Huckster Proclaims!!! (But Will Run Again - WATCH!)

[Ben Holmes]

> Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.

Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
that's the truth.

Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
otherwise, but he's simply running away now.

And to give a simple example of how Huckster simply cannot tell the
difference between lies and the truth - go here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

There were two documents... one is CLEARLY a lie.

Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY usese the method I described
above.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 9:03:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
>
> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
> that's the truth.
>
> Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
> otherwise, but he's simply running away now.
>
> And to give a simple example of how Huckster simply cannot tell the
> difference between lies and the truth - go here:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>
> There were two documents... one is CLEARLY a lie.
>

No bebsy. One is clearly *not correct*. It is your own predilection to believe a cover up that has you declaring dogmatically one was "a lie". But *nothing* in the evidence Pat Speer (a generally very honest and upright CT) turned up indicates for *certain* anything except that one report or the other was *wrong*.

Does it look bad? Sure. But there you have again the deceptive "plotters" dutifully *documenting* their replacement of the original document. (Not really the best way to keep it covered up forever.) Moreover, Drain *repeatedly* affirmed that it was the *original* document that was the incorrect case, while holding that he had *no idea* why it said what it did. To me, the easiest path those many years later would be for him to have simply said, "Yeah, I must have recorded the findings incorrectly, and it later got corrected." then it all would have gone away. But instead, he leaves himself and the agency under further suspicion by suggesting the original document may have been "a fake". Why do that unless he really *didn't* draw a reprimand and thus really did forget about the original mistake?

> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY usese the method I described
> above.

BTW, Even if the FBI *intentionally* overstated their evidence for the paper bag, does that mean that every part of the evidence against Oswald cannot be trusted? Holmes thinks this sort of thing justifies fantastic flights of fancy into titanic multi-agency-mulit-year "Patsy Plots"? But folks, that just doesn't follow.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:03:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
>
> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
> that's the truth.

That's an unproven assertion by you. Your assertion needs to be proven, not just asserted.
No one needs to disprove your assertion. This assertion is entirely your burden to prove.

>
> Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
> otherwise, but he's simply running away now.

Nonsense. No one has the burden to disprove any of your contentions. This is how you play 'gotcha'. If I reply and point out your errors, you delete them, claiming they are logical fallacies, wasting my time, and declare victory. If I don't respond (for whatever reason, as I have a life outside these boards) you declare victory because of my lack of response. This is merely the logical fallacy of a shifting of the burden of proof. I don't have to "prove otherwise" (i.e., disprove your assertion), you need to prove it. Go ahead, we'll wait. And watch you punt. Or call me a liar, a coward, or simply delete everything and declare the arguments and points I make herein all logical fallacies.

>
> And to give a simple example of how Huckster simply cannot tell the
> difference between lies and the truth - go here:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

The first document listed bears Drain's signature and says the bag matched. That was the document published in the Warren Commission volumes.
The other document was found years later in the archives. Ultimately, neither document is meaningful. He didn't perform the tests. James Cadigan did.

>
> There were two documents... one is CLEARLY a lie.

No, you're assuming one is a lie. That's a begged question and to date is unproven by you.
It's just your assumption based on nothing at all but phrased as a fact.

>
> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other

> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY usese [sic] the method I described
> above.

The one I posted back in the early 1990s on AOL or Compuserve or Prodigy is the best explanation I can find for the two memos. Back in 1963 BC (Before Computers) things had to be typed up on typewriters. Those machines printed each letter as you struck the key. If you mis-typed a key or misspelled a word, you had to backspace, use white-out paper or white-out liquid to remove the original letter(s), and then backspace again to type in the correct word. That's simply the way it was done. It was the only way it could be done.

It's important to note Vincent Drain did not perform the test on the paper, he merely reported the results from the FBI laboratory. Thus, his report has no bearing on the result of the test whatsoever. It's akin to a hearsay report, where person B reports what Person A said. The person who actually performed the tests on the paper bag found in the Depository (CE142) and compared it to the sample taken on the day of the assassination from the Depository paper roll (CE677) was James Cadigan of the FBI Lab in Washington. D.C.

His testimony is quite lengthy concerning all the tests he ran between the paper from the bag and the paper from the sample. I won't quote it here, you can read it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm

I will report his conclusion. Cadigan testified thusly:
-- quote --
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.
Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
-- unquote --

That is the same as Drain's first memo, signed by Drain. It's also the conclusion reported in the Warren Report. It's also what Drain recalls the result was (the article you cite claims that Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document)”.

So why are there two memos by Drain?

We're back to the typewriters vs. personal computers. And you have to be old enough to have worked with typewriters to understand why this second version would exist at all. With a personal computer, you can type up one version of the memo saying they match (or don't), and then, when the results come back from the lab, make the minor change in wording necessary (if any) to agree with the results and print that. Result: One printed copy in the file.

