidence is there that the Oswald rifle was in the Paine garage on November 21st ?<<<<

That was the normal hiding place for the rifle. Or maybe it was on Venus. We can't really know with these things.

>>>>63. How did Oswald construct the "paper gun sack" and leave only one fingerprint and one palm print on the paper ?<<<<

See #57.

>>>>64. Lee Oswald was placed in a police lineup with teenagers and a Mexican. How many eyewitnesses described Tippit's murderer as a teenager or a Mexican ?<<<<

Virginia Davis described him as a boy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191115204939/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

>>>>65. The President's physician, Admiral George Burkley, was the only medical professional who was with the body at both Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda. He could have cleared up any discrepancies with regard to the President's wounds.
Why wasn't he called to testify before the Warren Commission ?<<<<

Don't know, and how is this relevant?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the idiot that he is?
>
> Alright, let's see.
>
> >>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
> Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
> What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
>
> No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
>
> See? We're starting off easy.
>

65 are too many for one post, so I'll take the first. While it is true that Gil asked this question in a snotty way, it does not warrant the cute response given by Chis. Of course, we all know, don't we, that there were reports of "a puff of smoke" by the picket fence, the best known account given by Skinny Holland. So the snotty question really means that the Echo Explanation does not explain the puff of smoke. And Chris dodges the question by pretending (?) that he does not understand it. This sort of snottiness and dodging makes discourse in this forum unpalatable to those who understand it and incomprehensible to those who do not, which probably is the intent, I imagine.

But to the point of the original question, there is ample witness testimony, and I'm using the word in the informal sense, which has to be pointed out in this wacky forum, to there having been shots fired from the Grassy Knoll, which includes the picket fence and overpass areas. The best explanation is that shots did come from there, which does not contradict shots having come from the TSBD. The fact that many witnesses heard shots from one or the other means that shots came from both.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the idiot that he is?
> >
> > Alright, let's see.
> >
> > >>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
> > Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
> > What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
> >
> > No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
> >
> > See? We're starting off easy.
> >
> 65 are too many for one post, so I'll take the first. While it is true that Gil asked this question in a snotty way, it does not warrant the cute response given by Chis. Of course, we all know, don't we, that there were reports of "a puff of smoke" by the picket fence, the best known account given by Skinny Holland. So the snotty question really means that the Echo Explanation does not explain the puff of smoke. And Chris dodges the question by pretending (?) that he does not understand it. This sort of snottiness and dodging makes discourse in this forum unpalatable to those who understand it and incomprehensible to those who do not, which probably is the intent, I imagine.

Smoke, or steam?
There were steam pipes behind the knoll fence as one police officer testified:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm

== quote ==
Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
== quote ==

It’s curious to me that so few conspiracy theorists ever reference this mention of steam pipes by Weitzman. Yet all CTs are happy to reference his calling the weapon found on the sixth floor a Mauser, although photographic evidence (according to the HSCA photographic panel) establishes it was Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano).

It’s almost as though they never read all of the testimony, but learned of assassination tidbits only by reading conspiracy books, which of course don’t mention the steam pipes behind the knoll fence either, but do make a big deal of the misidentification of the type of weapon initially recovered. Indeed, both Ben and Gil saw fit to mention this misidentification as a Mauser in recent posts.

The same man who burned his hands on steam pipes initially called the weapon a Mauser, then in his testimony retracted that. Photographic analysis confirms his retraction.

How do you explain all this?

>
> But to the point of the original question, there is ample witness testimony, and I'm using the word in the informal sense, which has to be pointed out in this wacky forum, to there having been shots fired from the Grassy Knoll, which includes the picket fence and overpass areas. The best explanation is that shots did come from there, which does not contradict shots having come from the TSBD. The fact that many witnesses heard shots from one or the other means that shots came from both.

Except:

1. The EARwitnesses that claimed the shots came from the knoll claimed ALL the shots came from the knoll, and the earwitnesses who claimed the shots came from the Depository claimed ALL the shots came from the Depository.

That means all the earwitnesses were unable to accurately determine the source of all the shots according to your argument. Some, according to you, heard none of the knoll shots, and others, according to you, heard none of the Depository shots.

Whereas, according to my argument, less than half were unable to accurately determine the source of the shots (my argument is that those who thought all the shots came from the knoll were mistaken).

You argue for all the earwitnesses being mistaken, I argue for less than half that number being mistaken.

2. Echoes are caused by sound reflecting from hard surfaces. The larger and harder the surface, the louder the echo. The overpass spans more than three streets in Dealey Plaza (Commerce, Main, and Elm) and is made of concrete. Echoes do explain the knoll earwitnesses, especially in light of the following points.

3. Numerous EYEwitnesses outside the building saw a weapon or a gunman in the Depository on an upper floor. This confirms the auditory judgment of those who thought the shots originated from the building. There are no eyewitnesses to another gunman elsewhere in the Plaza.

4. Evidence found in the Depository also confirms the Depository earwitnesses, specifically a rifle and shells recovered from the sixth floor. There is no hard evidence of another weapon elsewhere in the Plaza.

5. The autopsy determined all the shots that struck the President were fired from above and behind the level of the deceased President. There is no evidence in that autopsy that shots fired from the knoll struck the President. The findings of the autopsy likewise confirms the impression of those earwitnesses that believed the shots came from the Depository.

6. The earwitnesses (both Depository and others) were almost universal in reporting three shots (90% reported three shots). More reported only two shots than reported four or more shots. Since most conspiracy reconstructions claim four bullets at a minimum (I’ve seen arguments for over ten shots), those conspiracy reconstructions involving more than three shots conflict with the earwitnesses.

I therefore discount the auditory impressions of earwitnesses to ALL the shots coming from the knoll. All of the other evidence conflicts with their belief in ALL the shots coming from the knoll. For the above six reasons, I believe those earwitnesses who thought ALL the shots came from the knoll were confused by the echoes off the overpass.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The steam pipe did not run west along the fence, but only north along the fence section connected to the overpass, as can be seen in aerial photography taken on November 23, 1963. There was no steam pipe where Holland saw the smoke. The rest is sophistry or worse, and I will not waste my time with it.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:

As for question 2, about why RFK took the brain. Did RFK take the brain? I haven't studied that, but whoever took it and secreted it away certainly was behaving mysteriously, as I have never heard of that being done. Does anybody really think that Bobby feared that JFK's brain would become private property and join a freak show? How could it become private property? Somebody would have to steal it, but then he wouldn't be able to display it, would he? If "the family" had wanted the brain to be buried with the body, they could have just done that without any mystery. You think anybody would have stopped them? Is it just a coincidence that the brain has disappeared?

[Christopher Strimbu]

That's what the HSCA concluded was the ultimate fate of Kennedy's brain. RFK took it and either had it destroyed or reburied it with the body during the reinternment in 1967.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'll have to look into that, but I don't see why he should have done so.

[Christopher Strimbu]

I have no idea either. It's a part of grieving, I suppose. People aren't exactly in their right minds when someone close to them is murdered.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 11:52:47 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:

> That's what the HSCA concluded was the ultimate fate of Kennedy's brain. RFK took it and either had it destroyed or reburied it with the body during the reinterment in 1967.

Just reading the HSCA story, and their conclusion was that the brain was not buried when the body was reburied, but that RFK either destroyed it or otherwise rendered it inaccessible.

[David Healy]

Top Post Only

it appears Chrissy's Bud like personality,is peeking through, must be that time of the month for that gentrified, 1964 WCR malcontent.... but that leaves a serious question: how does a dried up old prune have those monthly down days -- the latter-day .john nutters are host to many conundrums...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:

I'll skip the jet effect and go to question 4. "33" witnesses, if that's what it really was, is still heapum many witnesses. If 33 people said shots came from the Knoll area, that must mean something. Hank tried to divert me from question 2 with this, which illustrates why I like to keep the topic narrow for a post. The shotgun approach is not helpful for discussion, unless everybody is going to write a book for each response, and who the hell would read such a discussion, anyway? Rarely, I suspect, do 33 witnesses to a murder tell the authorities that something happened which did not happen. Nobody sees or hears everything, so you don't need those 33 to hear shots from somewhere else, too; they heard shots from the GK is what matters. It is bad logic to say that shots coming from one place means that shots did not come from another, and it is glib to dismiss one location as a result of "earwitness" totals. And there was at least one witness, AJ Millican, who heard shots from multiple directions. Maybe there were one or two others; I don't remember.

If we are to hypothesize that the hypothetical murderers hypothetically planned to blame the hypothetical TSBD shooter, then it would make sense to attempt simultaneous shooting. Of course, simultaneous shooting could not been done perfectly, but close is good enough for the witness to think he is hearing echos. Some witnesses will not even hear the "echos." In this case, hypothetically, of course, three shooting events were desired so that the three shells on the sixth floor could explain all shots. So, the hypothetical plan would be for all shots to be fired during these three shooting events, leaving the impression with many witness, and even with most witnesses here, that only three shots had been fired.

Also, such a design would have the blameworthy firearm to be the loudest of all the guns. Just hypothetically, lets say that the 6th floor rifle was Mannlicker-Carcano and that the others were a 22 rifle, a 38 revolver and some other pistol. In this event the loudest weapon would gain the most earwitnesses, and if people even heard the others, they could be dismissed as echoes. The CIA type would certainly be able to think up such a plan. Even I could. So, even though the synchronization of the shooting will be imperfect, the cannon firing from the 6th floor window is going to get most of the credit.

Another factor never considered by Nutters is witness location. Anybody north of Elm & Houston is going to hear the 6th floor cannon as the weapon because it is highest and closest and loudest. Those little guns popping from the knoll and the other location are not going to be noticed. Then in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD where the guns are pointed must be a consideration. In this location, the witnesses are nearer to the 6th floor cannon, but the barrel is pointed away from them, whereas the other guns are all basically pointed at them. So this will give the little poppers more influence over the witness witness perception in this location, and indeed, many people in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD thought that the shots were coming from the Knoll area. And then the people further west on Elm would have a better chance of hearing multiple shooting locations, and this is where Millican was, and also Jean Hill, who heard more than 3 shots, and also Chief Curry who told his men to get on top of the overpass "and see what happened up there." So location can effect the witness perceptions of where the shots came from.

