Can Huckster Tell The Truth? Let's Test It!

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster Sienzant said:

>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.

Let's test that, shall we?

Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...

"The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)

Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?

Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
clipboard was "hidden?"

[Hank Sienzant]

You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.

And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize the clipboard as Oswald's.
Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for weeks, months, or years.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kaiser.htm
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BALL. Now, Frankie, that clipboard you found describe it--what was it?
Mr. KAISER. It was made out of paper and tape and a little piece of pasteboard.
Mr. BALL. Who made it?
Mr. KAISER. I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. KAISER. Well, right after I started there it had been a long time ago [August of 1962].
Mr. BALL. And how was it you weren't using it on this day?
Mr. KAISER. You see, when he first started there
Mr. BALL. Who is "he"?
Mr. KAISER. Lee---when he first started to work there he got my clipboard and started using it.
Mr. BALL. Did you give it to him to use?
Mr. KAISER. No, he just picked it up and started using it and I just went and made me another one.
Mr. BALL. You recognized that clipboard when you saw it?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, because my name was all over it.
Mr. BALL. Your name was on it, too?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You put your name "Frankie Kaiser" on it?
Mr. KAISER. You see, it don't do no good to get a clipboard around here everybody is always running off with it.
Mr. BALL. That's the reason you put your name on it?
Mr. KAISER. He come up and got it and started using it and I just let him keep it and made me another one.
Mr. BALL. Now, here is a picture which is marked in a group of pictures as No. 36, but which I will mark as Exhibit A to your deposition.
(Instrument marked by the reporter as Kaiser Exhibit A, for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Does this show the place where the clipboard was found, or do you know?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found there--it was found on the floor.
Mr. BALL. Where on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Behind these cartons--between there and the wall.
Mr. BALL. Behind which cartons?
Mr. KAISER. Right in here (indicating).
Mr. BALL. Which cartons--it was found behind--are the cartons in the picture--it wasn't found where it is circled there?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found where it circled--there--it was found on the floor.
Mr. BALL. Put a big "X" on the carton behind which it was found.
Mr. KAISER. I'll put it on this one---it was found between that and the wall. (Witness placed "X" on the pictures requested by Counsel Ball.)
Mr. BALL. You have marked an "X" on the carton--between that carton and the wall the clipboard was found.
Mr. KAISER. Yes, between these row of cartons right over there.
...
Mr. BALL. Now, one day you found a clipboard, didn't you?
Mr. KAISER. Yes; it was about a week later. I went upstairs, you see, the corner I found it in--we keep a certain teacher's edition of Catholic handbooks.
Mr. BALL. I didn't quite hear that--Catholic what?
Mr. KAISER. We keep our teacher's edition of Catholic "Think and Do" books.
Mr. BALL. I didn't quite hear that--Catholic what?
Mr. KAISER. We keep our teacher's edition of Catholic books--separated.
Mr. BALL. You do?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir; and I went up there to get a teacher's edition.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. KAISER. On the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Now, what part of the sixth floor is this Catholic edition located?
Mr. KAISER. It was in that corner.
Mr. BALL. And in what corner is that?
Mr. KAISER. Let's see---
Mr. BALL. Without saying north or south, was it near the elevator? Or the stairway?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was right in front of the elevator.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with reference to the stairway?
Mr. KAISER. It was right next to the stairway--right in the corner.
Mr. BALL. Right in the corner next to the stairway, is that right?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir.
== UNQUOTE ==

Here's the photo Kaiser marked (the X at the 5 o'clock position to the circle is where the clipboard was found. It was found on the sixth floor right between the up and down staircases on the sixth floor -- in other words, only a few feet from where the rifle was recovered.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0177b.htm

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Huckster Sienzant said:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Let's test that, shall we?
>>
>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...

And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.

He's PROVABLY lying.

And clearly a coward...

>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
>>
>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
>>
>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
>> clipboard was "hidden?"
>
> You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
>
> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
> the clipboard as Oswald's.
> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
> weeks, months, or years.

This was a simple question - and you evaded it.

I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"

You refused to answer.


I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
the clipboard was "hidden?"

You again refused to answer.

It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
you're lying.

You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
answering.

Quite the coward, aren't you Huckster?

Amusingly, Huckster demonstrates what a liar he is by omitting the
relevant part of Kaiser's testimony.

I invite everyone to read what Huckster quoted above.... then consider
the issue under discussion - whether or not it was "HIDDEN*... and
then read the RELEVANT testimony that I quote:

Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
I just noticed it laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or
6 inches, something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's
the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs
this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by
the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in
front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you
go up.
Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway
down?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)

Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Huckster Sienzant said:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >> Let's test that, shall we?
> >>
> >> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.

Merely your worthless opinion.

> He's PROVABLY lying.
>
> And clearly a coward...
> >> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
> >> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
> >> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
> >> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
> >> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
> >>
> >> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
> >>
> >> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
> >> clipboard was "hidden?"
> >
> > You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
> > Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
> > (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
> > bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
> >
> > And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
> > the clipboard as Oswald's.
> > Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
> > it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
> > and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
> > weeks, months, or years.
> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
>
> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"

Of course it does. He said...

"Mr. KAISER. Behind these cartons--between there and the wall."

> You refused to answer.
>
>
> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
> the clipboard was "hidden?"

One need only look at the exhibit Kaiser marked and see for themselves it was hidden.

Can you see through cardboard boxes?

All they need to do is hit the link, and see that it is merely another case of you being dishonest.

> Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
> Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
> plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
> I just noticed it laying over there.
> Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
> Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
> Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
> Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
> Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
> Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or
> 6 inches, something like that.
> Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
> Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
> Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
> Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.

<snicker> There were no boxes behind the clipboard, only in front of it.

> Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
> Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's
> the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs
> this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by
> the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in
> front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you
> go up.

