The Post That Sent Huckster Sienzant Back To School

[Ben Holmes]

Original source:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489

Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:


>> RoboTimbo:
>> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
>> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.


Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
not to notice that.


> I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.


And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.

To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
we know it won't go well for you.


> He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> assassination.
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html


Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.

See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.


> He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.


Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.


> His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.


Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.

What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
felt was right?

Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
watch!


> Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> Oswald was the assassin.


Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:

HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.

This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."

Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.

And Huckster is lying about it.

But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
to go view this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y

This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:

"The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
against Oswald for the assassination of the President."

So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.

And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.


> Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.


This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.

And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...

In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
down at notes as he made his speech.

SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...

Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.


> However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> to attempt to make it appear erroneous.


Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
the entire rest of this post...

It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
Huckster never tells you.


> Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> argument to attempt to rebut it.


Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
point? What a shocker!

Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
the news conference by Wade.


> Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> out.”


Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
the President."

Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.

HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!

So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.

Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."


> Note Wade does not mention Oswald.


Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
of the President."

You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.


> He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> School Book Depository.


So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.

That dog won't hunt.

You're telling an outright whopper.

Wade stated very clearly what he was doing: "The purpose of this news
conference is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the
assassination of the President."

Mark Lane ADDRESSED what Wade said, and showed how it was a lie.

Just as I'm showing, AND PROVING, that you're lying about the facts
here.


> Lane can't argue that point as stated, so he doesn't even try.


YOU are the liar. Mark Lane did indeed address EXACTLY what Wade
tried to claim.

You want Mark Lane to simply ignore the fact that Wade ASSERTED THAT
HE WAS GIVING THE EVIDENCE FOR OSWALD'S GUILT. But he didn't... and
you label him a liar for doing this.

**YOU** are the liar. Proven.


> Instead, he pretends Wade said "First, there was a number of
> witnesses that saw Oswald with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was
> looking out.”


This was PRECISELY the intent of Wade's response to the question. As
he stated, he was giving the evidence for OSWALD as the shooter...

Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED what Henry Wade said.

Amusingly, you're simply too dishonest to ever publicly admit it.


> Here's exactly how Mark Lane framed that straw argument:
>
>=== QUOTE ==
>Point One
>
> A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> SINCE IT IS ALLEGED that Oswald fired through that window, that
> assertion is important. Wade was unequivocal, stating, “First, there
> was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the
> sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the
> window—where he was looking out.” Subsequently, it developed that the
> “number of witnesses” was in reality one witness, who was quoted as
> follows: “I can’t identify him, but if I see a man who looks like him,
> I’ll point him out.” (Newsweek—Dec. 9) Such “identification” is at
> best speculative and would not be permitted in that form at trial.
>== UNQUOTE ==
>
> That is a straw argument, and Lane is pretending to rebut Wade's
> point, but he is actually rebutting a point of his own creation.


No Huckster, *YOUR* claim is a lie... Wade was giving the evidence for
Oswald's guilt that he said he would - and Mark Lane answered him on
THAT BASIS.

You're pretending that Wade was merely discussing where the shots came
from... THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Wade was trying his best to indict Oswald - he was detailing what
evidence they had for Oswald's guilt - and Mark Lane DIRECTLY
ADDRESSED what Wade claimed.

So there are two liars here... Wade for trying to mislead people about
the true evidence, and *YOU* for trying to label Mark Lane a liar for
CORRECTLY pointing out the facts.


> That is dishonest.


And, as I'm demonstrating, it's *YOU* that is dishonest. Mark Lane's
"creation" is the simple truth - WADE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT EVIDENCE
EXISTED FOR THE GUILT OF OSWALD.

When you lie about this, you're simply a proven liar... nothing else.


> And Lane was doing it from his very first article on the
> assassination. Indeed, in his very first rebuttal point he ever made
> on the assassination.


Lane was doing what??? Telling the truth, and correctly rebutting
lies being told to convince the public that Oswald was guilty???

You've gone no-where, Huckster... other than to tell blatant lies and
use logical fallacies. You provably don't even understand the basic
facts you're discussing. The mythical "question" not asked - the
"ill-preparation" (as he's reading from prepared notes).

You clearly tried to invent a question never asked at the November
24th news conference, and tried to pretend that Wade was
"ill-prepared." The truth, as anyone can view for themselves with my
link to the news conference - is that you're lying.


> I was tempted to challenge the conspiracy theorist poster here to pick
> a page at random from Lane's Rush to Judgment, and we'll examine what
> Lane wrote and compare it to the evidence...