And there are also anecdotal reports of the President being "shot from the bushes of the overpass," cotton wadding, or something, being propelled out of a box on the overpass, a man and a woman crawling on a walkway over the motorcade on the overpass who might have done the shooting, and some other stuff I can't think of at the moment. And "something" in Bobby Hargis" "head" told him that the shots were "probably" coming from the overpass. And the Parkland Doctors at first all thought the President had been shot from the front. And Julia Anne Mercer saw a rifle (case) being carried up to the overpass.

So, when the evidence is comprehensively considered, the only reasonable conclusion is that shots came from more than one location, even if none from the TSBD actually hit anybody.

[Hank Sienzant]

Was Weitzman lying or mistaken? He put the wall he scaled between the overpass and the Elm Street extension that runs in front of the Depository. The only thing that remotely qualifies is the grassy knoll fence.

> There was no steam pipe where Holland saw the smoke.

Beyond where Holland saw the smoke is the Depository where a rifle was found and a gunman was seen by multiple witnesses. See this image:
https://images.app.goo.gl/6bTrCVhCFZcWYVv88

> The rest is sophistry or worse, and I will not waste my time with it.

Translation: Hank makes a solid argument based on evidence and reason which Sky can’t rebut.

[Hank Sienzant]

The two possibilities I’ve read are RFK had it reinterred with the body or dropped into the Atlantic Ocean.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The HSCA had somebody, I forget his name, who supposedly was present with the casket during the whole process and says that it was not opened and that nothing was buried with it. You can easily find the information without asking me to go look for it again.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

translation: Hank is still a shitbag.

[Hank Sienzant]

It means 33 witnesses thought they heard sounds of gunfire coming from the overpass area. But those sound are explained best as echoes, since the overpass was a large, hard, flat surface, which is what will best reflect sound. Many of those people named the overpass, not the knoll fence. Critics merge the two in (as you do) to obscure the fact that the knoll and overpass are adjacent, but different areas. They also pretend echoes are not a real scientific phenomenon, dismissing claims of echoes out of hand.

> Hank tried to divert me from question 2 with this, which illustrates why I like to keep the topic narrow for a post. The shotgun approach is not helpful for discussion, unless everybody is going to write a book for each response, and who the hell would read such a discussion, anyway?

Clearly, you wouldn’t. But the points I made above apply to your arguments here, like no knoll or overpass shooter seen, no weapon or shells found, and no damage to anyone in the limo from shots from the knoll or overpass.

> Rarely, I suspect, do 33 witnesses to a murder tell the authorities that something happened which did not happen.

Sophistry. The typical murder doesn’t have 500 people in the area of a few city blocks who all came to see the murder victim. There were, it has been estimated, about 500 witnesses in Dealey Plaza.

> Nobody sees or hears everything, so you don't need those 33 to hear shots from somewhere else, too; they heard shots from the GK is what matters.

They heard sounds of what they perceived as gunfire from the overpass area. It is bad logic to equate sounds of gunfire with gunfire, when you haven’t eliminated other causes, like echoes. Remind me how you eliminated echoes again.

> It is bad logic to say that shots coming from one place means that shots did not come from another,

It is bad logic to argue sounds of gunfire must equate with gunfire, when echoes have not been eliminated and only one shooter and one weapon was seen / recovered.

> and it is glib to dismiss one location as a result of "earwitness" totals.

When a group of witnesses says ALL the shots came from location A and another group says ALL the shots came from the opposite direction, clearly some of those witnesses misperceived the source of some or all of the shots.

> And there was at least one witness, AJ Millican, who heard shots from multiple directions. Maybe there were one or two others; I don't remember.

Milligan was a terrible witness. You want to hang your hat on that witness?

>
> If we are to hypothesize that the hypothetical murderers hypothetically planned to blame the hypothetical TSBD shooter, then it would make sense to attempt simultaneous shooting.

1. Define “simultaneous”. Depending on the location of the hypothetical shooters, and the different locations of the 500 witnesses, no two shots are going to perceived as simultaneous by all, let alone a majority of the witnesses.
2. It makes more sense to use one real shooter behind the limo firing from a Depository if the intent is to blame the hypothetical TSBD shooter. Please explain why your hypothetical murderers didn’t consider this plan.

> Of course, simultaneous shooting could not been done perfectly, but close is good enough for the witness to think he is hearing echos.

Why would the witnesses think they are hearing echoes instead of shots from two locations? Explain your answer.

> Some witnesses will not even hear the "echos."

Why would they not hear all the shots?

> In this case, hypothetically, of course, three shooting events were desired so that the three shells on the sixth floor could explain all shots. So, the hypothetical plan would be for all shots to be fired during these three shooting events, leaving the impression with many witness, and even with most witnesses here, that only three shots had been fired.

Why would three shooting events not be perceived as three shooting events by the majority of witnesses, instead of only three shots? Explain the scientific basis for this claim.

>
> Also, such a design would have the blameworthy firearm to be the loudest of all the guns. Just hypothetically, lets say that the 6th floor rifle was Mannlicker-Carcano and that the others were a 22 rifle, a 38 revolver and some other pistol.

So four shooters in four locations each firing three shots? That’s 12 shots. And multiple echoes, and yet 90% of the witnesses reported only three shots? These are really hearing-impaired witnesses, you think?

Put another way, when you want to explain why the vast majority of the witnesses heard only three shots, these were terrible witnesses who confused about a dozen shots as three shots and a bunch of echoes, but when you want to explain why some witnesses heard ALL the sounds of the shots coming from the knoll and some other witnesses heard ALL the sounds of the shots coming from the Depository, they were also terrible witnesses who confused the multiple sources of gunfire.

Then you put them together and claim these are great earwitnesses who accurately perceived four locations of gunfire as only two sources.

Your problem is you’re trying to retrofit the actual square evidence into the round hole of multiple shooters. So critics have to also allege the body was altered or the autopsy was a fraud. The shells and the rifle were planted or swapped, or both. The witnesses were intimidated, the interrogation reports are frauds. You are establishing it can’t be done.

> In this event the loudest weapon would gain the most earwitnesses, and if people even heard the others, they could be dismissed as echoes.

Why would approximately 12 shots be dismissed by a majority of the witnesses as three shots and echoes by the majority of the witnesses? Why would the hypothetical plotters think there was a basis for this? Can you cite the scienftific basis of multiple witnesses dismissing 12 or so shots as just three?

> The CIA type would certainly be able to think up such a plan. Even I could.

The problem is the CIA types could think up a better plan — one shooter, with Oswald’s weapon, shooting from behind the President. That explains the evidence far better than your four shooters in four locations with four different weapon types all firing at the President and the only shells or bullet fragments large enough to link being linked to Oswald’s weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

> So, even though the synchronization of the shooting will be imperfect, the cannon firing from the 6th floor window is going to get most of the credit.

Explain the scientific basis of this claim.

>
> Another factor never considered by Nutters is witness location. Anybody north of Elm & Houston is going to hear the 6th floor cannon as the weapon because it is highest and closest and loudest.

Except many of the people near the Depository thought the shots came from the overpass area. “Don’t let the facts stand in the way of a terrible hypothesis” must be your motto.

> Those little guns popping from the knoll and the other location are not going to be noticed.

Not even by folks close to the knoll (and other locations)?

> Then in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD where the guns are pointed must be a consideration. In this location, the witnesses are nearer to the 6th floor cannon, but the barrel is pointed away from them, whereas the other guns are all basically pointed at them.

This could explain why all the other shooters missed everything. They were aiming at various witness and not the limo.

> So this will give the little poppers more influence over the witness witness perception in this location, and indeed, many people in the immediate vicinity of the TSBD thought that the shots were coming from the Knoll area.

A moment ago you were claiming the witnesses north of Elm and Houston would hear the TSBD “cannon” because it was “the highest and closest and loudest”.

But somehow that now doesn’t apply to those directly under the Depository sniper’s nest window., which would, by definition, make those witnesses the closest. Now, the weapon was pointed away from them, so other supposed sources of gunfire had the most influence. Yet the gun was pointed even further away from those north of Elm.

Retrofitting the hypothesis to your evidence, rather than letting the evidence point to the solution.

> And then the people further west on Elm would have a better chance of hearing multiple shooting locations, and this is where Millican was, and also Jean Hill, who heard more than 3 shots,

Did she hear 12?

> and also Chief Curry who told his men to get on top of the overpass "and see what happened up there."

Quote what Curry said in context. It doesn’t support your hypothetical.

> So location can effect the witness perceptions of where the shots came from.

So the witnesses can NOT be trusted to be accurate. Except when you want to trust them.

>
> And there are also anecdotal reports of the President being "shot from the bushes of the overpass,"

One report, of a woman telling that to Officer Smith.

> cotton wadding, or something, being propelled out of a box on the overpass,

WTF? Cite for this. And explain why paid assassins would shoot the President with cotton wadding.

> a man and a woman crawling on a walkway over the motorcade on the overpass who might have done the shooting,

Another WTF?

> and some other stuff I can't think of at the moment.

There’s other rebuttals I can’t think of at the moment, too.

> And "something" in Bobby Hargis" "head" told him that the shots were "probably" coming from the overpass.

Or from the Depository. Or from right next to him, or from he did not know where:
== quote ==
Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.
== unquote ==


> And the Parkland Doctors at first all thought the President had been shot from the front.

So emergency room doctors’ initial perceptions take precedence over autopsy conclusions?

> And Julia Anne Mercer saw a rifle (case) being carried up to the overpass.

OMG. I disposed of that nonsense in Mark Lane (#1):
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/2SK6X8hAAgAJ

>
> So, when the evidence is comprehensively considered, the only reasonable conclusion is that shots came from more than one location, even if none from the TSBD actually hit anybody.

The evidence is for exactly the opposite. Three shots from Oswald’s weapon caused all the wounds. No shots from elsewhere.

[Hank Sienzant]

Translation: As I said previously, Sky can’t begin to e plain away the evidence cited, so he dismissed it and now calls me names. Still no rebuttal argument.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's not your name. It's just what you are, a bag of shit.

[Hank Sienzant]

> > Translation: As I said previously, Sky can’t begin to explain away the evidence cited, so he dismissed it and now calls me names. Still no rebuttal argument.

> It's not your name. It's just what you are, a bag of shit.

Straw man and ad hominem. Not a valid rebuttal to any of my points anywhere in your responses.