But using a typewriter, you have two options:
1. Wait until the results come back and then type up the result, making corrections to typos using white-out as necessary, or
2. Type up both versions in advance as a common workday work-around as you wait for the lab result and then sign and file the correct one and toss the one that doesn't match the FBI Lab results into the trash. Somehow, in this instance, the second one - the wrong result typed in advance as Drain awaited the lab result from Cadigan - doesn't get tossed into the trash but gets mixed in with other documents and ultimately filed away. Years later, it is discovered in the files and treated as evidence that the FBI was finagling the results. But it's nothing of the sort. It's evidence Drain was busy, and typed up two versions of the result in advance. And the wrong version also got filed away. If you type up both versions and inadvertently file both, you wind up with two different memos in the files years later.

What these two memos tell me, more than anything else , is that conspiracy theorists are desperate to find anything to question the Warren Commission. But they don't challenge the testing done by Cadigan or his testimony. No, they utilize a memorandum for the record filed by someone else entirely to question the FBI laboratory's results and by extension, the Warren Commission's conclusions.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:03:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
>>
>> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
>> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
>> that's the truth.
>
>That's an unproven assertion by you.

Au contraire... I now have 7 posts that prove it... more to come, more
for you to run from.

>Your assertion needs to be proven, not just asserted.

You've been proving it in the series dedicated to PRECISELY this
point.

You've *YET* to show how you accepted the evidence over the WCR.

>No one needs to disprove your assertion. This assertion is entirely your burden to prove.

And thus far, I have. Indeed, you've simply stopped responding to
that series, since you saw that you couldn't prove that what you'd
said was the truth.

>> Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
>> otherwise, but he's simply running away now.
>
>Nonsense.

What part of the above statement is not 100% true?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:03:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
>>
>> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
>> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
>> that's the truth.
>
>That's an unproven assertion by you.

Au contraire... I now have 7 posts that prove it... more to come, more
for you to run from.

>Your assertion needs to be proven, not just asserted.

You've been proving it in the series dedicated to PRECISELY this
point.

You've *YET* to show how you accepted the evidence over the WCR.

>No one needs to disprove your assertion. This assertion is entirely your burden to prove.

And thus far, I have. Indeed, you've simply stopped responding to
that series, since you saw that you couldn't prove that what you'd

said was the truth. You answered the first few, then you saw where it
was going... and you've been running since.

>> Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
>> otherwise, but he's simply running away now.
>
>Nonsense.

What part of the above statement is not 100% true?

>No one has the burden to disprove any of your contentions. This is
>how you play 'gotcha'. If I reply and point out your errors, you
>delete them, claiming they are logical fallacies, wasting my time, and
>declare victory. If I don't respond (for whatever reason, as I have a
>life outside these boards) you declare victory because of my lack of
>response. This is merely the logical fallacy of a shifting of the
>burden of proof. I don't have to "prove otherwise" (i.e., disprove
>your assertion), you need to prove it. Go ahead, we'll wait. And watch
>you punt. Or call me a liar, a coward, or simply delete everything and
>declare the arguments and points I make herein all logical fallacies.

What part of the above word salad refutes what I stated?

You've made assertions, yet you've been completely unable to back them
up when challenged...

Seven times so far...

>> And to give a simple example of how Huckster simply cannot tell the
>> difference between lies and the truth - go here:
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>
> The first document listed bears Drain's signature and says the bag
> matched. That was the document published in the Warren Commission
> volumes.
>
> The other document was found years later in the archives.
> Ultimately, neither document is meaningful. He didn't perform the
> tests. James Cadigan did.

Not a refutation. You've been unable to state how you judge one as
accurate, and the other as a "mistake," or whatever you want to call
it.

>> There were two documents... one is CLEARLY a lie.
>
>No, you're assuming one is a lie. That's a begged question and to date is unproven by you.
>It's just your assumption based on nothing at all but phrased as a fact.

Prove it.

>> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other

>> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I described

>> above.
>
>The one I posted back in the early 1990s on AOL or Compuserve or Prodigy is the best explanation I can find for the two memos. Back in 1963 BC (Before Computers) things had to be typed up on typewriters. Those machines printed each letter as you struck the key. If you mis-typed a key or misspelled a word, you had to backspace, use white-out paper or white-out liquid to remove the original letter(s), and then backspace again to type in the correct word. That's simply the way it was done. It was the only way it could be done.
>
>It's important to note Vincent Drain did not perform the test on the paper, he merely reported the results from the FBI laboratory. Thus, his report has no bearing on the result of the test whatsoever. It's akin to a hearsay report, where person B reports what Person A said. The person who actually performed the tests on the paper bag found in the Depository (CE142) and compared it to the sample taken on the day of the assassination from the Depository paper roll (CE677) was James Cadigan of the FBI Lab in Washington. D.C.
>
>His testimony is quite lengthy concerning all the tests he ran between the paper from the bag and the paper from the sample. I won't quote it here, you can read it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
>
>I will report his conclusion. Cadigan testified thusly:
>-- quote --
>Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?
>Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
>Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?
>Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.
>Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?
>Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
>-- unquote --
>
>That is the same as Drain's first memo, signed by Drain. It's also the conclusion reported in the Warren Report. It's also what Drain recalls the result was (the article you cite claims that Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document)”.
>
>So why are there two memos by Drain?
>
>We're back to the typewriters vs. personal computers. And you have to be old enough to have worked with typewriters to understand why this second version would exist at all. With a personal computer, you can type up one version of the memo saying they match (or don't), and then, when the results come back from the lab, make the minor change in wording necessary (if any) to agree with the results and print that. Result: One printed copy in the file.
>
>But using a typewriter, you have two options:
>1. Wait until the results come back and then type up the result, making corrections to typos using white-out as necessary, or
>2. Type up both versions in advance as a common workday work-around as you wait for the lab result and then sign and file the correct one and toss the one that doesn't match the FBI Lab results into the trash. Somehow, in this instance, the second one - the wrong result typed in advance as Drain awaited the lab result from Cadigan - doesn't get tossed into the trash but gets mixed in with other documents and ultimately filed away. Years later, it is discovered in the files and treated as evidence that the FBI was finagling the results. But it's nothing of the sort. It's evidence Drain was busy, and typed up two versions of the result in advance. And the wrong version also got filed away. If you type up both versions and inadvertently file both, you wind up with two different memos in the files years later.
>
>What these two memos tell me, more than anything else , is that conspiracy theorists are desperate to find anything to question the Warren Commission. But they don't challenge the testing done by Cadigan or his testimony. No, they utilize a memorandum for the record filed by someone else entirely to question the FBI laboratory's results and by extension, the Warren Commission's conclusions.
>
>Hank

As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
described above.

And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.

Run coward... RUN!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 7:23:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:03:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
> >>
> >> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
> >> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
> >> that's the truth.
> >
> >That's an unproven assertion by you.
> Au contraire... I now have 7 posts that prove it... more to come, more
> for you to run from.

No Ben.

1. As you've admitted, you've got an entire series of over 400 posts asserting that every sentence in RUSH TO JUDGMENT is the god's-honest truth. You can post those any time you wish. You think I have time to rebut them all, given that citing and quoting the actual evidence is time-consuming? Only to see you delete the entire post with "logical fallacy deleted" and ignore my points entirely?

2. You're still trying to shift the burden of proof. In every post (or almost every post) you typically post some assertion (whether from Lane or elsewhere) and challenge me to refute your assertion. When I do, you typically ignore the points made and simply call me a liar and coward. Your burden is not met by simply posting assertions, and then claiming my failure to respond to your liking proves your case, but that's exactly what you're doing time after time.

3. I think Bud calls this the 'crooked game you play'. He's right of course. For example, in the Lane #1 thread you started, you have yet to deal with any of the many conflicts I pointed out between how Lane summarized the Julia Ann Mercer reporting versus what the evidence revealed. You've been failing to deal with that evidence for Lane's perfidy in that threat I'm been pointing out since early May and deleting my responses for nearly that long. You then pretend I haven't met my burden. But I have no burden to meet. Your assertions are yours to prove, not mine to disprove, and my lack of response does not indicate I'm running and certainly doesn't indicate your assertions are true.

> >Your assertion needs to be proven, not just asserted.
> You've been proving it in the series dedicated to PRECISELY this
> point.
>
> You've *YET* to show how you accepted the evidence over the WCR.

False dichotomy. In many cases, the evidence and the WC are in agreement.
Where they are not, I follow the evidence. For example, I think Oswald visited the auto dealership about a week before the assassination.
I also think Oswald stopped and visited Sylvia Odio on his trip to Mexico City.
In both cases, I disagree with the WC conclusions.
One example is all I need to establish I accept the evidence over the WCR. You now have two.

> >No one needs to disprove your assertion. This assertion is entirely your burden to prove.
> And thus far, I have. Indeed, you've simply stopped responding to
> that series, since you saw that you couldn't prove that what you'd
> said was the truth.

I have stopped, or I don't live here and post here every day because I have other obligations?

You are again posting your assertion and expecting me to disprove it. But it's your burden to prove, not mine to disprove.

> >> Huckster is being given the opportunity to both deny, and PROVE
> >> otherwise, but he's simply running away now.
> >
> >Nonsense.
> What part of the above statement is not 100% true?

The part where you assume if I don't address your assertions, I have no evidence to the contrary, and the part where you attempt to switch the burden of proof. None of your posts establish what you claim they establish. I have no obligation to address every post of yours. Yet you presume that if I don't, then I am "simply running away now". That's 100% your assertion, and you don't prove it by pointing out I have failed to respond to every point.