It's being daily posted in this forum - and you've run from a MAJORITY
of the posts. I've kept them short and to the point, so that they can
be easily rebutted if it were possible, yet you've remained silent.

So it's good that you didn't give in to your "temptation" - because
I'm posting Mark Lane quotes each week - and you're running away.


> but I decided to just cut
> to the chase and cite one inarguable lie by Lane


You claim it's inarguable - but I've just shown your first lie about
Mark Lane to be the lie that it is... and you've not made your
argument about Nolan Potter - so there's nothing to rebut.


> - where he took a
> statement by Nolan Potter that said he saw smoke rising above the
> trees in front of the Depository and that he saw a motorcycle
> policeman drive up the slope toward the Depository and show that Lane
> falsely characterized that statement in a footnote as pointing to
> smoke on the grassy knoll.


Make your case, Huckster - and I'll undoubtedly demolish it as easily
as I did your first example.


> There are plenty of other examples. Indeed the first witness he deals
> with in Rush To Judgment is another example of a lie by Mark Lane,
> where he makes his point only by ignoring all the evidence.
>
> But that's an example for another time.


Actually, it's another excellent example of the "poisoning of the
well" fallacy.


> Hank


How many PROVABLE logical fallacies did Huckster employ above?

How many OUTRIGHT LIES did Huckster use in his smear campaign?

Will Huckster ever admit that he didn't have the facts here?

Thus far, Huckster has ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to address the facts in this
post ... will he man up?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

TOP POST Only: they've already headed for the hills, they're gonna want nothing, to do with this -- cowards, all of lone nuttin' believen' whack-jobin' .johnites...

[BT George]

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 10:46:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Original source:
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>
> Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:
>
>
> >> RoboTimbo:
> >> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
> >> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.
>
>
> Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
> not to notice that.
>

bebs needs to distinguish between an (informed) opinion given to someone who has obviously arrived at the *same* conclusions about a subject and a begged premise in the sense of debate. Such subtleties are probably far beyond Holmes.

>
> > I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> > meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> > on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.
>

Same as above. A concept far above Holmes ability or willingness to comprehend.

>
> And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
> completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.
>

Why does Hank need to *cite* for a speculation? A speculation is just that, a speculation. It's not a 100% "provable" fact. However, it can be arrived at by an honest *overview* of Lane's style and practices. Those *have* been cited before to bebsy himself. He just didn't *like* it. ...Also, asking why he would "cite" for a basic assertion (Lane's dishonesty) that the other party *already* agrees with is just bizarre.

> To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
> we know it won't go well for you.
>

I think it went quite well. Read Lane against the actual evidence lurkers and I think many of you will agree.

>
> > He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> > assassination.
> >
> > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
>
>
> Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
> proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
> by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
> congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
> his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.
>

All assertions by bebsy. He now must show *credibly* how the link does not provide indications of deceit by Lane.

> See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
> that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.
>
>
> > He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.
>
>
> Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.
>

Does bebsy know of another early published attempt in the USA? Also, stating that as a *fact* hardly constitutes either a fallacy of logic nor poisoning of the well.

>
> > His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> > after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> > appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> > Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> > later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.
>
>
> Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
> Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
> Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.
>

This is a fantasy of Holmes own creation. Does Hank assert that Lane's flaws or error lay merely in his "speed"? But in *context* of the DA (presumably) being aware of *more* specifics of the evidence against Oswald than Lane at this point, it's hard to see how credible such an early, strident defense of Oswald could be.

> What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
> well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
> felt was right?
>

See above.

> Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
> watch!
>

Yawn.

>
> > Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> > Oswald was the assassin.
>
>
> Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:
>
> HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
> GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.
>
> This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
> framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."
>
> Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
> this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
> of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.
>
> And Huckster is lying about it.
>

Not seen the lie yet. Do you think Wade had *not* been asked *already* by the press to detail the evidence they had? Really?

> But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
> to go view this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y
>
> This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
> are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:
>
> "The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
> against Oswald for the assassination of the President."
>
> So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
> PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.
>

I'll re-read again, but how does the statement in *any* way show itself at odds with what is linked?

"His defense appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63."

Moreover, does a *thinking* human on the planet think that Wade's news conferences was *not* per the request of the press for just the very kind of information he begins to outline? Please.

> And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
> reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.
>

Holmes here starts to fight an unwitting battle with himself. Above he stress how *very* much rushed Wade was to get this info out, while at the same time trying to claim he was, nevertheless, *thoroughly* prepared. So which is it bebsy?