But that is typical of you and many other critics who post here.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Translation: Hank is stupid and fucktarded.

[Hank Sienzant]

As is typical of conspiracy theorists, ignoring my points and resorting to ad hominem is what they all do. Ben calls Sky a troll, and likes to pretend he's better than that, but Ben resorts to this very behavior as well.

I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above, repeated here so you don't have to scroll back:

[David Healy]

Henry the Useless... there we go.... you grammarians and academians waltz around thinking this case has made no advances in the past near 60 years... You can't find supporting evidence that bolsters the 1964 WCR. You simply can't prove your non-crossexamine uncontested LHO did it all by his lonesome case.

Why all the smoke-n-mirrors, Henry? This the only place that ego gets a buzz these days?

[Hank Sienzant]

I’m a high school dropout, which is not something I’ve hidden in the past. Not sure what you think my qualifications are, other than being familiar with the evidence. I’ve never pretended to be either a
grammarian or/and an academian.

> waltz around thinking this case has made no advances in the past near 60 years...

60 years ago, Kennedy was still alive. There was no case to advance.

> You can't find supporting evidence that bolsters the 1964 WCR.

Don’t need anything additional.

> You simply can't prove your non-crossexamine uncontested LHO did it all by his lonesome case.

It wasn’t a trial, it was a Presidential Inquiry. Hence, no cross-examination was necessary.

>
> Why all the smoke-n-mirrors, Henry? This the only place that ego gets a buzz these days?

There is no smoke and mirrors. Just evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:51:53 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:

> Why all the smoke-n-mirrors, Henry? This the only place that ego gets a buzz these days?

STEAM-n-mirrors, Dave, STEAM-n-mirrors.

Hank: "The same man who burned his hands on steam pipes initially called the weapon a Mauser..."

WTF does burning his hands on a steam pipe have to do with identifying the rifle as a Mauser ?
So did he use his hands to identify the rifle ? Or were the steam pipes labelled "Mauser" ?

ROFLMAO

When steam pipes leak, they don't do a single "puff", they leak steadily and constantly.

You're suggesting the steam pipe was leaking. Let's see your evidence.

Name one witness who said that the steam pipe was leaking steam.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

BTW, the steam pipes should not burn anybody's hands. This stream is piped from across those 3 streets over the bridge. They must be insulated, else it wouldn't be hot enough to burn anything when it gets to the north side of Elm. But, if they are insulated, then they won't burn your hands. The reason old Seymour burned his hands is because the insulation had been removed from the pipes. AJ Millican was working on these pipes before and after the assassination for Wallace And Beard, the "beer company" that James Powell claimed was mentioned by the construction worker, presumably Howard Brennan. These guys were a riot! Millican was "fabricating" pipes here, presumably because they had to be moved, which explains what Clyde Haygood was standing on in the Cabluck photo, even though, somehow, the pipes don't show up in the photo. Probably vampire pipes.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:51:53 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> > Why all the smoke-n-mirrors, Henry? This the only place that ego gets a buzz these days?
> STEAM-n-mirrors, Dave, STEAM-n-mirrors.
>
> Hank: "The same man who burned his hands on steam pipes initially called the weapon a Mauser..."
>
> WTF does burning his hands on a steam pipe have to do with identifying the rifle as a Mauser ?
> So did he use his hands to identify the rifle ? Or were the steam pipes labelled "Mauser" ?

I answered that in the post you’re quoting from out of context, where you now are creating straw men to knock down. It’s curious to me that you won’t deal with what I actually said:
== quote =

It’s curious to me that so few conspiracy theorists ever reference this mention of steam pipes by Weitzman. Yet all CTs are happy to reference his calling the weapon found on the sixth floor a Mauser, although photographic evidence (according to the HSCA photographic panel) establishes it was Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano).

It’s almost as though they never read all of the testimony, but learned of assassination tidbits only by reading conspiracy books, which of course don’t mention the steam pipes behind the knoll fence either, but do make a big deal of the misidentification of the type of weapon initially recovered. Indeed, both Ben and Gil saw fit to mention this misidentification as a Mauser in recent posts.

The same man who burned his hands on steam pipes initially called the weapon a Mauser, then in his testimony retracted that. Photographic analysis confirms his retraction.

How do you explain all this?

== unquote ==

Why do conspiracy authors & CTs quote the statement Weitzman *retracted* (and his retraction confirmed by photographic analysis) but not quote the one where he mentions steam pipes on the knoll?

>
> ROFLMAO
>
> When steam pipes leak, they don't do a single "puff", they leak steadily and constantly.

Who suggested leakage? Another straw man. Steam pipes have valves to release pressure when the pressure gets too high. It would be a poorly designed system that didn’t allow for pressure valves.

But back to the point you’re running from: is Weitzman trustworthy or untrustworthy? Why is he in conspiracyville considered a trustworthy witness when he identified the weapon as a Mauser (both Ben and you mentioned the misidentification recently) but untrustworthy when he retracted that and not worthy of mention whatsoever when he mentioned the steam pipes?

>
> You're suggesting the steam pipe was leaking. Let's see your evidence.

No, that’s your strawman.

>
> Name one witness who said that the steam pipe was leaking steam.

Still a strawman.

[Hank Sienzant]

So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes, but entirely trustworthy when he mentioned the Mauser, and then a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he retracted the Mauser mention?

Is that the latest word from conspiracyville? Please inform me of how you guys view all this.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:00:20 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> Who suggested leakage? Another straw man. Steam pipes have valves to release pressure when the pressure gets too high. It would be a poorly designed system that didn’t allow for pressure valves.

You did in the above post:

Hank quote : "Smoke, or steam? There were steam pipes behind the knoll fence as one police officer testified"

You suggested that the witnesses didn't see a puff of smoke, but saw steam instead.

> > Name one witness who said that the steam pipe was leaking steam.

> Still a strawman.

No, you're still running. I notice that "Strawman" is an excuse for you to dodge the question ( run ).
And you seem to use it a lot.

You suggested that the witnesses didn't see a puff of smoke but saw steam instead.
I asked you to provide evidence that that was so.
Still waiting for that evidence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

No, Hank. You are the baby eating fucktard. As I said, as you would know if you could read with comprehension, is that the insulation had been removed from the pipes. That explains why his hands were burned. He didn't lie about that. As for the Mauser, I'm sure he was not lying about that, either, though he could have been mistaken. Mannlicher-Carcanos look much like Mausers to me.

[Hank Sienzant]

Great, so now we’re in agreement that Weitzman told the truth as he saw it about the rifle (including the retraction), and burning his hands on steam pipes as he tried to scale the wall.

I wonder if Gil will admit to any of that. Or just run away again. Note this started because I asked Gil to confirm or deny he believed the 65 things Christopher listed above.

Gil has avoided responding to that question. I wonder why.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

So, how is it that Weitzman burned his hands on a steam pipe when he tried to scale the wall if the steam pipe was behind the wall?

[Hank Sienzant]

Seriously? You can’t figure that out without help?

Now you are back to questioning Weitzman’s testimony — after saying Weitzman wasn’t lying about burning his hands on steam pipes. You took a step forward, then two steps back.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You lack comprehension once again. Are you going to answer the question, or just keep weaseling?

[Hank Sienzant]

Shaking my head. He reached *over* the wall. Doh.

[Hank Sienzant]

You avoided my point:

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Oh. He reached OVER the wall. Perhaps you should think about that for awhile. Imagine, if you can, yourself going over the "wall." You pull yourself up, and then what? Your hands are holding you up. How do they get on the pipe?

[Hank Sienzant]

You already admitted you think Weitzman was honest when he said he burned his hands on a steam pipe. Care to explain why you need your own admission explained to you then step by step?

== quote ==

As I said, as you would know if you could read with comprehension, is that the insulation had been removed from the pipes. That explains why his hands were burned. He didn't lie about that.

== unquote ==

This is beyond bizarre.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

See? You're just too stupid to talk to. Not Weitzman, you.

[Hank Sienzant]

More name calling. No evidence. No argument of substance. No rebuttal.

Just ad hominem.

Priceless.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu

<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I
> figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the
> idiot that he is?
>
>Alright, let's see.

I predict, before reading this, that you won't credibly answer a
*SINGLE* question, acknowledge any truth, and use plenty of logical
fallacies... let's see if I'm right.

>>>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
>Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
>What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
>
>No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
>
>See? We're starting off easy.

You've answered the direct question, and evaded the implied one.

>>>>>2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away, rather than burying it with the body ?<<<<
>
> I mean, that wasn't the only possibility for the ultimate fate of
> Kennedy's brain. There was also the possibility that he buried the
> brain with the body when JFK was reinterred in March 1967. But the
> main motivation cited is that he didn't want the brain to be a freak
> exhibit.

You've evaded the question.

The brain couldn't have been a "freak exhibit" if it had been buried
with the body.

>>>>>3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".<<<<
>
>You saw this all the way back in 2010. Here is Bud explaining it in more detail:

Not an answer.

>>>>>4. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck.
>
>http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
>
>Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidence" existed that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book Depository.
>
>In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?<<<<
>
>Wait, it was 51? Strange. McAdams did a poll and the number was 33:

A simple logical fallacy on your part.

>Also, many of those witnesses put all the shots as coming from the knoll. Do you think this is the case? Or did they all miss the shots coming from the TSBD?

Another logical fallacy.

You simply evaded the question.

>>>>>5. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the "Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the autopsy ?<<<<
>
>WTF?
>
>Where the hell did you get the idea that the autopsy photos show the skull *intact*?
>
>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Top_of_JFK%27s_Head_during_autopsy.jpg
>
>Does this look like an intact skull to you? Get real.

I suspect that Gil was thinking of the X-rays... which indeed makes
his question valid.

You can't answer it, so you simply evaded...

>>>>>6. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to the assassination ?<<<<
>
>Simple. They didn't:
>
>https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#underworld
>
>https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#employee

Your own cite proves you a liar, Chrissy...

"Based on its evaluation of the record, however, the Commission
believes that the evidence does not establish a significant link
between Ruby and organized crime."

That's simply untrue... as Gil has pointed out.

>>>>>7. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows no entry wound anywhere in the neck, yet the Humes- supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base of the neck.
>
>Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the location of the wound ?<<<<
>
>So Gil is giving us two options here:
>
>A.) The autopsy photos are faked, which proves a conspiracy.
>
>B.) Humes lied, which proves a conspiracy.
>
>I'm going to circle option C.) It was a mistake by Rydberg.