So there were four or five cardboard boxes in front of the clipboard. The clipboard is in a small space of 5 or 6 inches behind these cardboard boxes. I would say this is a textbook example of "hidden".

> Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway
> down?
> Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)
>
> Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
> raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?

Once more Ben sets out to show the dishonesty of others and merely demonstrates his own.

[Jason Burke]

I bet Davey can. Those pink elephants are translucent, why not boxes?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> Let's test that, shall we?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
>>
>> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
>>

>> He's PROVABLY lying.
>>
>> And clearly a coward...
>>
>>>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
>>>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
>>>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
>>>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
>>>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
>>>>
>>>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
>>>>
>>>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
>>>> clipboard was "hidden?"
>>>
>>> You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
>>> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
>>> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
>>> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
>>>
>>> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
>>> the clipboard as Oswald's.
>>> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
>>> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
>>> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
>>> weeks, months, or years.
>> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
>>
>> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
>
> Of course it does.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

>> You refused to answer.
>>
>>
>> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
>> the clipboard was "hidden?"
>>

>> Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
>> Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
>> plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
>> I just noticed it laying over there.
>> Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
>> Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
>> Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
>> Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
>> Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
>> Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or
>> 6 inches, something like that.
>> Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
>> Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
>> Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
>> Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.

>> Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
>> Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's
>> the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs
>> this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by
>> the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in
>> front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you
>> go up.

[Bud]

A dishonest person like yourself who has no interest in the truth and is only playing silly games with the death of the President might think that.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Huckster Sienzant said:
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >> Let's test that, shall we?
> >>
> >> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.

Begging the question logical fallacy.

>
> He's PROVABLY lying.
​
The logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

> And clearly a coward...

The ad hominem logical fallacy.

​
> >> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
> >> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
> >> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
> >> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
> >> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
> >>
> >> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
> >>
> >> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
> >> clipboard was "hidden?"

I think yes. Kaiser said it wasn't discovered for ten days. Kaiser said it was only because he (Kaiser) had to go to the Catholic School section to get a teacher's edition that he saw it behind the boxes within inches of the wall. The teacher's edition would be accessed less than the student's edition (by about a factor of 20 student editions to one teacher edition). The Catholic School books would be outnumbered by the public school books.

> >You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
> > Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
> > (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
> > bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
> >
> > And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
> > the clipboard as Oswald's.
> > Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
> > it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
> > and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
> > weeks, months, or years.
> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.

No, I just didn't give you the answer you were prepared to rebut. I answered it. You just don't like the answer.

>
> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
>
> You refused to answer.
>

I pointed out you don't need the testimony of Kaiser to answer the question. The fact that it took ten days for anyone to see and report it shows it was well concealed.

>
> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
> the clipboard was "hidden?"
>
> You again refused to answer.

No, I pointed out Kaiser's statement about the clipboard being against the wall, behind boxes, and even posted the link where Kaiser marked the photo. The clipboard was behind the boxes, not in front of the boxes, in a seldom-accessed area that contained the teacher's edition.

>
> It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
> read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
> you're lying.

Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort to poisoning the well.

>
> You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
> logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
> answering.

How is that a logical fallacy? How many people knew Oswald took Kaiser's clipboard and was using it as his own? Kaiser knew. So Kaiser recognized it as the clipboard Oswald had been using since Kaiser trained him. Anyone else, seeing the clipboard, would see Kaiser's name on it, and think it was Frankie Kaiser's clipboard. Only Kaiser understood the significance of the clipboard.

>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Huckster?

Ad hominem is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument, Ben.
Too bad logical fallacies are all you have.

Seems pretty well hidden to me. Now, once you're standing right in that alcove between the two stairwells, you can see it. And that's only when Kaiser saw it. But most people in going up the stairs or down the stairs, would go around the boxes, and avoid the alcove.

>
> Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
> raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?

I established the clipboard was well hidden.
1. It was found in an alcove.
2. It was behind boxes in that alcove.
3. It took ten days for anyone to see it (as far as the evidence reveals).
4. It took the person who created the clipboard to understand its significance. Anyone else wouldn't think it had anything to do with Oswald as it had Kaiser's name on it.

Hank

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you're out of your league, Dud.

[Bud]

When it comes to dishonesty, certainly.

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 5:55:49 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
> No, I just didn't give you the answer you were prepared to rebut. I answered it. You just don't like the answer.
> >

Benny Yellow Pants doesn't understand that the person asking the question is not entitled to
the answer he wants. When he doesn't get the answer he wants, he claims no answer was
given.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> Let's test that, shall we?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
>>
>> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
>
>Begging the question logical fallacy.

You're lying, Huckster.

The test was a simple one - do you use the testimony to drive your
conclusions, or do you use the conclusions of the WC - which
CONTRADICT the evidence, to form your conclusions.

You clearly use the WC conclusions, and cannot admit publicly that the
testimony CONTRADICTS the conclusions that you rely on.

So yes, you failed quite miserably.

It's *NOT* begging the question to point out the obvious.

>> He's PROVABLY lying.
>
>The logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

Of course not... I'm pointing out a FACT that you just validated.

Lie, and explain that you used Kaiser's testimony rather than the
WCR's conclusions...


This is far from the only example...

>> And clearly a coward...
>
>The ad hominem logical fallacy.

Nope. This is the simple description of someone who PROVABLY ran away
from answering the two questions.

By calling this example a logical fallacy, you're denying the
legitimacy of the word "coward," or the actions of cowardice.

By *YOUR* logic, it wouldn't exist.


But you PROVABLY refused to answer the questions in your first
response.

That is a textbook definition of coward, isn't it Huckster?

>>>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
>>>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
>>>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
>>>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
>>>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
>>>>
>>>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
>>>>
>>>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
>>>> clipboard was "hidden?"
>
> I think yes. Kaiser said it wasn't discovered for ten days.

So you finally answer, then immediately commit a logical fallacy.