> No one has the burden to disprove any of your contentions. This is
> how you play 'gotcha'. If I reply and point out your errors, you
> delete them, claiming they are logical fallacies, wasting my time, and
> declare victory. If I don't respond (for whatever reason, as I have a
> life outside these boards) you declare victory because of my lack of
> response. This is merely the logical fallacy of a shifting of the
> burden of proof. I don't have to "prove otherwise" (i.e., disprove
> your assertion), you need to prove it. Go ahead, we'll wait. And watch
> you punt. Or call me a liar, a coward, or simply delete everything and
> declare the arguments and points I make herein all logical fallacies.

This is what I wrote to you. You don't get to turn around and level the same accusations at me.

I'm not the one deleting your comments and calling them logical fallacies - you are.
I'm not the one posting assertions and claiming you need to rebut them - you are.
I'm not the one repeatedly saying your failure to respond proves my points - you are.
I'm not the one calling you a liar and coward - that's what you typically level at me.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> And to give a simple example of how Huckster simply cannot tell the
> >> difference between lies and the truth - go here:
> >>
> >> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
> >
> >The first document listed bears Drain's signature and says the bag matched. That was the document published in the Warren Commission volumes.
> >The other document was found years later in the archives. Ultimately, neither document is meaningful. He didn't perform the tests. James Cadigan did.
> >

Ben Ignored the above.

> >
> >>
> >> There were two documents... one is CLEARLY a lie.
> >
> >No, you're assuming one is a lie. That's a begged question and to date is unproven by you.
> >It's just your assumption based on nothing at all but phrased as a fact.

Ben ignored the above.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
> >> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY usese [sic] the method I described
> >> above.
> >
> >The one I posted back in the early 1990s on AOL or Compuserve or Prodigy is the best explanation I can find for the two memos. Back in 1963 BC (Before Computers) things had to be typed up on typewriters. Those machines printed each letter as you struck the key. If you mis-typed a key or misspelled a word, you had to backspace, use white-out paper or white-out liquid to remove the original letter(s), and then backspace again to type in the correct word. That's simply the way it was done. It was the only way it could be done.
> >
> >It's important to note Vincent Drain did not perform the test on the paper, he merely reported the results from the FBI laboratory. Thus, his report has no bearing on the result of the test whatsoever. It's akin to a hearsay report, where person B reports what Person A said. The person who actually performed the tests on the paper bag found in the Depository (CE142) and compared it to the sample taken on the day of the assassination from the Depository paper roll (CE677) was James Cadigan of the FBI Lab in Washington. D.C.
> >
> >His testimony is quite lengthy concerning all the tests he ran between the paper from the bag and the paper from the sample. I won't quote it here, you can read it here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
> >
> >I will report his conclusion. Cadigan testified thusly:
> >-- quote --
> >Mr. EISENBERG. Have you now reviewed all the points in which you compared the paper sack obtained from the TSBD, Exhibit 142, and the known sample obtained on November 22, Exhibit 677?
> >Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
> >Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any points of nonidentity?
> >Mr. CADIGAN. No; I found none.
> >Mr. EISENBERG. They were identical on every point on which you measured them?
> >Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
> >-- unquote --
> >
> >That is the same as Drain's first memo, signed by Drain. It's also the conclusion reported in the Warren Report. It's also what Drain recalls the result was (the article you cite claims that Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document)”.
> >
> >So why are there two memos by Drain?
> >
> >We're back to the typewriters vs. personal computers. And you have to be old enough to have worked with typewriters to understand why this second version would exist at all. With a personal computer, you can type up one version of the memo saying they match (or don't), and then, when the results come back from the lab, make the minor change in wording necessary (if any) to agree with the results and print that. Result: One printed copy in the file.
> >
> >But using a typewriter, you have two options:
> >1. Wait until the results come back and then type up the result, making corrections to typos using white-out as necessary, or
> >2. Type up both versions in advance as a common workday work-around as you wait for the lab result and then sign and file the correct one and toss the one that doesn't match the FBI Lab results into the trash. Somehow, in this instance, the second one - the wrong result typed in advance as Drain awaited the lab result from Cadigan - doesn't get tossed into the trash but gets mixed in with other documents and ultimately filed away. Years later, it is discovered in the files and treated as evidence that the FBI was finagling the results. But it's nothing of the sort. It's evidence Drain was busy, and typed up two versions of the result in advance. And the wrong version also got filed away. If you type up both versions and inadvertently file both, you wind up with two different memos in the files years later.
> >
> >What these two memos tell me, more than anything else , is that conspiracy theorists are desperate to find anything to question the Warren Commission. But they don't challenge the testing done by Cadigan or his testimony. No, they utilize a memorandum for the record filed by someone else entirely to question the FBI laboratory's results and by extension, the Warren Commission's conclusions.
> >

Ben ignored the above. Now he's going to say that I'm doing what he claims I'm doing. But there is a difference. When I respond to a post, I address his claims. When he responds to a post, he ignores most of the claims. Case in point above. He asserted "... Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY usese [sic] the method I described".

But I did address it and did utilize the actual evidence [Cadigan's testimony] to establish that one memo is the one that should be accepted. Ben ignored that response entirely.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

I see, looks like the prior post of yours was an inadvertent send. I will start my response at the point I have not addressed yet.