That makes **YOU** the liar, as Dr. Humes (*and* Dr. Boswell)
testified using these drawings AS ACCURATE.

>>>>>8. Prior to 11/22/63, can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy specifically ?<<<<
>
>I can't name one. So where does this go?

You can't name one because none exist.

>>>>>9. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition ?<<<<
>
>The evidence he purchased any 6.5mm ammunition was that he fired three at Kennedy and had a fourth in the chamber just in case.

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

>>>>>10. How did a "Defector" ( with an undesirable discharge ) get employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?<<<<
>
>Because the people who hired him knew nothing about his defection and his undesirable discharge. See the testimony of John Graef.
>
>https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/graef.htm
>
>== QUOTE ==
>Mr. JENNER. What inquiries did you make of him with respect to your qualifications for this position--his prior experience, if any?
>Mr. GRAEF. None--none. I assumed that--now, he was sent over, if I remember right--I was also told by this Mrs. Latham, something about that he had perhaps some photographic experience in the Marines or there was some--there was some quality there that helped. And I believe it was that he had had a little bit of photograph experience in the Marines that might be helpful. In other words, he was a little familiar with the processing of film and so forth and, of course, this would add a little weight to his becoming a successful employee.
>Mr. JENNER. I take it from your recital up to this moment that you are primarily interested at this point, having in mind the nature of the business, that this man would embrace ultimately what you were looking more for--let's say--general character, whether he seemed like a man who was going to be in this community a while?
>Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
>Mr. JENNER. Whether he was sincerely interested in obtaining employment that you expected to rely upon your teaching--I mean your company--under your supervision and direction--the teaching and training of this man for the position which you ultimately would seek to fill.
>Mr. GRAEF. Yes; very well put.
>Mr. JENNER. And it might even have been that if this man had no photographic experience whatsoever, but seemed--well, let's say clean cut and eager and intelligent, just out of the Marines and seeking to obtain employment and settle down, that that might have been sufficient qualifications for you?
>Mr. GRAEF. Yes--if, of course, there was no one with any better promise that came along.
>Mr. JENNER. Yes.
>== UNQUOTE ==

All you've shown is AMAZING incompetence.

>>>>>11. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?<<<<
>
>Because maybe bullets don't keep blood on them from being in someone's pants pocket all the way on a flight to Washington D.C? Just a thought.

Another logical fallacy on your part.

Ignorance, too.

>>>>>12. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic
>when gun shells are clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always identified by that label ?<<<<
>
>He assumed they were automatics due to the fact that were spaced very close together.

Untrue.

>>>>>13. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?<<<<
>
>Nitrate tests were often used for coercing a suspect to confess.

True... good of you to occasionally tell the truth.

>>>>>14. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI examined any of the evidence ?<<<<
>
>Well, since the 2022 conspiracy docu series JFK: Destiny Betrayed quoted Hoover saying the case against Oswald wasn't strong enough to obtain a conviction, I'll say after.

Again, you're simply lying. There's documentary evidence from the
24th.

>>>>>15. Name the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and the date he picked it up.<<<<
>
>I cannot answer that one. Nor do I see how it matters.

Of *course* you can't answer it. And of *COURSE* you can't understand
the importance.

>>>>>16. Name the person at the REA office who handed Oswald the handgun and the date he picked it up.<<<<
>
>Same answer as #15

Same response as #15

>>>>>17. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE1952) ?<<<<
>
>Same answer as #16

Such AMAZING cowardice! The **ONLY** possible reason is that the DPD
had a reason to believe that curtain rods were involved in this case.

THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON.

Yet Chrissy is too much a coward to acknowledge this.

>>>>>18. The path of the "magic bullet" transiting through Kennedy would have resulted in damage to his vertebra and yet there was no such damage. Why is that ?<<<<
>
>Establish that the bullet should've caused damage to the vertebrae.

Already been done.

> Then come to me and explain why the HSCA and Clark Panel agreed with
> the Warren Commission on this point.

Because the Clark Panel wasn't a real investigation, and the HSCA
simply lied about the medical evidence.

Already proven.

>>>>>19. How did Oswald know he could bring a 35 inch package to work without being seen ?<<<<
>
>Correction: 38 inches. And he fully expected to be seen, otherwise he wouldn't have made the curtain rods lie for Buell Frazier.

Another logical fallacy.

>>>>>20. Why did Oswald leave his revolver in his rented room, a revolver he could have concealed on his person and which he would have needed to facilitate his escape ?<<<<
>
>A weapon on him would've hindered his escape when you think about it. If he's searched when escaping, that's going to be an issue.

ROTFLMAO!!!

>>>>>21. Why didn't "psycho killer" Oswald just step off the curb and shoot Kennedy point-blank with his revolver ?<<<<
>
>Same answer as #17.

Same laugh!

>>>>>22. Name one witness who identified Oswald as the shooter in the TSBD ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.<<<<
>
>I cannot, because it doesn't exist. Now what?

You lose.

>>>>>23. Why did Emory Roberts order agents Ready and Hill to return to the follow-up car when the shooting began ?<<<<
>
>Actually, it was after the headshot. Ready was trying to reach the limousine but Roberts thought he wouldn't catch it since it was speeding up.

This is a simple evasion... you didn't answer the question.

>>>>>24. What did the Warren Commission conclude was the motive for Oswald killing President Kennedy ?<<<<
>
>They couldn't establish a firm motive for the deed, so they didn't. They speculated, but they didn't put the lid on it.

It's not that they couldn't "establish" a motive... it's that there is
*NOT* a motive.

Do try to be correct, and stop lying.

>>>>>25. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm or .38 SPL ammunition ?<<<<
>
>For the 6.5mm ammo, see #9.
>
>For the .38 SPL, it's the fact he fired 5 of them at Tippit, had 6 of them in his revolver when he was arrested and an additional 5 on his person.

Yet another logical fallacy.

>>>>>26. Why weren't the bullet fragments photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?<<<<
>
>Because they were found by being disturbed. When you disturb evidence, you don't put it back in its original place.

This is a non-answer. When things are found, THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHED
PRIOR TO REMOVAL.

You simply refused to answer the question.

>>>>>27. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable fingerprints on it ?<<<<
>
>He did leave fingerprints on it, which were photographed in 1963 and identified in 1993 by Oswald's by Vincent Scalice.

What's the best evidence?

>>>>>28. Why were overpass witnesses James Simmons and Richard C. Dodd never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
>
>See #21

You can't answer. You lose!

>>>>>29. Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses
>to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
>
>See #28

You can't answer... YOU LOSE AGAIN!

>>>>>30. Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the triggerguard of the rifle. Why didn't he photograph the palm print on the rifle when he found it ?<<<<
>
>== quote ==
>Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
>Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
>Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
>Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
>Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

>== unquote ==

This is a non-answer. Coward, aren't you Chrissy?

>>>>>31. Why couldn't the FBI find any identifiable prints on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?<<<<
>
>Kinda hard to find prints that were already lifted, don't you think?

A lie on your part.

>>>>>32. What make and model rifle has a recoil so powerful as to shake a floor violently enough to make plaster fall from the ceiling on the level below ?<<<<
>
>Jesus, who said the recoil did that? That's the sound waves.

A reasonable answer. Quite rare from you, Chrissy!

>>>>>33. Why did the Dallas Police not tape Oswald's interrogation ?<<<<
>
>Because that wasn't the standard thing to do in 1963.

Yep... President's are killed frequently...

>>>>>34. If Sgt. Hill was mistaken in his description of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene, why did he describe them in such detail
>when he radioed in that "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" ?<<<<
>
>Already asked and already answered for #12.

You lied in that answer.

>>>>>35. Why did Kennedy's bodyguards stay up all night drinking in Fort Worth the night before the assassination ?<<<<
>
>See #29.

You again can't answer... you lose!

>>>>>36. Nine SS agents drank liquor at the Fort Worth Press Club on the night before the assassination, in violation of SS regulations prohibiting agents from drinking while on "travel status". Why weren't they reprimanded ?<<<<
>
>See #35. Actually, I can answer this one, but it's irrelevant.

Lying again, aren't you coward?

>>>>>37. Was any blood found on the bullet fragments recovered from inside the limousine ?<<<<
>
>Maybe.
>
>==QUOTE==
>Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
>Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
>Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
>Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>==UNQUOTE==

An answer you cannot explain.

>>>>>38. Who was the Dallas Post Office employee who handed Oswald his mail-order rifle ?<<<<
>
>See #36.

Cowardice again.

>>>>>39. Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?<<<<
>
>Where in 846.5h does it say anything about part 3 of the post office application?

Logical fallacy.

>>>>>40. Why was "the man with the football", the general who carried the briefcase with the codes for launching US nuclear weapons and who sat in the front seat between the SS agents, removed from the front seat of the limousine at the last minute ?<<<<
>
>See #38.

Another non-answer... coward, aren't you Chrissy?

>>>>>41. Why was the Mannlicher-Carcano in the "backyard" photograph equipped for a bottom mounted sling and the TSBD Carcano was not ?<<<<
>
>The HSCA stated the rifle in the BY photos and the one found in the Book Depository were the same rifle.

Of course, the HSCA lied about the evidence.

>>>>>42. On Saturday the 23rd, when Julia Ann Mercer selected Jack Ruby's photograph as one of two who looked like the man she saw unloading a rifle
>from a truck on Elm St shortly before the assassination, why wasn't Ruby picked up for questioning or asked to participate in a police lineup ?<<<<
>

>Wait, when did Mercer first make that claim? There's your answer.

ARE YOU A MORON???

You should think about your answers before you give them.

>>>>>43. The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
>hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.
>How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?<<<<
>
>No one can see bullets flying by, so zero.

Untrue.

>>>>>44. Michael Paine testified that he was shown "backyard photograph" C133-A on the night of the assassination.
>But Dallas Detective Gus Rose testified that the photo was not found until the following day, Saturday, November 23rd, during a search of
>the Paine residence. How did the authorities have in their possession a photo which had not yet been found ?<<<<
>
>Michael Paine's recollection is faulty. Simple as that.

A *possible* answer... but not likely.