Known as begging the question - you propose that the clipboard *WAS*
there the whole time, yet you fail to offer any evidence for that
assertion.

> Kaiser said it was only because he (Kaiser) had to go to the Catholic
> School section to get a teacher's edition that he saw it behind the
> boxes within inches of the wall.

If he only went to the 6th floor. If he only went to work that day...
if he hadn't been fired.

Speculation is merely that.

> The teacher's edition would be accessed less than the student's
> edition (by about a factor of 20 student editions to one teacher
> edition). The Catholic School books would be outnumbered by the public
> school books.

Again begging the question... you merely presume what you can't
support.

>>>You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
>>> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
>>> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
>>> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
>>>
>>> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
>>> the clipboard as Oswald's.
>>> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
>>> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
>>> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
>>> weeks, months, or years.
>
>> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
>
> No, I just didn't give you the answer you were prepared to rebut. I answered it. You just don't like the answer.

And yet, PROVABLY you addressed that question this time. So you're
simply lying again, Huckster.

QUOTE your answer to the question: "Did the testimony of Kaiser
support that statement?"

Let's see if **ANYONE** would agree that you answered it.

>> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
>>
>> You refused to answer.
>>
>
>I pointed out you don't need the testimony of Kaiser to answer the question.

That implies that the answer is "no" - but it's not a definitive yes
or no answer.

So now you're admitting that you DID NOT answer my question.

Tell us Huckster, are you getting confused with your own lies?

> The fact that it took ten days for anyone to see and report it shows
> it was well concealed.

Begging the question again.

Why do you keep using logical fallacies to make your arguments,
Huckster?

>> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
>> the clipboard was "hidden?"
>>
>> You again refused to answer.
>
> No, I pointed out Kaiser's statement about the clipboard being
> against the wall, behind boxes, and even posted the link where Kaiser
> marked the photo. The clipboard was behind the boxes, not in front of
> the boxes, in a seldom-accessed area that contained the teacher's
> edition.

Again, a non-answer.

I *know* what you did, I read it here. I also know what you DID NOT
DO... which was to answer my two questions.

And now it's clear why... you use the WCR's conclusions as your own,
even when it contradicts the evidence.

>> It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
>> read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
>> you're lying.
>
> Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort
> to poisoning the well.


Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort to

logical fallacies in place of argument. (or answers...)

>> You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
>> logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
>> answering.
>
> How is that a logical fallacy?

Tell everyone publicly that you don't know what "moving the goalpost"
is.

>> Quite the coward, aren't you Huckster?

Huckster whines... but logical fallacies won't work.

And had *NOTHING* to say regarding that lie!!!

Seems pretty clear that you intentionally omitted the testimony that
contradicts your faith.

Lied... didn't you?

And got caught at it.

>> Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
>> raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?
>
>I established the clipboard was well hidden.

No... you didn't.

The testimony shows that it wasn't.

You have proven yourself a liar.

And a coward.


>Hank


Notice folks, that Huckster had nothing to say about his failure to
quote the RELEVANT testimony!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
> >>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's test that, shall we?
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
> >>
> >> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
> >
> >Begging the question logical fallacy.
> You're lying, Huckster.

Poisoning the well is still a logical fallacy, Ben.

>
> The test was a simple one - do you use the testimony to drive your
> conclusions, or do you use the conclusions of the WC - which
> CONTRADICT the evidence, to form your conclusions.

I use the evidence to drive the conclusions. Not the opinion of one witness.
Why are you limiting it to Kaiser's opinion in this instance?

>
> You clearly use the WC conclusions, and cannot admit publicly that the
> testimony CONTRADICTS the conclusions that you rely on.

The totality of the evidence suggests the clipboard was well hidden.

>
> So yes, you failed quite miserably.
>
> It's *NOT* begging the question to point out the obvious.

It's begging the question to assert something you haven't proven as a given.

> >> He's PROVABLY lying.
> >
> >The logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
> Of course not... I'm pointing out a FACT that you just validated.
>
> Lie, and explain that you used Kaiser's testimony rather than the
> WCR's conclusions...

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy.

>
>
> This is far from the only example...
> >> And clearly a coward...
> >
> >The ad hominem logical fallacy.
> Nope. This is the simple description of someone who PROVABLY ran away
> from answering the two questions.

I answered them and supported them with facts, testimony, and reasoning.
It's not my fault if you

>
> By calling this example a logical fallacy, you're denying the
> legitimacy of the word "coward," or the actions of cowardice.
>
> By *YOUR* logic, it wouldn't exist.

Not agreeing with your loaded and limited question is not cowardice.

You limited the choices to Kaiser's testimony. I utilized other evidence and spelled out how it affected my decision.

>
>
> But you PROVABLY refused to answer the questions in your first
> response.

I answered it. Just not in the want you anticipated.

>
> That is a textbook definition of coward, isn't it Huckster?

Not really. I looked up coward in the dictionary and it doesn't say "Anyone Ben Holmes accuses of cowardice".

> >>>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
> >>>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
> >>>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
> >>>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
> >>>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
> >>>>
> >>>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
> >>>>
> >>>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
> >>>> clipboard was "hidden?"
> >
> > I think yes. Kaiser said it wasn't discovered for ten days.
> So you finally answer, then immediately commit a logical fallacy.
>
> Known as begging the question - you propose that the clipboard *WAS*
> there the whole time, yet you fail to offer any evidence for that
> assertion.

Hilarious. It's the clipboard that Oswald was using. According to Kaiser. The last time Oswald was in the Depository was Friday, shortly after the assassination. Please provide the evidence I've overlooked that anyone handled it in the interim. If you have none, admit that and we can proceed from there.

> > Kaiser said it was only because he (Kaiser) had to go to the Catholic
> > School section to get a teacher's edition that he saw it behind the
> > boxes within inches of the wall.
> If he only went to the 6th floor. If he only went to work that day...
> if he hadn't been fired.
>
> Speculation is merely that.