False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.

>
> And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
> the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.

What part of Cadigan's testimony is a logical fallacy? What logical fallacy is that, Ben?

What part of my point is a logical fallacy that Cadigan's testimony is the same as Drain's first memo, signed by Drain. It's also the conclusion reported in the Warren Report. It's also what Drain recalls the result was (the article you cite claims that Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document)”. And what logical fallacy is that, Ben?

What part of pointing out the difference between computers and typewriters is a logical fallacy, and what part of pointing out a typical work-day work-around by typing two versions of the same document while awaiting the results is a logical fallacy? And what logical fallacies are those, Ben?


>
> Run coward... RUN!

And there's the ever-present ad hominem we've all come to expect from Ben. That's a real logical fallacy. That's where you address the person instead of the argument.

[Bud]

Conspiracy hobbyists always look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly. It is how they get to the places they do, nowhere.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 7:23:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:37:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 10:03:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> Just tell me how you know what are the lies, and what is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, we *KNOW* how Huckster does it... he simply reads the WCR,
>>>> and if it's contained there, or supports what's contained there,
>>>> that's the truth.
>>>
>>>That's an unproven assertion by you.
>>
>> Au contraire... I now have 7 posts that prove it... more to come, more
>> for you to run from.
>
>No Ben.

They are currently being posted daily, and are numbered.

Your denials are proven lies.

Why lie, Huckster?

You've made a claim that you've not yet been able to support.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
>> the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
>> described above.
>
>False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.

So you uses the WC testimony.

We know, of course, that it was altered.

http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/FBI_Swipes_the_Evidence.htm


Of course, this is the very thing you argued that you don't do... you
stated:

>You are confusing the Warren Commission conclusions with the Warren
>Commission evidence, as Don did. As I pointed out to Don, reading the 26
>WC volumes of Hearings and Evidence, and the 12 HSCA volumes allowed me to
>form my own opinions about what transpired. In some cases I agree with the
>WC conclusions, in some cases I do not. Try to understand my point before
>you argue against it.

While the testimony is certainly "evidence," it's interesting that you
chose, yet again, only the evidence that supports the WCR.

>> And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
>> the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.
>
>What part of Cadigan's testimony is a logical fallacy? What logical fallacy is that, Ben?

Here's the statement again:

>> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
>> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I described
>> above.

The answer to my question is *NOW* answered, but was not previously.
No-where did you actually ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If you deny this, then QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER that agrees with the
answer you just gave. You assert NOW that you're relying on the
testimony over the FBI documentation.

Of course, this simply prove that I've been right all along... and
you've simply added more evidence to the pile to prove yourself a
liar.

When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.

[Ben Holmes]

Read his answers carefully lurkers - you'll find out that Huckster
Sienzent is indeed a huckster who relys on the WCR rather than the
evidence.

[BT George]

Man *that's* a good explanation and supports the "how" of what I said before. Indeed it explains that he might have never made a *formal* "mistake. It only *turned* into one when the scrap copy didn't get scrapped.
Can I share this on some of the FB groups to show what *real* logically oriented research looks like?

[BT George]

> Conspiracy hobbyists always look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly. It is how they get to the places they do, nowhere (slowly).

See addition as it's so far taken 57 years to arrive at this "destination".

[Bud]

You remove the support and then lie, and say it wasn`t supported. You have no scruples, no honesty and no character. You`re a POS.

[Bud]

He cited evidence. You removed his cites, POS.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

lmfao... you're trapped, with BT George no-less. What-a-way to go and the weekend is here. Suffer fool, SUFFER.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

tut-tut-tut, counselor. righteous indignation plays no roll here, fool. Your best hope for WCR conclusions and acceptance followed .john to purgatory. Enjoy that Phillie humidity.

[Bud]

Says the guy who dreams of sharing a foxhole with shortshit.

[Bud]

Your hobby has ten years, tops, you inebriated idiot.

>Enjoy that Phillie humidity.

Philly, stupid.

[Hank Sienzant]

I didn’t copyright it. Feel free to share anywhere you like.

Hank

[BT George]

The spelling part of Tipsy's brain was damaged---likely irreparably---many moons--and cases--ago. I can feel compassion to a degree. I was going through a stage of tragically bad spelling myself for a few years, but the pandemic and working from home has really helped me catch my ZZZZ's and it seems like I'm doing better now. Maybe Tipsy can sleep it off for the next 2-3 years and then spend the last of his rapidly fading life sounding semi-literate and semi-coherent. (...Then again maybe the aliens really *will* appear soon.)

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:15:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
> >> the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
> >> described above.
> >
> >False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.
> So you uses the WC testimony.
>
> We know, of course, that it was altered.

Asserted but not proven. It’s the logical fallacy of a begged question.