>>>>>45. How many witnesses described the Tippit shooter as having a brown shirt ?<<<<
>
>Oswald was wearing a zipped jacket. I don't think I need to elaborate.

You do. You should explain why so many witnesses described a
*DIFFERENT* shirt that the assassin wore.

>>>>>46. Why did the Warren Commission question members of the Oswald family as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was left or right handed ?<<<<
>
>The scope was misunderstood to be mounted for a lefty.

Another STUPID answer.

>>>>>47. Why was Lee Harvey Oswald reading rifle magazines at Alba's Garage in New Orleans and collecting coupons for mail-order weapons,
>when BOTH of HIS weapons had already been purchased ?<<<<
>
>Maybe he was looking for a better one. We can't know.

No, *YOU* are simply illustrating your ignorance.

>>>>>48. Why was Oswald fingerprinted at 12:35am and arraigned at 1:35am on Saturday morning ?<<<<
>
>See #40.

Another example of your cowardice... you again have no answer...

>>>>>49. If Oswald travelled the ten blocks from his roominghouse to the scene of the Tippit murder in 5 to 10 minutes,
>why did it take him 30 minutes to travel the seven blocks between the Tippit murder scene and the Texas Theater ?<<<<
>
>He may or may not had to stop to dump his jacket and hide in Johnny Brewer's place. Maybe.

Another answer you didn't care to think about before posting...
ROTFLMAO!!!

>>>>>50. Why did the Dallas Police come looking for Oswald at the roominghouse BEFORE they arrested him in the Texas Theater ?<<<<
>
>Wait, they did? Never knew that. Please elaborate, you great researcher.

There's a lot of things you clearly don't know.

>>>>>52. Cecil Stoughton's negative of the famous photo showing Rep. Albert Thomas winking at LBJ aboard Air Force One is missing.
>Anyone know what happened to it ?<<<<
>
>No one knows, and no one cares.

Another example of cowardice...

>>>>>53. Why wasn't Tom Alyea, the Dallas news reporter whose cameraman filmed the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor,
>called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
>
>What could he give them that his film couldn't?

This is yet another example of your cowardice.

>>>>54. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ?<<<<
>
>The rifle was received by Oswald.

A simple logical fallacy... and contrary to the known evidence...
"Hidell" was *NOT* authorized to receive mail at the relevant box.

The WC hid this fact, and *YOU* should already know it... so you're
simply lying.

>>>>>55. If Ruby didn't know Oswald, how did he know enough to correct Henry Wade that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" ?<<<<
>
>This information was broadcast all over the radio and news networks after his arrest.

Was it? Or is this another example of your logical fallacies?

>>>>>56. The jacket which was found after the Tippit murder and identified as being owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and discarded by him in his escape, had a tag on it from a dry cleaning store.
>
>The identification of the store that attached that tag and the record of the cleaning would have been evidence that proved that the jacket indeed belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>What was the name of the store and when was that jacket cleaned ?<<<<
>
>No one knows.

No one *wanted* to know.

>>>>>57. How did Oswald manage to load the rifle without leaving any fingerprints on the ammunition clip or the cartridges ?<<<<
>
>Because when people touch objects, their fingerprints don't go all over it.

ROTFLMAO!!!

>>>>>58. Where are the three pieces of metal that were removed from General Walker's arm ?<<<<
>
>One of these days, Gil will ask us what the serial numbers of the dollar bills Oswald had on him when he was arrested and pretend it's important. Spoiler: It isn't. Neither is this.

Another example of your cowardice... and logical fallacy.

>>>>>59. In the FBI's transcript of the DPD radio transmissons for November 22, 1963, (CE 1974, pg. 48 )
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0444a.htm
>
>there are two broadcasts at 1:08 pm by unit # 58 first, then unit # 488. Both attempts to reach the dispatcher are labelled by the FBI as "garbled".
>Who were the officers designated #s 58 and 488 ?<<<<
>
>Don't know, don't care. Tell us how this is important.

COWARD!!!

Your cowardice is getting quite obnoxious!

>>>>>60. Name someone who witnessed Oswald's rifle scores of 190 and 212.<<<<
>
>Can't name any. Does that mean his scores were falsified?

This demonstrates your ignorance of Marine Corps rifle shooting
protocols...

>>>>>61. Name Oswald's Communist associates in the US and their group affiliations.<<<<
>
>Can't name any. Fully expected it from an antisocial loner.

You "fully expected it?" WHAT A COWARD!!!

>>>>>62. What evidence is there that the Oswald rifle was in the Paine garage on November 21st ?<<<<
>
>That was the normal hiding place for the rifle. Or maybe it was on Venus. We can't really know with these things.

Another logical fallacy.

The correct answer is that there is **NO** evidence that a rifle was
ever there.

>>>>>63. How did Oswald construct the "paper gun sack" and leave only one fingerprint and one palm print on the paper ?<<<<
>
>See #57.

Again, you can't answer... quite the coward!!!

>>>>>64. Lee Oswald was placed in a police lineup with teenagers and a Mexican. How many eyewitnesses described Tippit's murderer as a teenager or a Mexican ?<<<<
>
>Virginia Davis described him as a boy.
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20191115204939/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

Not an answer... You clearly didn't bother to read your own citation.

Or, to parse your answer correctly ... *NO-ONE DID.*

>>>>>65. The President's physician, Admiral George Burkley, was the only medical professional who was with the body at both Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda. He could have cleared up any discrepancies with regard to the President's wounds.
>Why wasn't he called to testify before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
>
>Don't know, and how is this relevant?

More cowardice...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 May 2022 07:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 6:17:53 PM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the idiot that he is?
>>>
>>> Alright, let's see.
>>>

>>> >>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
>>> Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
>>> What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
>>>
>>> No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
>>>
>>> See? We're starting off easy.
>>>

>> 65 are too many for one post, so I'll take the first. While it is true that Gil asked this question in a snotty way, it does not warrant the cute response given by Chis. Of course, we all know, don't we, that there were reports of "a puff of smoke" by the picket fence, the best known account given by Skinny Holland. So the snotty question really means that the Echo Explanation does not explain the puff of smoke. And Chris dodges the question by pretending (?) that he does not understand it. This sort of snottiness and dodging makes discourse in this forum unpalatable to those who understand it and incomprehensible to those who do not, which probably is the intent, I imagine.
>
>Smoke, or steam?

Logical fallacy. You can *pretend* that eyewitnesses described steam,
but it would simply be a lie on your part.

>There were steam pipes behind the knoll fence as one police officer testified:
>
>https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
>
>== quote ==
>Mr. WEITZMAN - I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
>Mr. BALL - What is the location of that wall?
>Mr. WEITZMAN - It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
>Mr. BALL - That's where Elm actually dead ends?
>Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.
>== quote ==
>

> It’s curious to me that so few conspiracy theorists ever reference
> this mention of steam pipes by Weitzman.

Perhaps because if the smoke was actually steam, this would be a
replicatable ocourance in Dealey Plaza that you would have long ago
shown.

But you haven't... and can't.

So you're simply lying... and you KNOW that you're lying.

> Yet all CTs are happy to reference his calling the weapon found on
> the sixth floor a Mauser, although photographic evidence (according to
> the HSCA photographic panel) establishes it was Oswald’s Mannlicher
> Carcano).

Logical fallacy... shame on you, Huckster!

> It’s almost as though they never read all of the testimony, but
> learned of assassination tidbits only by reading conspiracy books,
> which of course don’t mention the steam pipes behind the knoll fence
> either, but do make a big deal of the misidentification of the type of
> weapon initially recovered.

This is speculation of the rankest sort...

> Indeed, both Ben and Gil saw fit to
> mention this misidentification as a Mauser in recent posts.

Another logical fallacy on your part.

> The same man who burned his hands on steam pipes initially called

> the weapon a Mauser, then in his testimony retracted that.
> Photographic analysis confirms his retraction.
>
>How do you explain all this?

Simple. You're lying, and you *KNOW* you're lying.

>> But to the point of the original question, there is ample witness testimony, and I'm using the word in the informal sense, which has to be pointed out in this wacky forum, to there having been shots fired from the Grassy Knoll, which includes the picket fence and overpass areas. The best explanation is that shots did come from there, which does not contradict shots having come from the TSBD. The fact that many witnesses heard shots from one or the other means that shots came from both.
>
>Except:
>
> 1. The EARwitnesses that claimed the shots came from the knoll
> claimed ALL the shots came from the knoll, and the earwitnesses who
> claimed the shots came from the Depository claimed ALL the shots came
> from the Depository.

This is perfectly understandable, and is the normal condition...
people see and hear what they are in a POSITION to see and hear.

You pretend omnipotence on the part of eyewitnesses, in order to
discredit them.

> That means all the earwitnesses were unable to accurately determine
> the source of all the shots according to your argument.

No moron, this means that they were not in a position to observe
everything.

You... **YOU** have failed to say a single word about the five car
pileup that ocurred on the 101 yesterday. According to you, it must
not have happened. According to me, YOU WERE NEVER IN A POSITION TO
HEAR OR SEE IT, OR ABOUT IT.

Who would most people believe?

> Some, according to you, heard none of the knoll shots, and others,
> according to you, heard none of the Depository shots.

Just as, you heard nothing about the five car pileup on the 101
southbound.

> Whereas, according to my argument, less than half were unable to
> accurately determine the source of the shots (my argument is that
> those who thought all the shots came from the knoll were mistaken).

Whereas, according to your argument, the five car pileup never
happened.

> You argue for all the earwitnesses being mistaken, I argue for less
> than half that number being mistaken.

I argue for *NONE OF THEM* being mistaken.

> 2. Echoes are caused by sound reflecting from hard surfaces. The
> larger and harder the surface, the louder the echo. The overpass spans
> more than three streets in Dealey Plaza (Commerce, Main, and Elm) and
> is made of concrete. Echoes do explain the knoll earwitnesses,
> especially in light of the following points.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

> 3. Numerous EYEwitnesses outside the building saw a weapon or a
> gunman in the Depository on an upper floor. This confirms the auditory
> judgment of those who thought the shots originated from the building.
> There are no eyewitnesses to another gunman elsewhere in the Plaza.

No-one saw Goldman and Nicole Brown being murdered. It's STUPID of
you to therefor claim that they're alive.