What did I say that was speculation above? You offered plenty immediately above. But I pointed out a fact.

> > The teacher's edition would be accessed less than the student's
> > edition (by about a factor of 20 student editions to one teacher
> > edition). The Catholic School books would be outnumbered by the public
> > school books.
> Again begging the question... you merely presume what you can't
> support.

I'm sorry, you need to support what now, that teachers are outnumbered by students in Catholic schools? That public schools outnumber Catholic schools?

> >>>You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
> >>> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
> >>> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
> >>> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
> >>>
> >>> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
> >>> the clipboard as Oswald's.
> >>> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
> >>> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
> >>> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
> >>> weeks, months, or years.
> >
> >> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
> >
> > No, I just didn't give you the answer you were prepared to rebut. I answered it. You just don't like the answer.
> And yet, PROVABLY you addressed that question this time. So you're
> simply lying again, Huckster.
>
> QUOTE your answer to the question: "Did the testimony of Kaiser
> support that statement?"
>
> Let's see if **ANYONE** would agree that you answered it.

== QUOTE ==

You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.

And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize the clipboard as Oswald's.
Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for weeks, months, or years.

== UNQUOTE ==

> >> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
> >>
> >> You refused to answer.

Asked and answered. It's immediately above. I'm not limited to your artificial begging of the question. I considered all the evidence and pointed it out in my response.

> >>
> >
> >I pointed out you don't need the testimony of Kaiser to answer the question.
> That implies that the answer is "no" - but it's not a definitive yes
> or no answer.
>
> So now you're admitting that you DID NOT answer my question.

False.

>
> Tell us Huckster, are you getting confused with your own lies?
> > The fact that it took ten days for anyone to see and report it shows
> > it was well concealed.
> Begging the question again.

How so, Ben? If it wasn't well-concealed, it would have been seen sooner, wouldn't it?
Do you dispute the testimony of Kaiser that said the clipboard was behind the boxes in that alcove?
Could you see the clipboard walking past the alcove? Could anyone short of Superman with x-ray vision see the clipboard behind the boxes unless they entered the alcove proper?

>
> Why do you keep using logical fallacies to make your arguments,
> Huckster?

Begging the question is still a logical fallacy, Ben.

> >> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
> >> the clipboard was "hidden?"
> >>
> >> You again refused to answer.
> >
> > No, I pointed out Kaiser's statement about the clipboard being
> > against the wall, behind boxes, and even posted the link where Kaiser
> > marked the photo. The clipboard was behind the boxes, not in front of
> > the boxes, in a seldom-accessed area that contained the teacher's
> > edition.
> Again, a non-answer.

Hilarious. How does pointing out Kaiser's statement, and the link to the photo, not answer the question: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?" (that the package was hidden?)

>
> I *know* what you did, I read it here. I also know what you DID NOT
> DO... which was to answer my two questions.

Your second question was 'Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
clipboard was "hidden?" '

I believe my initial response makes it clear the only correct answer is "yes", although I didn't express it in a manner that will satisfy you (of course, none of my responses ever satisfy you).

Snippers gotta snip. We all know what's coming, Ben. You're going to declare I'm committing a host of logical fallacies, and snip nearly everything I write. Watch.

>
> And now it's clear why... you use the WCR's conclusions as your own,
> even when it contradicts the evidence.

Nonsense. Rebut the facts I presented instead of arguing that I'm a liar and a coward. You haven't even tried to do that. The facts are those in my initial post in this thread.

> >> It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
> >> read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
> >> you're lying.
> >
> > Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort
> > to poisoning the well.
>
>
> Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort to
> logical fallacies in place of argument. (or answers...)

Here's what I'm using to make my point:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/HOoo2vXZq5s/m/vMw8CHgpAgAJ

> >> You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
> >> logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
> >> answering.
> >
> > How is that a logical fallacy?
> Tell everyone publicly that you don't know what "moving the goalpost"
> is.

I know what moving the goalpost is, and you're doing it now. You asked two questions initially, and those have been answered.

> >> Quite the coward, aren't you Huckster?

Ah. You snipped my response, which pointed out your ad hominem logical fallacy.

> Huckster whines... but logical fallacies won't work.

Which is why you always lose here. Above is another logical fallacy by you.

What do you deem the relevant portion of Kaiser's testimony? The fact that the clipboard wasn't visible to Kaiser until he went in the alcove? The fact that the clipboard was discovered behind some boxes, out of sight of anyone not in the alcove?

Seems pretty clear that confirms the location behind the boxes, not in front of the boxes.

>
> Lied... didn't you?
>
> And got caught at it.

Hilarious. The only one not telling the truth here is you, Ben. Kaiser's testimony clearly puts the found clipboard behind boxes in the alcove. And therefore hidden. And the fact that Kaiser only found it when he had to go to the alcove to retrieve a specific book shows everyone how well hidden it was.

> >> Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
> >> raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?
> >
> >I established the clipboard was well hidden.
> No... you didn't.

Well, not to your satisfaction, but then, that wasn't the challenge.

Your second question was ' Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
clipboard was "hidden?" '

Did anyone see the clipboard before Kaiser saw it, only after he entered the alcove? If not, then the clipboard was not just hidden, but well-hidden. If you can cite for anyone else seeing it prior to Kaiser, I'd love to see that citation. But you have nothing. So you quibble over my wording in my response. We're not fooled by that, and you're not the best judge of what is reasonable.

>
> The testimony shows that it wasn't.

On the contrary, Kaiser's testimony and the photo he marked, and the fact that it took ten days after the assassination for anyone to find it, shows it was.

>
> You have proven yourself a liar.
>
> And a coward.

No, you've established you have nothing except logical fallacies like ad hominem, begging the question, moving the goalposts, and poisoning the well.