>
> http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/FBI_Swipes_the_Evidence.htm

Begged question therein as well. The Warren Commission gave all witnesses the right to read and correct their testimony. Cardigan took advantage of that to clarify his point. He was asked about something outside his area of expertise. He speculated. When offered the option to clarify, he took that option to make the point he should have made all along... it wasn’t his area of expertise, he had no knowledge of what was going on in that area, and he didn’t want to speculate. The two answers are not in conflict and don’t establish any ‘yes’ was changed to ‘no’, or vice-versa. Or anything of the sort.

>
>
> Of course, this is the very thing you argued that you don't do... you
> stated:
>
> >You are confusing the Warren Commission conclusions with the Warren
> >Commission evidence, as Don did. As I pointed out to Don, reading the 26
> >WC volumes of Hearings and Evidence, and the 12 HSCA volumes allowed me to
> >form my own opinions about what transpired. In some cases I agree with the
> >WC conclusions, in some cases I do not. Try to understand my point before
> >you argue against it.
>
> While the testimony is certainly "evidence," it's interesting that you
> chose, yet again, only the evidence that supports the WCR.

I choice the evidence available. If you have the testimony of another expert that said the bag recovered in the Depository on 11/22/63 did NOT match the sample paper taken from the depository after the assassination, by all means quote him. I remind you that Drain was not qualified as an expert in this area, and his statement therefore isn't evidence.

> >> And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
> >> the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.
> >
> >What part of Cadigan's testimony is a logical fallacy? What logical fallacy is that, Ben?
> Here's the statement again:
> >> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
> >> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I described
> >> above.

False. I used the *evidence* available and quoted it for you. I also pointed out Cadigan’s testimony agreed with Drain’s recollection, and the memo that says they matched is the one in the Warren Report.

> The answer to my question is *NOW* answered, but was not previously.
> No-where did you actually ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I quoted the evidence, which is what I used to reach my conclusion.

>
> If you deny this, then QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER that agrees with the
> answer you just gave. You assert NOW that you're relying on the
> testimony over the FBI documentation.

I’ve been relying in the best evidence all along. In this particular instance, that’s Cadigan’s testimony, the signed document in the Warren Commission volumes, and Drain’s recollection.

>
> Of course, this simply prove that I've been right all along... and
> you've simply added more evidence to the pile to prove yourself a
> liar.

What other *evidence* is there to consider, Ben? The two memos contradict each other. The other evidence all points to the bag paper matching the sample paper.

Let’s hear an argument for why I should consider the non-matching memo the correct one. Got one? Of course not.

>
> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.

No, I’ve established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<apci...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:15:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
>>>> the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
>>>> described above.
>>>
>>>False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.
>> So you uses the WC testimony.
>>
>> We know, of course, that it was altered.
>
>Asserted but not proven. It’s the logical fallacy of a begged question.

Then you're simply illiterate... as the proof was contained in the
citation.


But we both know you're not illiterate... so you're simply a DAMNED
LIAR.

>> http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/FBI_Swipes_the_Evidence.htm
>
> Begged question therein as well. The Warren Commission gave all
> witnesses the right to read and correct their testimony. Cardigan took
> advantage of that to clarify his point. He was asked about something
> outside his area of expertise. He speculated. When offered the option
> to clarify, he took that option to make the point he should have made
> all along... it wasn’t his area of expertise, he had no knowledge of
> what was going on in that area, and he didn’t want to speculate. The
> two answers are not in conflict and don’t establish any ‘yes’ was
> changed to ‘no’, or vice-versa. Or anything of the sort.

So all this amounts to is that you're asserting that the FBI altered
sworn testimony.

And you're doing so on the basis of your own speculation.

You lose!

>> Of course, this is the very thing you argued that you don't do... you
>> stated:
>>
>>>You are confusing the Warren Commission conclusions with the Warren
>>>Commission evidence, as Don did. As I pointed out to Don, reading the 26
>>>WC volumes of Hearings and Evidence, and the 12 HSCA volumes allowed me to
>>>form my own opinions about what transpired. In some cases I agree with the
>>>WC conclusions, in some cases I do not. Try to understand my point before
>>>you argue against it.
>>
>> While the testimony is certainly "evidence," it's interesting that you
>> chose, yet again, only the evidence that supports the WCR.
>
> I choice the evidence available. If you have the testimony of
> another expert that said the bag recovered in the Depository on
> 11/22/63 did NOT match the sample paper taken from the depository
> after the assassination, by all means quote him. I remind you that
> Drain was not qualified as an expert in this area, and his statement
> therefore isn't evidence.

Dance all you want, Huckster, you're simply proving yourself a liar.

>>>> And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
>>>> the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.
>>>
>>>What part of Cadigan's testimony is a logical fallacy? What logical fallacy is that, Ben?
>>
>> Here's the statement again:
>>
>>>> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
>>>> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I described
>>>> above.
>
>False.

True.

>> The answer to my question is *NOW* answered, but was not previously.
>> No-where did you actually ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
>I quoted the evidence, which is what I used to reach my conclusion.