> 4. Evidence found in the Depository also confirms the Depository
> earwitnesses, specifically a rifle and shells recovered from the sixth
> floor. There is no hard evidence of another weapon elsewhere in the
> Plaza.

No knife was found... so Goldman & Brown are still alive.

Quite stupid of you, I'd say.

> 5. The autopsy determined all the shots that struck the President
> were fired from above and behind the level of the deceased President.

As they weren't allowed to dissect the frontal wound, this would be
natural.

> There is no evidence in that autopsy that shots fired from the knoll
> struck the President.

There *IS*, however, evidence that JFK was struck from the GK.

> The findings of the autopsy likewise confirms the impression of those
> earwitnesses that believed the shots came from the Depository.

The autopsy that was led and controlled by non-medical personnel?

> 6. The earwitnesses (both Depository and others) were almost
> universal in reporting three shots (90% reported three shots). More
> reported only two shots than reported four or more shots. Since most
> conspiracy reconstructions claim four bullets at a minimum (I’ve seen
> arguments for over ten shots), those conspiracy reconstructions
> involving more than three shots conflict with the earwitnesses.

That is, of course, an absolute *LIE*. It's not possible that
theories espousing four shots contradict eyewitnesses. You're simply
lying. Blatantly. And provably.

> I therefore discount the auditory impressions of earwitnesses to ALL
> the shots coming from the knoll. All of the other evidence conflicts
> with their belief in ALL the shots coming from the knoll. For the
> above six reasons, I believe those earwitnesses who thought ALL the
> shots came from the knoll were confused by the echoes off the
> overpass.

This is simply begging the question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 May 2022 08:52:46 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> That's what the HSCA concluded was the ultimate fate of Kennedy's
> brain. RFK took it and either had it destroyed or reburied it with
> the body during the reinternment in 1967.

Amusing to note that all Chrissy can offer is a speculative opinion by
someone... no-body knows what happened to the most critical evidence
in the entire case for determining how many shots struck JFK's head.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 05:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> And there was at least one witness, AJ Millican, who heard shots from multiple directions. Maybe there were one or two others; I don't remember.
>
>Milligan was a terrible witness. You want to hang your hat on that witness?

I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you would dare to make such a
comment.

I can slap your hypocrisy easily.

Markham.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Straw man and ad hominem. Not a valid rebuttal to any of my points anywhere in your responses.
>
>But that is typical of you and many other critics who post here.

To compare the actions of a troll with actual critics simply shows the
poor logic & thinking skills that believers have.

[Ben Holmes]

A logical fallacy, of course.

> Ben calls Sky a troll, and likes to pretend he's better than that,
> but Ben resorts to this very behavior as well.

I'm living rent free in Huckster's mind... he can't stop talking about
me.

> I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's
> name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above

I leave it to the lurkers to decide whether Huckster can handle a
troll or not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 09:51:51 -0700 (PDT), David Healy
<dhealy9...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I therefore discount the auditory impressions of earwitnesses to
>> ALL the shots coming from the knoll. All of the other evidence
>> conflicts with their belief in ALL the shots coming from the knoll.

This doesn't apply to those eyewitnesses who believe that all shots
came from the TSBD.

>> For the above six reasons, I believe those earwitnesses who thought
>> ALL the shots came from the knoll were confused by the echoes off the
>> overpass.

Hiding your head in the sand isn't the way to go, coward...

> Henry the Useless... there we go.... you grammarians and academians
> waltz around thinking this case has made no advances in the past near
> 60 years... You can't find supporting evidence that bolsters the 1964
> WCR. You simply can't prove your non-crossexamine uncontested LHO did
> it all by his lonesome case.

Indeed, they flat REFUSE TO EVEN TRY! They whine that this is a
conspiracy forum, but they cannot point to *ANYPLACE* online where
they've been brave enough to support their ideas.

>Why all the smoke-n-mirrors, Henry? This the only place that ego gets a buzz these days?

This sounds like Chrissy thinking that she's a '10'... Huckster
thinking that he's doing something other than showing cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

It will never come... that wasn't steam in Dealey Plaza, so there is
*NOT* any evidence that believers can post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...

Which logical fallacies does this consist of?

[Bud]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I
> > figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the
> > idiot that he is?
> >
> >Alright, let's see.
> I predict, before reading this, that you won't credibly answer a
> *SINGLE* question, acknowledge any truth, and use plenty of logical
> fallacies... let's see if I'm right.
> >>>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
> >Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
> >What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
> >
> >No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
> >
> >See? We're starting off easy.
> You've answered the direct question, and evaded the implied one.

This is one of the games conspiracy cowards play, they imply things but don`t spell them out because they can`t support their implied ideas.

The proper way for Gil idea to be presented is he should present all the "smoke" witnesses (everything they said about "smoke", in full and in context) and correlate that with specific "sound" witnesses.

You`ll never see conspiracy types present their ideas like this. They allude, they insinuate, they don`t spell out an idea out and support it properly.

Or they do what Gil did, they imply something in a question and use this question to shift the burden onto other.

> >>>>>2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away, rather than burying it with the body ?<<<<
> >
> > I mean, that wasn't the only possibility for the ultimate fate of
> > Kennedy's brain. There was also the possibility that he buried the
> > brain with the body when JFK was reinterred in March 1967. But the
> > main motivation cited is that he didn't want the brain to be a freak
> > exhibit.
> You've evaded the question.

The question is begged.

> The brain couldn't have been a "freak exhibit" if it had been buried
> with the body.
> >>>>>3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".<<<<
> >
> >You saw this all the way back in 2010. Here is Bud explaining it in more detail:
> Not an answer.

The same laws of physics are present in every murder.

> >>>>>4. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck.
> >
> >http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
> >
> >Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidence" existed that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book Depository.
> >
> >In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?<<<<
> >
> >Wait, it was 51? Strange. McAdams did a poll and the number was 33:
> A simple logical fallacy on your part.
>
> >Also, many of those witnesses put all the shots as coming from the knoll. Do you think this is the case? Or did they all miss the shots coming from the TSBD?
>
> Another logical fallacy.
>
> You simply evaded the question.

Loaded question.

> >>>>>5. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the "Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the autopsy ?<<<<
> >
> >WTF?
> >
> >Where the hell did you get the idea that the autopsy photos show the skull *intact*?
> >
> >https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Top_of_JFK%27s_Head_during_autopsy.jpg
> >
> >Does this look like an intact skull to you? Get real.
> I suspect that Gil was thinking of the X-rays... which indeed makes
> his question valid.

If you remove his lies what he said was truthful.

> You can't answer it, so you simply evaded...
> >>>>>6. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to the assassination ?<<<<
> >
> >Simple. They didn't:
> >
> >https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#underworld
> >
> >https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#employee
> Your own cite proves you a liar, Chrissy...
>
> "Based on its evaluation of the record, however, the Commission
> believes that the evidence does not establish a significant link
> between Ruby and organized crime."
>
> That's simply untrue... as Gil has pointed out.

It was true, as the WC pointed out.

> >>>>>7. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows no entry wound anywhere in the neck, yet the Humes- supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base of the neck.
> >
> >Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the location of the wound ?<<<<
> >
> >So Gil is giving us two options here:
> >
> >A.) The autopsy photos are faked, which proves a conspiracy.
> >
> >B.) Humes lied, which proves a conspiracy.
> >
> >I'm going to circle option C.) It was a mistake by Rydberg.
> That makes **YOU** the liar, as Dr. Humes (*and* Dr. Boswell)
> testified using these drawings AS ACCURATE.

Gil failed to show that the Ryberg illustration is at serious odds with the autopsy photograph of Kennedy`s back.

> >>>>>8. Prior to 11/22/63, can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy specifically ?<<<<
> >
> >I can't name one. So where does this go?
> You can't name one because none exist.

Can you show that the Uvalde shooter specifically threatened any of the kids he shot?

> >>>>>9. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm ammunition ?<<<<
> >
> >The evidence he purchased any 6.5mm ammunition was that he fired three at Kennedy and had a fourth in the chamber just in case.
> This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

Not after investigation after investigation finds this to be the case.

> >>>>>10. How did a "Defector" ( with an undesirable discharge ) get employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work on U-2 photos ?<<<<
> >
> >Because the people who hired him knew nothing about his defection and his undesirable discharge. See the testimony of John Graef.
> >
> >https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/graef.htm
> >
> >== QUOTE ==
> >Mr. JENNER. What inquiries did you make of him with respect to your qualifications for this position--his prior experience, if any?
> >Mr. GRAEF. None--none. I assumed that--now, he was sent over, if I remember right--I was also told by this Mrs. Latham, something about that he had perhaps some photographic experience in the Marines or there was some--there was some quality there that helped. And I believe it was that he had had a little bit of photograph experience in the Marines that might be helpful. In other words, he was a little familiar with the processing of film and so forth and, of course, this would add a little weight to his becoming a successful employee.
> >Mr. JENNER. I take it from your recital up to this moment that you are primarily interested at this point, having in mind the nature of the business, that this man would embrace ultimately what you were looking more for--let's say--general character, whether he seemed like a man who was going to be in this community a while?
> >Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
> >Mr. JENNER. Whether he was sincerely interested in obtaining employment that you expected to rely upon your teaching--I mean your company--under your supervision and direction--the teaching and training of this man for the position which you ultimately would seek to fill.
> >Mr. GRAEF. Yes; very well put.
> >Mr. JENNER. And it might even have been that if this man had no photographic experience whatsoever, but seemed--well, let's say clean cut and eager and intelligent, just out of the Marines and seeking to obtain employment and settle down, that that might have been sufficient qualifications for you?
> >Mr. GRAEF. Yes--if, of course, there was no one with any better promise that came along.
> >Mr. JENNER. Yes.
> >== UNQUOTE ==
> All you've shown is AMAZING incompetence.

All you shown is you have no answer of substance to offer against the evidence cited.

> >>>>>11. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?<<<<
> >
> >Because maybe bullets don't keep blood on them from being in someone's pants pocket all the way on a flight to Washington D.C? Just a thought.
> Another logical fallacy on your part.

It is begged that this material should have been on the bullet.

> Ignorance, too.
> >>>>>12. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic
> >when gun shells are clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always identified by that label ?<<<<
> >
> >He assumed they were automatics due to the fact that were spaced very close together.
> Untrue.

Gil`s question requires speculation.