At no point did you try to rebut the testimony of Kaiser I presented, the photo marked by Kaiser I presented, the fact that I presented that the clipboard was not found for ten days, and the fact that Kaiser was the only employee who could recognize the significance of that clipboard since it bore Kaiser's name, not Oswald's.

I see nothing where you rebutted any of that.

>
>
> >Hank
>
>
> Notice folks, that Huckster had nothing to say about his failure to
> quote the RELEVANT testimony!

I quoted the relevant testimony. You just don't like where it leads. And where it leads is to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Oswald hid the clipboard he was using near the same stairwell the rifle was hidden.

Now I suppose you'll want me to show the rifle was hidden. Hilarious!

Hank

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:57:45 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:

[...]

I quoted the relevant testimony. You just don't like where it leads. And where it leads is to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Oswald hid the clipboard he was using near the same stairwell the rifle was hidden.
>

[...]
> Hank

Hank you wrote a fuckin' book -- be gentle with yourself, guy.

This isn't an audition. We know you're a LHO did it all by his lonesome whack-job!

[Hank Sienzant]

I responded to Ben's points with evidence and facts. If you don't like my long responses, tell Ben to stop committing so many logical fallacies.

[BT George]

The length isn't his problem. *Reading comprehension* is.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
> >>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's test that, shall we?
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
> >>
> >> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
> >
> >Begging the question logical fallacy.
> You're lying, Huckster.
>
> The test was a simple one -

The "test" is just another one of your crooked games. How can a dishonest person like yourself ever appoint themselves to be a judge of honesty?

> do you use the testimony to drive your
> conclusions, or do you use the conclusions of the WC - which
> CONTRADICT the evidence, to form your conclusions.

Ben the Angry Dwarf is mad because the WC can figure out a simple think like the clipboard was hidden and he cannot.

> You clearly use the WC conclusions, and cannot admit publicly that the
> testimony CONTRADICTS the conclusions that you rely on.

This is why Johnson didn`t tap idiots to conduct the investigation, they can`t figure out that a clipboard in a cubbyhole area behind some boxes is hidden.

> So yes, you failed quite miserably.
>
> It's *NOT* begging the question to point out the obvious.
> >> He's PROVABLY lying.
> >
> >The logical fallacy of poisoning the well.
> Of course not... I'm pointing out a FACT that you just validated.
>
> Lie, and explain that you used Kaiser's testimony rather than the
> WCR's conclusions...

You lied when you said they were incompatible.

> This is far from the only example...

Of your dishonesty.

> >> And clearly a coward...
> >
> >The ad hominem logical fallacy.
> Nope. This is the simple description of someone who PROVABLY ran away
> from answering the two questions.

Proven to your satisfaction, a meaningless criteria.

> By calling this example a logical fallacy, you're denying the
> legitimacy of the word "coward," or the actions of cowardice.

You are certainly a legitimate coward, Yellowpanties.

> By *YOUR* logic, it wouldn't exist.
>
>
> But you PROVABLY refused to answer the questions in your first
> response.

You are PROVABLY not a man. When a man makes an argument, he will state his proposition and give the support for his idea without anyone involved in the process. When a child makes an argument it consists of phony challenges and silly gameplaying.

> That is a textbook definition of coward, isn't it Huckster?
> >>>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
> >>>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
> >>>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
> >>>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
> >>>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
> >>>>
> >>>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
> >>>>
> >>>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
> >>>> clipboard was "hidden?"
> >
> > I think yes. Kaiser said it wasn't discovered for ten days.
> So you finally answer, then immediately commit a logical fallacy.
>
> Known as begging the question - you propose that the clipboard *WAS*
> there the whole time, yet you fail to offer any evidence for that
> assertion.

Maybe elves put it there, but the most reasonable conclusion is that it was there the whole time, left by Oswald. Another reason idiots aren`t tapped for investigations.

> > Kaiser said it was only because he (Kaiser) had to go to the Catholic
> > School section to get a teacher's edition that he saw it behind the
> > boxes within inches of the wall.
> If he only went to the 6th floor. If he only went to work that day...
> if he hadn't been fired.

The evidence Hank is referring to indicates that a fairly unusual occurrence took Kaiser to this out of the way location. You can`t reason and you hate that others can.

> Speculation is merely that.

Reasoned inference. If everyone could do it there would be no conspiracy hobbyists.

> > The teacher's edition would be accessed less than the student's
> > edition (by about a factor of 20 student editions to one teacher
> > edition). The Catholic School books would be outnumbered by the public
> > school books.
> Again begging the question... you merely presume what you can't
> support.

Don`t you presume that the police must have looked behind those boxes when they were looking for the rifle?

> >>>You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
> >>> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
> >>> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
> >>> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
> >>>
> >>> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
> >>> the clipboard as Oswald's.
> >>> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
> >>> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
> >>> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
> >>> weeks, months, or years.
> >
> >> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
> >
> > No, I just didn't give you the answer you were prepared to rebut. I answered it. You just don't like the answer.
> And yet, PROVABLY you addressed that question this time. So you're
> simply lying again, Huckster.
>
> QUOTE your answer to the question: "Did the testimony of Kaiser
> support that statement?"

It does.

> Let's see if **ANYONE** would agree that you answered it.

Maybe you removed it. When I answered and quoted Kaiser`s testimony you merely removed it.

> >> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
> >>
> >> You refused to answer.
> >>
> >
> >I pointed out you don't need the testimony of Kaiser to answer the question.
> That implies that the answer is "no" - but it's not a definitive yes
> or no answer.
>
> So now you're admitting that you DID NOT answer my question.

You asked loaded questions.

And you asked two questions, the other being this...

"Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
clipboard was "hidden?"

Much of what Hank produced spoke to this.

> Tell us Huckster, are you getting confused with your own lies?
> > The fact that it took ten days for anyone to see and report it shows
> > it was well concealed.
> Begging the question again.

The ability to reason is not a fallacy.