You quoted the WC testimony.

And stayed far away from contradictory evidence.


Notice folks, that Huckster hasn't been able to show that his first
answer WAS NOT a logical fallacy - as I asserted.

>> If you deny this, then QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER that agrees with the
>> answer you just gave. You assert NOW that you're relying on the
>> testimony over the FBI documentation.
>
>I’ve been relying in the best evidence all along.

Yep... you coulldn't do it.

This proves my point is correct, and that you're a liar.

> In this particular instance, that’s Cadigan’s testimony, the signed
> document in the Warren Commission volumes, and Drain’s recollection.

Support your empty claim that it's the "best evidence," rather than
just the WCR's supporting evidence.

>> Of course, this simply prove that I've been right all along... and
>> you've simply added more evidence to the pile to prove yourself a
>> liar.
>
>What other *evidence* is there to consider, Ben?

Are you stupid?

>The two memos contradict each other.

They do indeed. How did you decide which memo was correct?

> The other evidence all points to the bag paper matching the sample paper.

The other wrong evidence supports the faulty claim that the paper
matched.


Notice folks, that I've given equal support for my claim as Huckster
did for his.

> Let’s hear an argument for why I should consider the non-matching
> memo the correct one. Got one? Of course not.

Actually, I do. Which means, of course, that you're a moron.

It's a concept from literary studies that use as a general working
concept that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. (lectio
difficilior lectio potior)

You aren't honest enough to admit that you were wrong, of course.

>> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
>> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.
>
>No, I’ve established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.

Where? Cite or quote it.


>Hank

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:09:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:15:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
> >>>> the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
> >>>> described above.
> >>>
> >>>False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.
> >> So you uses the WC testimony.
> >>
> >> We know, of course, that it was altered.
> >
> >Asserted but not proven. It’s the logical fallacy of a begged question.
> Then you're simply illiterate... as the proof was contained in the
> citation.

You are simply lying, no proof of alterations were offered, merely differing versions.

> But we both know you're not illiterate... so you're simply a DAMNED
> LIAR.
> >> http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/FBI_Swipes_the_Evidence.htm
> >
> > Begged question therein as well. The Warren Commission gave all
> > witnesses the right to read and correct their testimony. Cardigan took
> > advantage of that to clarify his point. He was asked about something
> > outside his area of expertise. He speculated. When offered the option
> > to clarify, he took that option to make the point he should have made
> > all along... it wasn’t his area of expertise, he had no knowledge of
> > what was going on in that area, and he didn’t want to speculate. The
> > two answers are not in conflict and don’t establish any ‘yes’ was
> > changed to ‘no’, or vice-versa. Or anything of the sort.
> So all this amounts to is that you're asserting that the FBI altered
> sworn testimony.

Try rereading what he wrote.

> And you're doing so on the basis of your own speculation.

Applying reasoning to information might seem like magic to you, but people do it all the time.

> You lose!

If speculation isn`t allowed then the issue stays exactly what is in evidence, two versions. Since you ruled out any speculation the issue must stay right there, two versions with no explanation for there being two versions.

Your whole silly hobby dies on the vine without speculation.

> >> Of course, this is the very thing you argued that you don't do... you
> >> stated:
> >>
> >>>You are confusing the Warren Commission conclusions with the Warren
> >>>Commission evidence, as Don did. As I pointed out to Don, reading the 26
> >>>WC volumes of Hearings and Evidence, and the 12 HSCA volumes allowed me to
> >>>form my own opinions about what transpired. In some cases I agree with the
> >>>WC conclusions, in some cases I do not. Try to understand my point before
> >>>you argue against it.
> >>
> >> While the testimony is certainly "evidence," it's interesting that you
> >> chose, yet again, only the evidence that supports the WCR.
> >
> > I choice the evidence available. If you have the testimony of
> > another expert that said the bag recovered in the Depository on
> > 11/22/63 did NOT match the sample paper taken from the depository
> > after the assassination, by all means quote him. I remind you that
> > Drain was not qualified as an expert in this area, and his statement
> > therefore isn't evidence.
> Dance all you want, Huckster, you're simply proving yourself a liar.

Who performed the testing? That you focus on the wrong thing and look at it incorrectly is to be expected.

> >>>> And indeed, Huckster ran... and didn't address this. Although I left
> >>>> the entirety of his answer in, IT WAS ALL A LOGICAL FALLACY.
> >>>
> >>>What part of Cadigan's testimony is a logical fallacy? What logical fallacy is that, Ben?
> >>
> >> Here's the statement again:
> >>
> >>>> Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over the other
> >>>> based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I described
> >>>> above.
> >
> >False.
> True.

You are simply lying, Hank applied reasoning to the available information on the issue. You played your usual crooked games, looking at some information and making empty claims about it.

> >> The answer to my question is *NOW* answered, but was not previously.
> >> No-where did you actually ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> >
> >I quoted the evidence, which is what I used to reach my conclusion.
> You quoted the WC testimony.