> >>>>>13. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was known to be unreliable ?<<<<
> >
> >Nitrate tests were often used for coercing a suspect to confess.
> True... good of you to occasionally tell the truth.

So Gil can remove this from the list.

> >>>>>14. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI examined any of the evidence ?<<<<
> >
> >Well, since the 2022 conspiracy docu series JFK: Destiny Betrayed quoted Hoover saying the case against Oswald wasn't strong enough to obtain a conviction, I'll say after.
> Again, you're simply lying. There's documentary evidence from the
> 24th.

Produce it.

> >>>>>15. Name the person at the Post Office who handed Oswald the rifle and the date he picked it up.<<<<
> >
> >I cannot answer that one. Nor do I see how it matters.
> Of *course* you can't answer it. And of *COURSE* you can't understand
> the importance.

Of course you can`t show that it is significant that the name isn`t known.

> >>>>>16. Name the person at the REA office who handed Oswald the handgun and the date he picked it up.<<<<
> >
> >Same answer as #15
> Same response as #15
> >>>>>17. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods" four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE1952) ?<<<<
> >
> >Same answer as #16
> Such AMAZING cowardice! The **ONLY** possible reason is that the DPD
> had a reason to believe that curtain rods were involved in this case.
>
> THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE REASON.
>
> Yet Chrissy is too much a coward to acknowledge this.
> >>>>>18. The path of the "magic bullet" transiting through Kennedy would have resulted in damage to his vertebra and yet there was no such damage. Why is that ?<<<<
> >
> >Establish that the bullet should've caused damage to the vertebrae.
> Already been done.

To your satisfaction, a meaningless criteria.

And the autopsy review for the HSCA found one of the vertebrae to have a crack.

> > Then come to me and explain why the HSCA and Clark Panel agreed with
> > the Warren Commission on this point.
> Because the Clark Panel wasn't a real investigation, and the HSCA
> simply lied about the medical evidence.
>
> Already proven.

Empty claim.

> >>>>>19. How did Oswald know he could bring a 35 inch package to work without being seen ?<<<<
> >
> >Correction: 38 inches. And he fully expected to be seen, otherwise he wouldn't have made the curtain rods lie for Buell Frazier.
> Another logical fallacy.

Gil`s question is begged.

> >>>>>20. Why did Oswald leave his revolver in his rented room, a revolver he could have concealed on his person and which he would have needed to facilitate his escape ?<<<<
> >
> >A weapon on him would've hindered his escape when you think about it. If he's searched when escaping, that's going to be an issue.
> ROTFLMAO!!!

Gil`s question requires speculation.

> >>>>>21. Why didn't "psycho killer" Oswald just step off the curb and shoot Kennedy point-blank with his revolver ?<<<<
> >
> >Same answer as #17.
> Same laugh!

Why did OJ stab his ex-wife to death rather than strangle her or shoot her?

> >>>>>22. Name one witness who identified Oswald as the shooter in the TSBD ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.<<<<
> >
> >I cannot, because it doesn't exist. Now what?
> You lose.

How is it a requirement?

> >>>>>23. Why did Emory Roberts order agents Ready and Hill to return to the follow-up car when the shooting began ?<<<<
> >
> >Actually, it was after the headshot. Ready was trying to reach the limousine but Roberts thought he wouldn't catch it since it was speeding up.
> This is a simple evasion... you didn't answer the question.

Gil simply lied, it wasn`t when the shooting began.

> >>>>>24. What did the Warren Commission conclude was the motive for Oswald killing President Kennedy ?<<<<
> >
> >They couldn't establish a firm motive for the deed, so they didn't. They speculated, but they didn't put the lid on it.
> It's not that they couldn't "establish" a motive... it's that there is
> *NOT* a motive.
>
> Do try to be correct, and stop lying.

He said they didn`t, how did he lie?

> >>>>>25. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any 6.5mm or .38 SPL ammunition ?<<<<
> >
> >For the 6.5mm ammo, see #9.
> >
> >For the .38 SPL, it's the fact he fired 5 of them at Tippit, had 6 of them in his revolver when he was arrested and an additional 5 on his person.
> Yet another logical fallacy.

That is the evidence.

> >>>>>26. Why weren't the bullet fragments photographed in their positions in the limousine as found ?<<<<
> >
> >Because they were found by being disturbed. When you disturb evidence, you don't put it back in its original place.
> This is a non-answer. When things are found, THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHED
> PRIOR TO REMOVAL.

So if they open the door and a shells fall on the ground you have to photograph on the ground where it landed?

> You simply refused to answer the question.

You simply ignored his point. What evidential value is there to photographing evidence in place after it has been disturbed?

> >>>>>27. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable fingerprints on it ?<<<<
> >
> >He did leave fingerprints on it, which were photographed in 1963 and identified in 1993 by Oswald's by Vincent Scalice.
> What's the best evidence?

His evidence, since you produced none.

> >>>>>28. Why were overpass witnesses James Simmons and Richard C. Dodd never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
> >
> >See #21
> You can't answer. You lose!

It requires speculation.

> >>>>>29. Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses
> >to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?<<<<
> >
> >See #28
> You can't answer... YOU LOSE AGAIN!

It requires speculation.

> >>>>>30. Lt. Day photographed partial prints on the triggerguard of the rifle. Why didn't he photograph the palm print on the rifle when he found it ?<<<<
> >
> >== quote ==
> >Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
> >Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
> >Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
> >Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
> >Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
> >== unquote ==
>
> This is a non-answer. Coward, aren't you Chrissy?

He cites evidence, you spew ad hominem. You lose.

> >>>>>31. Why couldn't the FBI find any identifiable prints on the rifle when they examined it on 11/23 ?<<<<
> >
> >Kinda hard to find prints that were already lifted, don't you think?
> A lie on your part.

You can`t back this up.

> >>>>>32. What make and model rifle has a recoil so powerful as to shake a floor violently enough to make plaster fall from the ceiling on the level below ?<<<<
> >
> >Jesus, who said the recoil did that? That's the sound waves.
> A reasonable answer. Quite rare from you, Chrissy!

Doesn`t have to be sound waves, either. If the gun rested on any part of the window frame the vibrations would be conducted.

> >>>>>33. Why did the Dallas Police not tape Oswald's interrogation ?<<<<
> >
> >Because that wasn't the standard thing to do in 1963.
> Yep... President's are killed frequently...

Special pleading fallacy.

> >>>>>34. If Sgt. Hill was mistaken in his description of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene, why did he describe them in such detail
> >when he radioed in that "The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol" ?<<<<
> >
> >Already asked and already answered for #12.
> You lied in that answer.

Gil`s question requires speculation.

> >>>>>35. Why did Kennedy's bodyguards stay up all night drinking in Fort Worth the night before the assassination ?<<<<
> >
> >See #29.
> You again can't answer... you lose!

Why did they say they stayed up all night drinking?

> >>>>>36. Nine SS agents drank liquor at the Fort Worth Press Club on the night before the assassination, in violation of SS regulations prohibiting agents from drinking while on "travel status". Why weren't they reprimanded ?<<<<
> >
> >See #35. Actually, I can answer this one, but it's irrelevant.
> Lying again, aren't you coward?

Why did the SS say they weren`t reprimanded?

> >>>>>37. Was any blood found on the bullet fragments recovered from inside the limousine ?<<<<
> >
> >Maybe.
> >
> >==QUOTE==
> >Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
> >Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
> >Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
> >==UNQUOTE==
> An answer you cannot explain.

What needs explaining?

> >>>>>38. Who was the Dallas Post Office employee who handed Oswald his mail-order rifle ?<<<<
> >
> >See #36.
> Cowardice again.

Why is Gil repeating the same questions? I`m out.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not Markham.

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Make a reasoned argument from the evidence. Or run.

[Hank Sienzant]

Begged question logical fallacy. You haven't established anyone here is trolling.

Of course, to many a troll and a CT don't look a whole lot different.

Ben pretends he gets to decide who is legitimate and who is not.

It appears Ben's argument about trolldom reduces to, if they agree with me, they are not a troll. If they disagree, they are.
And that's how we should all know who is a troll.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, as you can see, he does exactly what you do. Ignore my points and my evidence and call me names.

> > Ben calls Sky a troll, and likes to pretend he's better than that,
> > but Ben resorts to this very behavior as well.
> I'm living rent free in Huckster's mind... he can't stop talking about
> me.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that assertion is true (like all of your assertions, you offer no evidence nor argument in support). What does that establish about the conspiracy you allege existed in this case? Nothing whatsoever. You'd rather talk about me than talk about the evidence.

> > I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's
> > name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above
> I leave it to the lurkers to decide whether Huckster can handle a
> troll or not.

Which troll?

[Hank Sienzant]

I note you deleted all the preceding discussion, taking my point out of context.
I am summarizing his argument as I understand it. Do you wish to correct any part of my summary? He's posted all the above at one time or another.

[David Healy]

if ya didn't break the rules, you'd not have a damn thing to say on this board. Shuck-n-jive Hank!

[Hank Sienzant]

What supposed rules did I break?

Who sets and administers these supposed rules you allege I’m breaking?

Where can I get a copy of these supposed rules?

If you can’t answer these simple questions, you are talking through your hat.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
>>
>> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
>

>I note...

What you DIDN'T bother noting was the answer to the question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>No...

Yes.

>>> Ben calls Sky a troll, and likes to pretend he's better than that,
>>> but Ben resorts to this very behavior as well.
>>
>> I'm living rent free in Huckster's mind... he can't stop talking about
>> me.
>

>Let's grant for the sake of argument that assertion is true...

Granted.

>>> I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's
>>> name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above
>>
>> I leave it to the lurkers to decide whether Huckster can handle a
>> troll or not.
>
>Which troll?

Here we see Huckster implying that there's some trolls he can't
handle.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 07:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Straw man and ad hominem. Not a valid rebuttal to any of my points anywhere in your responses.
>>>
>>>But that is typical of you and many other critics who post here.
>>
>> To compare the actions of a troll with actual critics simply shows the
>> poor logic & thinking skills that believers have.
>

>Begged ...

Nope.

This is what poor logic & thinking skills will get you...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:02:34 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 05:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And there was at least one witness, AJ Millican, who heard shots from multiple directions. Maybe there were one or two others; I don't remember.
>>>
>>>Milligan was a terrible witness. You want to hang your hat on that witness?
>>
>> I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you would dare to make such a
>> comment.
>>
>> I can slap your hypocrisy easily.
>>
>> Markham.
>
>Not Markham.