>
> > Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> > himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.
>
>
> This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
> outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.
>

LOL! No. The press conference--complete with patently *erroneous* claims such as Oswald supposedly laughing when the question came up of the POTUS being assassinated---shows *exactly* a rushed, "approximate", and insufficiently vetted as to rumor vs. fact Press Conference.

> And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
> news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
> being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...
>

See above.

> In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
> down at notes as he made his speech.
>

Notes do not equal a careful time to *properly* vet the evidence beforehand. Else he would not have claimed things like sinister laughter that has no where been a feature of the "official" case thereafter. Moreover, bebsy took his time to hammer out this post. His lack of proper vetting of information he is presenting in writing is still apparent.

> SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...
>

Well there is right here folks. :-)

> Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.
>

Yeah. I would refuse when I hadn't lied also.

>
> > However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> > to attempt to make it appear erroneous.
>
>
> Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
> the entire rest of this post...
>
> It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
> Huckster never tells you.
>

See prior notes about *who* and what manner of *question* Hank was responding to. Why preach at length any more than necessary to the choir?

>
> > Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> > first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> > argument to attempt to rebut it.
>
>
> Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
> point? What a shocker!
>

Was Hank's point to criticize the *order* of Lane's rebuttal or was it *really* to criticize the *way* he went about it? If you can walk and breath oxygen at the same time I am sure you understand the *correct* point.

> Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
> that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
> the news conference by Wade.
>
>
> > Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> > saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> > building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> > out.”
>
>
> Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
> firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
> again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
> to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
> the President."
>
> Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
> but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.
>
> HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>

Yes. And when you add his comments about a gunman observed, an apparent SN found, and *Oswald's* palmprint being found on one of the boxes where the gunman would have *logically* rested his hand while sitting on one of the boxes Wade mentioned, it becomes rather obvious what was the intent. To outline evidence that clearly ties "the suspect" (Oswald) to the "gunman" that had been observed. However, it does *not* directly state Oswald. It simply notes the facts on the ground indicate that the *physical* evidence found supported the window observations of a gunman there, and that further physical evidence supported that gunman was likely the suspect, Oswald.

> So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
> OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.
>

So is a broken clock at least once or twice a day depending on if it is set to 12 or 24 hours.

> Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
> quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."
>

Yawn.

>
> > Note Wade does not mention Oswald.
>

Did Hank say Wade *never* mentioned Oswald, or was his point that the statement he made that Lane attacks was:

"First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.”

Whereas Lane starts off Point One of his defense under a heading that *implies* Wade had directly said this:

"A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

That's frankly a *lie* IMO. Wade never said that "..a number of witnesses saw Oswald..." What he said is that "...a number of witnesses saw the person with the gun." That is flat out true, other than that he appears to have tied in the statements of people who only said they saw a gun, with Brennan who (as I understand it) alone claimed to have actually clearly seen the man with the gun. Then, and only then, does Wade indirectly tie in Oswald by the *additional* facts such as the palmprint found in a rather "interesting" location in the apparent SN.

>
> Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
> is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
> of the President."
>
> You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
> ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
> in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.
>

See above.

>
> > He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> > Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> > numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> > School Book Depository.
>
>
> So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
> though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
> addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.
>
> That dog won't hunt.
>

Nor does this silly point by bebs.

> You're telling an outright whopper.
>

No. Bebsy simply cannot grasp the deceptive intent of Lane here. By setting off the statement that several witnesses had reported seeing a gunman as if Wade had actually asserted they reported seeing Oswald, he then proceeds to show how they could *not* have seen Oswald.

But Wade NEVER said "several witnesses claimed to see Oswald". So it's simply a Straw Man to *pretend* he claimed that they did say they could all ID Oswald. Use your brain and think, unlike bebsy and this will become clear.

I am not going to deal with the rest of the drivel It's clear here what's going on. Holmes cannot think, or if he can, he cannot *honestly* admit what he's seeing. Instead he wants to live in a fantasy world where he is bwave and Mark Lane is a "fearless" truth teller.

[BT George]

On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 1:23:18 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> TOP POST Only: they've already headed for the hills, they're gonna want nothing, to do with this -- cowards, all of lone nuttin' believen' whack-jobin' .johnites...

GET OUT OF THE MIRROR THAT BEBS ALWAYS STARES AT TIPSY. And please, please, please SOBER UP!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Bump.