And you removed it because you hate the evidence in this case.

> And stayed far away from contradictory evidence.

You insist that other people focus on the wrong things. It is optional, you choose to be an idiot.

> Notice folks, that Huckster hasn't been able to show that his first
> answer WAS NOT a logical fallacy - as I asserted.

Shifting the burden.

If you were a man you would quote what he said, name the fallacy you think he is guilty of and show how it applies. But you are something much less than a man.

> >> If you deny this, then QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER that agrees with the
> >> answer you just gave. You assert NOW that you're relying on the
> >> testimony over the FBI documentation.
> >
> >I’ve been relying in the best evidence all along.
> Yep... you coulldn't do it.

Ben thinks looking at the best available evidence is the wrong approach.

> This proves my point is correct, and that you're a liar.

You`ve never made an honest point in your life.

> > In this particular instance, that’s Cadigan’s testimony, the signed
> > document in the Warren Commission volumes, and Drain’s recollection.
> Support your empty claim that it's the "best evidence," rather than
> just the WCR's supporting evidence.

The case was made. He was the person who conducted the testing. On questions regarding the testing he is the primary source.

> >> Of course, this simply prove that I've been right all along... and
> >> you've simply added more evidence to the pile to prove yourself a
> >> liar.
> >
> >What other *evidence* is there to consider, Ben?
> Are you stupid?

Notice Ben had nothing?

> >The two memos contradict each other.
> They do indeed. How did you decide which memo was correct?

He walked you through his process. You can`t find flaws with it so you huff and puff.

> > The other evidence all points to the bag paper matching the sample paper.
> The other wrong evidence supports the faulty claim that the paper
> matched.

So you decided to cling to the wrong thing, what does it have to do with anyone else if you choose to be a purposeful idiot?

> Notice folks, that I've given equal support for my claim as Huckster
> did for his.

You are simply lying. Hank walked you through his reasoning. You`ve shown no flaws in his reasoning, you just keep talking over, misdirecting, making noise and blowing hot air, your usual schtick.

> > Let’s hear an argument for why I should consider the non-matching
> > memo the correct one. Got one? Of course not.
> Actually, I do. Which means, of course, that you're a moron.

You won`t divulge your crackpot ideas. You are ashamed of them.

> It's a concept from literary studies that use as a general working
> concept that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. (lectio
> difficilior lectio potior)

Leave it to Ben to name something that proves he is wrong on the issue.

> You aren't honest enough to admit that you were wrong, of course.

You refuse to show he was. He made reasoned arguments you couldn`t touch.

> >> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
> >> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.
> >
> >No, I’ve established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.
> Where?

Fringe reset.

>Cite or quote it.

You want to remove it again?

>
> >Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

> >> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
> >> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.
> >
> >No, I’ve established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.
> Where? Cite or quote it.
>

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/G9TT4b14ftU/m/PLWOlRA4AAAJ

Case closed.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:37:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
>>>> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.
>>>

>>>No, I致e established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.

>> Where? Cite or quote it.
>>
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/G9TT4b14ftU/m/PLWOlRA4AAAJ
>
>Case closed.
>
>Hank

Case still open, as I've posted.

[Bud]

How does what you posted advance the idea that a conspiracy took JFK`s life?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 5:09:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:15:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:24:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As I stated: Watch as Huckster can define no reason to accept one over
>>>>>> the other based on actual logic... he ACTUALLY uses the method I
>>>>>> described above.
>>>>>
>>>>>False. I went with the evidence -- Cadigan's testimony -- as opposed to the two hearsay reports by Drain which contradict each other.
>>>>
>>>> So you uses the WC testimony.
>>>>
>>>> We know, of course, that it was altered.
>>>
>>>Asserted but not proven. It’s the logical fallacy of a begged question.
>>
>> Then you're simply illiterate... as the proof was contained in the
>> citation.
>

> You are simply lying...


Chickenshit is so desperate for attention that he keeps answering for
others, yet not actually doing so.

So sad...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:41:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

He "cited" nothing that would show that he supports evidence over the
conclusions of the WCR.

So your whining is simply a logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You remove the support ...


There is no "support" for Huckster's lying claim... he refuses to
support it.

It would be simple to do - simply show evidence he accepts that is
CONTRARY to the WCR's view.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:00:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 25, 2021 at 10:50:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:37:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com>>>
>>

>>>>>> When confronted with contradictory evidence, YOU LOOK FIRST TO THE WCR
>>>>>> TO SEE WHAT TO ACCEPT.
>>>>>

>>>>>No, I?e established that is false by giving two instances where I disagree with the WC conclusions.

>>>> Where? Cite or quote it.
>>>>
>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/G9TT4b14ftU/m/PLWOlRA4AAAJ
>>>
>>>Case closed.
>>>
>>>Hank
>>
>> Case still open, as I've posted.

Logical fallacy deleted.