And this folks, just shows you how desperate Huckster is getting. He's
not honest enough to publicly acknowledge what a HORRIBLE witness
Markham was.

[Ben Holmes]

Indeed true. If the logical fallacy police did their job - very
little of what Huckster posts would make it through.

And what did make it though would be caught by the truth police.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:28:22 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
>>>>
>>>> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
>>> I note you deleted all the preceding discussion, taking my point out of context.
>>> I am summarizing his argument as I understand it. Do you wish to correct any part of my summary? He's posted all the above at one time or another.
>> if ya didn't break the rules, you'd not have a damn thing to say on this board. Shuck-n-jive Hank!
>
>What supposed rules did I break?

The common, ordinary, understanding of civilized people that you don't
use lies & logical fallacies to debate.

>Who sets and administers these supposed rules you allege I’m breaking?

Any intelligent reader in this forum.

>Where can I get a copy of these supposed rules?

Never been needed for the normal intelligent person.

We learned from an early age that lies don't work.

>If you can’t answer these simple questions, you are talking through your hat.

Answered.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 13:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:05 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gil Jesus posed me 65 questions to answer on May 23rd, 2022. So I
>>> figured let's go through his gigantic Gish Gallop and show him for the
>>> idiot that he is?
>>>
>>>Alright, let's see.
>>
>> I predict, before reading this, that you won't credibly answer a
>> *SINGLE* question, acknowledge any truth, and use plenty of logical
>> fallacies... let's see if I'm right.
>>
>>>>>>>1. Earwitnesses claimed they heard the sound of a gunshot from the picket fence area, WC supporters attributed it to echoes.
>>>Eyewitnesses also reported seeing a "puff of smoke" in the same picket fence area.
>>>What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?<<<<
>>>
>>>No type of echo produces a puff of smoke.
>>>
>>>See? We're starting off easy.
>>
>> You've answered the direct question, and evaded the implied one.

LFD.

>>>>>>>2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard to the murder of his brother, what reason would there be for his taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away, rather than burying it with the body ?<<<<
>>>
>>> I mean, that wasn't the only possibility for the ultimate fate of
>>> Kennedy's brain. There was also the possibility that he buried the
>>> brain with the body when JFK was reinterred in March 1967. But the
>>> main motivation cited is that he didn't want the brain to be a freak
>>> exhibit.
>> You've evaded the question.

LFD.

>> The brain couldn't have been a "freak exhibit" if it had been buried
>> with the body.
>>
>>>>>>>3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".<<<<
>>>
>>>You saw this all the way back in 2010. Here is Bud explaining it in more detail:
>> Not an answer.

LFD.

>>>>>>>4. Fifty-one witnesses held the shots sounded as if the came from west of the Depository, the area of the grassy knoll on Elm Street, the area directly on the right of the President's car when the bullets struck.
>>>
>>>http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
>>>
>>>Yet the Warren Commission concluded that "no credible evidence" existed that any shots were fired from anywhere but the Texas School Book Depository.
>>>
>>>In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible evidence"?<<<<
>>>
>>>Wait, it was 51? Strange. McAdams did a poll and the number was 33:
>> A simple logical fallacy on your part.
>>
>>>Also, many of those witnesses put all the shots as coming from the knoll. Do you think this is the case? Or did they all miss the shots coming from the TSBD?
>>
>> Another logical fallacy.
>>
>> You simply evaded the question.

LFD.

>>>>>>>5. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the "Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the autopsy ?<<<<
>>>
>>>WTF?
>>>
>>>Where the hell did you get the idea that the autopsy photos show the skull *intact*?
>>>
>>>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Top_of_JFK%27s_Head_during_autopsy.jpg
>>>
>>>Does this look like an intact skull to you? Get real.
>> I suspect that Gil was thinking of the X-rays... which indeed makes
>> his question valid.

LFD.

>> You can't answer it, so you simply evaded...
>>>>>>>6. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to the assassination ?<<<<
>>>
>>>Simple. They didn't:
>>>
>>>https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#underworld
>>>
>>>https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-16.html#employee
>> Your own cite proves you a liar, Chrissy...
>>
>> "Based on its evaluation of the record, however, the Commission
>> believes that the evidence does not establish a significant link
>> between Ruby and organized crime."
>>
>> That's simply untrue... as Gil has pointed out.
>
> It was true, as the WC pointed out.

This blatant logical fallacy shows just how desperate kooks like
Chickenshit are getting.

No need to go any further, so I've deleted the rest.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:48:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
> >>
> >> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
> >

> >I note you deleted all the preceding discussion, taking my point out of context.
I am summarizing his argument as I understand it. Do you wish to correct any part of my summary? He's posted all the above at one time or another.
>

> What you DIDN'T bother noting was the answer to the question...

Untrue. I pointed out the flaws in the question you asked, and reiterated the original point.
In addition, your question is a begged question logical fallacy and an attempt to shift the burden of proof logical fallacy.

[Hank Sienzant]

> >Let's grant for the sake of argument that assertion is true (like all of your assertions, you offer no evidence nor argument in support). What does that establish about the conspiracy you allege existed in this case? Nothing whatsoever. You'd rather talk about me than talk about the evidence.
>

> Granted.

Great. We understand my point more fully if you'd leave it in, instead of deleting the bulk of it and running from it.

When you say "Granted" above, are you granting the entire argument is true, or just the point you did not delete?

> >>> I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's
> >>> name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above
> >>
> >> I leave it to the lurkers to decide whether Huckster can handle a
> >> troll or not.
> >
> >Which troll?
> Here we see Huckster implying that there's some trolls he can't
> handle.

No, here we see Ben misinterpreting Hank's question in Ben's favor.
But by "Which troll?" I was leaving it open-ended, and including yourself. As I noted, you and he have employed many of the same rhetorical devices, in that you both utilize an array of logical fallacies, and seldom post evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:48:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:28:22 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
> >>>>
> >>>> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
> >>> I note you deleted all the preceding discussion, taking my point out of context.
> >>> I am summarizing his argument as I understand it. Do you wish to correct any part of my summary? He's posted all the above at one time or another.
> >> if ya didn't break the rules, you'd not have a damn thing to say on this board. Shuck-n-jive Hank!
> >
> >What supposed rules did I break?
> The common, ordinary, understanding of civilized people that you don't
> use lies & logical fallacies to debate.

Begged. Show I lied or used any logical fallacies. You have yet to do so.

> >Who sets and administers these supposed rules you allege I’m breaking?
> Any intelligent reader in this forum.

Really? The normal intelligent reader can ban someone who breaks those rules?
And yet, surprisingly, you are still here. Imagine that.

> >Where can I get a copy of these supposed rules?
> Never been needed for the normal intelligent person.

So you say they aren't written down, and not even needed, yet invoke these supposed rules and allege I broke them.
I get it, it's just Ben being Ben, acting as judge, jury, and would-be executioner.

>
> We learned from an early age that lies don't work.

Yet you keep trying to push that conspiracy rock uphill.

> >If you can’t answer these simple questions, you are talking through your hat.
> Answered.

No, avoided. You yourself admitted there are no rules you can actually reference for this forum, and you've said previously you prefer an unmoderated forum to a moderated one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 14:54:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:48:37 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 08:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:28:22 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
>>>>> I note you deleted all the preceding discussion, taking my point out of context.
>>>>> I am summarizing his argument as I understand it. Do you wish to correct any part of my summary? He's posted all the above at one time or another.
>>>> if ya didn't break the rules, you'd not have a damn thing to say on this board. Shuck-n-jive Hank!
>>>
>>>What supposed rules did I break?
>>
>> The common, ordinary, understanding of civilized people that you don't
>> use lies & logical fallacies to debate.
>
>Begged.

Here we see Huckster's misunderstanding of ordinary civilized
behavior.

> Show I lied or used any logical fallacies. You have yet to do so.

To who?

>>>Who sets and administers these supposed rules you allege I’m breaking?
>>
>> Any intelligent reader in this forum.
>
>Really?

Yep.

> The normal intelligent reader can ban someone who breaks those rules?

There you go again, molesting your grandfather now... what a pervert!

>>>Where can I get a copy of these supposed rules?
>>
>> Never been needed for the normal intelligent person.
>

>So you say...

Yep... that's what I say.

>> We learned from an early age that lies don't work.
>
>Yet you keep trying to push that conspiracy rock uphill.

Begged.

>>>If you can’t answer these simple questions, you are talking through your hat.
>>
>> Answered.
>

>No...

Yes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 14:37:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:48:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 15:12:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 05:08:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>So Weitzman is a lying scum fucktard conspirator who eats babies when he mentioned burning his hands on the steam pipes...
>>>>
>>>> Which logical fallacies does this consist of?
>>>

>>>I note...

>>
>> What you DIDN'T bother noting was the answer to the question...
>

>I am summarizing...

What you DIDN'T bother noting was the answer to the question...

Again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 14:44:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Good that we got that settled.

>>>>> Ben calls Sky a troll, and likes to pretend he's better than that,
>>>>> but Ben resorts to this very behavior as well.
>>>>
>>>> I'm living rent free in Huckster's mind... he can't stop talking about
>>>> me.
>>>
>>>Let's grant for the sake of argument that assertion is true (like all of your assertions, you offer no evidence nor argument in support). What does that establish about the conspiracy you allege existed in this case? Nothing whatsoever. You'd rather talk about me than talk about the evidence.
>>
>> Granted.
>
>Great. We understand my point more fully if you'd leave it in, instead of deleting the bulk of it and running from it.
>
>When you say "Granted" above, are you granting the entire argument is true, or just the point you did not delete?

I'm granting that the statment I made, to which you asserted that
you'd grant, is true.

I'm living rent free in your mind... you can't stop talking about me.

>>>>> I leave it to the lurkers (if any) to decide whether Sky's
>>>>> name-calling is more persuasive than the argument I put forward above
>>>>
>>>> I leave it to the lurkers to decide whether Huckster can handle a
>>>> troll or not.
>>>
>>>Which troll?
>>
>> Here we see Huckster implying that there's some trolls he can't
>> handle.
>
>No

Yes.