> Why do you keep using logical fallacies to make your arguments,
> Huckster?
> >> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
> >> the clipboard was "hidden?"
> >>
> >> You again refused to answer.
> >
> > No, I pointed out Kaiser's statement about the clipboard being
> > against the wall, behind boxes, and even posted the link where Kaiser
> > marked the photo. The clipboard was behind the boxes, not in front of
> > the boxes, in a seldom-accessed area that contained the teacher's
> > edition.
> Again, a non-answer.

Speaks directly to the issue, but Ben rules it out of bounds. This PROVES Ben cannot discuss ideas and is only interested in silly gameplaying.

> I *know* what you did, I read it here. I also know what you DID NOT
> DO... which was to answer my two questions.

He spoke directly to both, using the *EVIDENCE*. You know, the stuff you ignore when it goes against your silly idea but then lie, and claim you are following.

> And now it's clear why... you use the WCR's conclusions as your own,
> even when it contradicts the evidence.
> >> It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
> >> read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
> >> you're lying.
> >
> > Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort
> > to poisoning the well.
>
>
> Clearly you don't have anything to rebut my points, so you resort to
> logical fallacies in place of argument. (or answers...)

If you were a man you would make the case that the WC lied when they claimed Kaiser indicated the clipboard was hidden. And then we would just counter your silly notion with the actual evidence that shows it was.

> >> You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
> >> logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
> >> answering.
> >
> > How is that a logical fallacy?
> Tell everyone publicly that you don't know what "moving the goalpost"
> is.

It not being found speaks directly to it being hidden. That you don`t accept such simple reasoning is of no consequence.

Who cares about your opinion about what is relevant?

You assume what you haven`t shown, a contradiction. The photographs corroborate his testimony, and both show the clipboard was hidden.

> Lied... didn't you?
>
> And got caught at it.

We don`t need to wait until the stupid kids in the class figure out the clipboard was hidden.

> >> Now tell us Huckster... why do you refuse to answer the questions I
> >> raise, and why did you provably lie by omission?
> >
> >I established the clipboard was well hidden.
> No... you didn't.
>
> The testimony shows that it wasn't.

To you. But to ant intelligent reader being in a small area behind boxes is a classic example of "hidden".

> You have proven yourself a liar.
>
> And a coward.

Who cares about your opinion?

> >Hank
>
>
> Notice folks, that Huckster had nothing to say about his failure to
> quote the RELEVANT testimony!

How is Kaiser saying it was behind boxes not relevant to it being hidden? How is Kaiser marking a photo showing the location of the clipboard not relevant to it being hidden.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:57:43 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Kaiser is the **ONLY** eyewitness who testified to the finding of the
clipboard.

He quite clearly did *NOT* describe it as "hidden."

You're clearly a liar, you *DO* use the WCR's conclusions... and not
the evidence.

I deleted the rest of the post without bothering to read it - because
when you're *THIS* dishonest right at the beginning, who knows how bad
your lies will get?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:09:29 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:57:45 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I quoted the relevant testimony. You just don't like where it leads. And where it leads is to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Oswald hid the clipboard he was using near the same stairwell the rifle was hidden.
>> >
>> [...]
>> > Hank
>>
>> Hank you wrote a fuckin' book -- be gentle with yourself, guy.
>>
>> This isn't an audition. We know you're a LHO did it all by his lonesome whack-job!
>
>I responded to Ben's points with evidence and facts.

Actually, you ran in your very first post from answering the only two
questions that the topic consisted of.

You've already proven the point, but I'll keep hammering it home.

And the funny thing is, it's *YOU* that's making the point.

[Hank Sienzant]

He said it was out in the open, but he also described it as behind boxes in a small alcove. I can reconcile those. Can you?

I reconcile that but understanding he was saying it wasn't hidden when you are in that alcove, near that wall. It was clearly visible then. But for most people, walking past that alcove, behind those boxes, is it hidden? They cannot see it, and the photograph doesn't show it. There are boxes that block it from being seen. That's how I reconcile his statements.

Let's hear how you reconcile them. You can't. You will insist (as you're doing now), his description takes precedence over the fact that nobody said 'boo' about the clipboard for ten days, and takes precedence over the fact that the clipboard was in a seldom-accessed area, and takes precedence over the fact that the photo he marked shows the clipboard was well-hidden behind boxes.

>
> You're clearly a liar, you *DO* use the WCR's conclusions... and not
> the evidence.

You're clearly desperate to make a point. So you ignore my actual argument, substitute a strawman argument, and kick the crap out of the argument I didn't advance.

>
> I deleted the rest of the post without bothering to read it - because
> when you're *THIS* dishonest right at the beginning, who knows how bad
> your lies will get?

You deleted the rest of the post because it makes clear your initial argument is nonsense. And you have no rebuttal. So you ignore it and pretend you need not rebut the points made.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:28:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:09:29 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:57:45 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> I quoted the relevant testimony. You just don't like where it leads. And where it leads is to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Oswald hid the clipboard he was using near the same stairwell the rifle was hidden.
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >> > Hank
> >>
> >> Hank you wrote a fuckin' book -- be gentle with yourself, guy.
> >>
> >> This isn't an audition. We know you're a LHO did it all by his lonesome whack-job!
> >
> >I responded to Ben's points with evidence and facts.
> Actually, you ran in your very first post from answering the only two
> questions that the topic consisted of.

Untrue. I pointed out exactly how I reached the conclusion I reached.

Here it is again:
==== QUOTE ====

==== UNQUOTE ====

You hate that the facts of the case back up my conclusions (and that of the Warren Commission) in this instance. I don't always agree with the Warren Commission's conclusions, but I think overall they did a very good job and reached the correct conclusion.

>
> You've already proven the point, but I'll keep hammering it home.
>
> And the funny thing is, it's *YOU* that's making the point.

Yes, I'm making the point that your arguments are nonsense, and the evidence establishes that.
By all means, keep hammering that home.

[Hank Sienzant]

My god, you’ve been rebutting this particular point of Ben’s for over a decade!
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1P-3o5kjE9k/m/VGJQemJcngEJ

And he’s still no closer to accepting the facts of the case. A decade! You have far more stamina for Ben’s nonsense than I do. After a while, I have to tap out for a bit because Ben’s game-playing takes too much time to straighten out.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:57:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:28:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:09:29 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:57:45 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> I quoted the relevant testimony. You just don't like where it leads. And where it leads is to the reasonable and logical conclusion that Oswald hid the clipboard he was using near the same stairwell the rifle was hidden.
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Hank
>>>>
>>>> Hank you wrote a fuckin' book -- be gentle with yourself, guy.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't an audition. We know you're a LHO did it all by his lonesome whack-job!
>>>
>>>I responded to Ben's points with evidence and facts.
>>
>> Actually, you ran in your very first post from answering the only two
>> questions that the topic consisted of.
>
>Untrue.

Then QUOTE your very first answer, let's see if it compares to your
SECOND answer.


But you can't... you know you're lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:52:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>He said it was out in the open...

You didn't refute what I stated. Indeed, you agreed.

And, moving BACK to the point I made - He was the *ONLY* eyewitness

to the finding of the clipboard.

Why did you whine about my use of the *ONLY* eyewitness?

[Hank Sienzant]

See what I mean when I said, "And he’s still no closer to accepting the facts of the case. A decade! You have far more stamina for Ben’s nonsense than I do. After a while, I have to tap out for a bit because Ben’s game-playing takes too much time to straighten out."

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>See what I mean...

Logical fallacy deleted.

When Huckster has to rely on logical fallacies, you know that HE knows
he lost.

Huckster *KNOWS* for a fact that Kaiser was the only witness to the
finding of the clipboard.

Yet can't publicly admit that he tried to evade that fact.

[Chuck Schuyler]

You've been harping on this for years.

Are you able to take the missing/discovered clipboard issue anywhere?

You bring up the same stuff over and over and over again.

Why don't you offer an explanation for what you see as problematic with the clipboard issue? Let's hear your "take" on it. Otherwise it's just another eristic argument on your part. You argue for the sake of conflict instead of clarity. Constant knots to untangle. Constant tar babies to fight. Round and round you go, desperately trying to keep the wobbly conspiracy plates spinning on their sticks. Today it's the clipboard, tomorrow it's Chaney, next week it's the 6.5mm object in the x-ray, next month it's the Parkland doctor recollections, and on and on and on it goes.

Endlessly addressed, but never to your satisfaction.

[Ben Holmes]

Nope. This is a COMPLETELY NEW topic. Never before have I taken
Huckster's assertion that he relies on the evidence, and used this
topic to prove that he's a liar.


And you'll **NEVER** cite where this was done before.

You're clearly too stupid to understand this fact... all you saw was
"clipboard" and your mind went blank.

>Are you able to take the missing/discovered clipboard issue anywhere?

Certainly... I just used this issue to prove that Huckster's a liar.

With his help, of course.

>You bring up the same stuff over and over and over again.

Has something changed? Did believers suddenly come up with a credible
explanation for the known historical evidence?


>Why don't you offer an explanation ...


Nope. This is YOUR burden.

Carry your burden, Chuckles!

[Bud]

Maybe not even that. This is what he said...

"Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
I just noticed it laying over there."

His first "plain open" utterance he restarted, and ended the thought with "plain open boxes".

[Bud]

You haven`t this time either. All you`ve proven is you are too stupid to figure out that this clipboard was hidden from view.

[BT George]

So bebs theory, is that when Frankie Kaiser said it was in the "plain open" he meant there was no obscuring of view at all. Much like it was in the dead open in the middle of the floor not tucked away in any kind of enclave. So what does he think it means when he said thinks like "the corner I found it in" and "just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space **back there**.? To me it indicates it was in a certain area surrounded by boxes that were in the way (obscuring easy view) until you went back into the middle of them and saw what was lying between them. How else does goof think it took so long to find it?

And if the "evil plotters" were making this up, shouldn't they have planted a clipboard with Oz's name on it; thus making it clear it had belonged to him rather than having to rely on another employee to say "it was mine originally, but then he started using it." thus leaving it up to the imagination if he had continued to do so? But these ABO clowns never think of stuff like that in running their giant Patsy Plots.

[Bud]

It isn`t clear to me that is even the concept Kaiser was going for. This is the testimony...

"Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
I just noticed it laying over there."

So one reading of this is that he started a concept, stopped in midsentence and restarted the concept to it`s completion. Because if it isn`t that he was expressing two *separate* concepts using almost all the same words.

My reading of it is he started the concept...

"Just laying there in the plain open--"

Not happy with the way the concept is being expressed, stops, searches for words and restarts...

"Just laying there in the plain open boxes..."

The first part was an incomplete thought and the second part is the finished version.

The concept still isn`t clear, but these folks weren`t accustomed to being interrogated.

>Much like it was in the dead open in the middle of the floor not tucked away in any kind of enclave. So what does he think it means when he said thinks like "the corner I found it in" and "just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space **back there**.? To me it indicates it was in a certain area surrounded by boxes that were in the way (obscuring easy view) until you went back into the middle of them and saw what was lying between them. How else does goof think it took so long to find it?

I think it is an out of the way area where they kept the books they didn`t need to go to often. I also suspect the clipboard was there because that is where Oswald hid the rifle, knowing that was a seldom used area. Bringing it up to the sixth he would have to ditch it right away so he could scout the floor, he couldn`t just wander around carrying it.

Seems the rifle could have been stood up back there behind the tall stack of books, being in paper it wouldn`t stand out and it probably didn`t need to stay hid for a long time.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0177b.htm

The clipboard is a physical clue that Oswald was there, and he didn`t really need to hide it, he could leave it anywhere. This is why I think it could mean he had both the clipboard and the paper covered rifle, and left the clipboard there when he retrieved the rifle.

[BT George]

Good analysis and I agree the comments are unclear. I am reading between the lines to make an assumption (though reasonable) that the clipboard wasn't just sitting there as detectives, press, and employees walked around it for a couple of weeks and no one picked it up or looked at it. That's why I assume that he is trying to communicate, it wasn't "hidden" where it was, but where it was did obscure easy view unless you were looking there. CT's will say that's because it wasn't there and was later planted to be found. But that get's back to why wait two weeks, why leave it unsigned by Oswald, and if not signed, how could they hope the first person to find it would be the one employee who could give reason to believe it belonged to Oswald.

[Bud]

Ben tries to make a big deal out of the clipboard not being found during the search for the rifle. Two things about that, why would they necessarily notice such a mundane item while looking for a murder weapon, and that the rifle might have been found before that area was even searched.

I went to the Texas History archives looking for photo of the area and all I could find was the stairway. Where the stack of boxes was that the clipboard was *hidden* behind was between the stairs going up to the seventh floor and the elevators. A photo of the stairway, the boxes would be to the right of the window seen to the right...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49527/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=1&lat=1769&lon=1050

Floor plan of the sixth floor of the TSBD...

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49453/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=0.5&lat=2582&lon=823.5

[Bud]

Looking at the orientation of things it seems I had the location wrong. I found a better image of where the clipboard was found then Hank produced...

https://www.altereddimensions.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/image17.png

I thought it was the elevators to the right, when actually it was the stairs going up to the seventh. So straight ahead is a wall, and on the other side of that wall are the steps going down to the fifth.

This photo would have been taken at position 36 here...

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QcB4S5GEeW4/WRkmMEswP4I/AAAAAAABLzs/SB9iS0CtnIATySUX-6rxzavMXE5cCbPigCLcB/s1600/TSBD-Floor-Plan-Sixth-Floor.png

Kudos to DVP once more!

[BT George]

Yeah. I have actually seen that in person, but couldn't remember quite how it looked. Makes it rather obvious why it wasn't so easily seen.

> Floor plan of the sixth floor of the TSBD...
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49453/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=0.5&lat=2582&lon=823.5

Thanks Bud.

[BT George]

I think the picture you showed was correct as of how the area is shown today---again going from memory---but the other image makes it even clearer that it wasn't really "out in the open".

[healyd...@gmail.com]

for what praytell?
[...]

[Bud]

The floorplan I linked to came from one of DVP`s sites. They are a treasure trove of resources, one might even find a galley proof copy of Four Days on there, if such a thing existed.

> [...]

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:34:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Logical fallacy deleted...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 6:42:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:55:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let's test that, shall we?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
>> >>
>> >> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
>> >
>> >Begging the question logical fallacy.
>> You're lying, Huckster.
>>
>> The test was a simple one -
>
> The "test" is just another one of your crooked games.

Watch folks, as Chickenshit absolutely REFUSES to explain how to test
the accuracy of Huckster's claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> You ...


It's not about me. Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And you'll **NEVER** cite where this was done before.

And couldn't...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 4:47:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2:02:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:48:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:24:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Huckster Sienzant said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's test that, shall we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see if Huckster is telling the truth, or lying...
>>>>
>>>> And, as everyone can see, Huckster failed the test.
>>>>

>>>> He's PROVABLY lying.
>>>>
>>>> And clearly a coward...
>>>>

>>>>>> "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his
>>>>>> clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee,
>>>>>> Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the
>>>>>> northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from
>>>>>> where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that the
>>>>>> clipboard was "hidden?"
>>>>>

>>>>> You don't need testimony to figure that out. It was ten days after
>>>>> Oswald's last day at the Depository that Oswald's homemade clipboard
>>>>> (actually only a few pieces of cardboard held together by rubber
>>>>> bands) was first discovered by Frankie Kaiser.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Kaiser was possibly the only TSBD employee who could recognize
>>>>> the clipboard as Oswald's.
>>>>> Kaiser testified to how he knew it was Oswald's clipboard, because
>>>>> it had been Kaiser's before that. If Kaiser didn't go into that corner
>>>>> and see the clipboard behind the boxes, it could have been there for
>>>>> weeks, months, or years.
>>>> This was a simple question - and you evaded it.
>>>>

>>>> I asked: "Did the testimony of Kaiser support that statement?"
>>>

>>> Of course it does.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> A dishonest person like me who has no interest in the truth and is
> only playing silly games with the death of the President might think
> that.


You think Huckster's dishonest too?


>>>> You refused to answer.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> I asked: Would any reasonable person reading that testimony think that
>>>> the clipboard was "hidden?"
>>>>
>>>> You again refused to answer.
>>>>

>>>> It's clear... you've failed the test Huckster. You *CLAIMED* that you
>>>> read the testimony, and use that to draw your conclusions, but clearly
>>>> you're lying.
>>>>

>>>> You evaded the simple questons, and tried to use the
>>>> logical fallacy of who would recognize the clipboard to evade
>>>> answering.
>>>>

>>>> Quite the coward, aren't you Huckster?
>>>>

>>>> I invite everyone to read what Huckster quoted above.... then consider
>>>> the issue under discussion - whether or not it was "HIDDEN*... and
>>>> then read the RELEVANT testimony that I quote:
>>>>
>>>> Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?

>>>> Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the
>>>> plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and
>>>> I just noticed it laying over there.

>>>> Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
>>>> Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
>>>> Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or
>>>> 6 inches, something like that.
>>>> Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
>>>> Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
>>>> Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's
>>>> the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs
>>>> this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by
>>>> the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in
>>>> front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you
>>>> go up.
>>>> Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway
>>>> down?
>>>> Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343)
>>>>