On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 12:31:30 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 10:58:10 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>
> It is obvious that Hank is what I call a "denial troll" who makes sport out of using sleazy sleights of hand and sophistry to avoid truth...I'm not really interested in time-wasting back and forths with such characters who will say and do anything to avoid the truth...
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> > You ignored a lot of points, especially those about Frazier. I'd love for you to show me the evidence that after decades, Frazier suddenly remembered (or decided to come clean about) a partly-eaten cheese sandwich. Where's the evidence Frazier's memory improved over the decades?
> Frazier obviously with-held the information about the partly-eaten cheese sandwich because he had been forced to by the silencing of the witnesses by the authorities...
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> Just like he with-held his witnessing Oswald's exit by the rear and stroll down Houston St...That with-holding is a sign of its genuineness and not the opposite...Hank's offerings are mostly based on disingenuous word-tricks and not any sincere attempt to address the evidence...
Wait, what? If a guy waits to tell a story 20, 30, 50 years after the fact, that's a sign it's genuine and not the opposite?
You couldn't defend that statement if your life depended upon it.
Do you know what a "Fish Story" is?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fish%20story#:~:text=%3A%20an%20extravagant%20or%20incredible%20story
> > >
> > > Dougherty told that to Toff because the Commission got him to lie and avoid his real witnessing...
You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> If you read Dougherty's Commission transcript he started to screw up his prepared script and say he heard the shots as he was about to go down for lunch at noon...
You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> Dougherty had trouble remembering his lines and was about to say what he had been prepped to say as happening at noon instead of 12:30...Go read it...
Ball had already established beyond any doubt that Dougherty was "slow". As in not having both oars in the water or an elevator that didn't go all the way to the top.
> You can see Ball detect the mistake Dougherty was about to make and guide him to say 12:30...Ball knew exactly what Dougherty was doing and knew he fucked up his lines...Dougherty gives two times for when he went back upstairs...One is 12:30 the other is 12:40...
We already established that Dougherty had a learning disorder and wasn't at all clear on a lot of things.
> > No, Dougherty had a learning disorder - what we used to call retarded. Read his entire testimony. He was constantly screwing up stuff. My comments are denoted within Hashtags # like this. #
> > == QUOTE ==
> > Mr. BALL - Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - I do.
> > Mr. BALL - Will you state your name and address for the record?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Jack Edwin Dougherty.
> > Mr. BALL - And your address?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - 1827 South Marsalis.
> > Mr. BALL - How old are you?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Forty.
> > # This testimony was in April of 1964. He was born in August of 1923. #
> > Mr. BALL - Where were you born?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Here in Dallas.
> > Mr. BALL - Where did you go to school?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Sunset High School.
> > Mr. BALL - You went through Sunset High School?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> > Mr. BALL - What year did you get out of high school? About?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, 1937.
> > Mr. BALL - 1937?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> > # Assuming a June graduation, he would be 13 in 1937. He would turn 14 in August of 1937.#
> > Mr. BALL - What kind of work did you do after that?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, of course, a year or so, you might say--just work in grocery stores until I was 19 and volunteered for the Armed Services in October--October 24, 1942.
> > # There are five years between 1937 and 1942 - not "a year or so". #
> > Mr. BALL - How long were you in the service?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - 2 years, 1 month, 17 days, to be exact.
> > # This puts his discharge on 12/10/1944. #
> > Mr. BALL - And you were discharged from the Service, then, after the War, was it?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
> > # The war with Germany ended May 8, 1945. #
> > Mr. BALL - What did you do during the service---during your period in the service?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, you might say just about a little bit of everything, from guard duty to---
> > Mr. BALL - Did you have any active service?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, no--I volunteered for active service, but they said you couldn't very well volunteer--you have to be drafted, so they said, they told me at the time.
> > #That of course is untrue, and a white lie by someone in the service who determined he wasn't fit.#
> > Mr. BALL - Did you ever leave the United States during the War?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes.
> > # Please read on. #
> > Mr. BALL - Where did you go?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was stationed, oh, for about a year up in Indiana up there---Seymour, Ind.
> > Mr. BALL - Then where did you go from there in the service?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I stayed there until I got discharged.
> > Mr. BALL - You didn't ever go outside the country to Europe?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, no.
> > Mr. BALL - Or to the South Seas?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - You stayed in this country all the time?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> > # He says he was in this country for his entire service but said above he left the US during the war.
> > By now Ball is pulling out his hair trying to get a straight answer out of this witness. #
> > Mr. BALL - Now, did you ever have any difficulty with your speech?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - You never had any?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - Did you ever have any difficulty in the Army with any medical treatment or anything of that sort?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - None at all?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > # Ball continues questioning Dougherty: #
> > Mr. BALL - What did you do after you got out of the Army?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, jobs were pretty scarce about the time I got out of the service, so I just went from place to place and applied and put my application in, so I started over here at the Texas School Book Depository and put my application in there and I got it through the Suburban Employment Agency, and I been working there ever since.
> > Mr. BALL - And that was when--in 1940, was it, you started to work at the Texas School Book Depository?
> > # Ball is pretty sure Dougherty has a learning disorder at this time, so throws in the trick question
> > above. #
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - September 17, 1940.
> > Mr. BALL - 1940 what?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see, I have been with them 11 years--that would be---
> > Mr. BALL - That would be 1952, wouldn't it?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes--that's 1952.
> > Mr. BALL - 1952?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; that's right, to be exact.
> > Mr. BALL - What did you do between the time you got out of the service and 1952?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't do anything to be frank with you.
> > Mr. BALL - You didn't?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - You didn't work?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, no.
> > Mr. BALL - You stayed at home?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
> > Mr. BALL - Did you live with your father and mother?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> > Mr. BALL - Have you ever been married?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
> > Mr. BALL - And you still live with your father and mother?
> > Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
> I made a direct reference to Dougherty's Commission testimony where it was obvious he had been coached
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> and almost screwed up his prepared lines by inserting his hearing the shots at noon when he was about to go downstairs for lunch instead of the pre-arranged 12:30...Ball was very aware of Dougherty's screw-up of this suborned perjury
Begged Question LOGICAL FALLACY. Just because you think something is true doesn't establish it is true.
Show your work, not your opinion.
> and very visibly guided Dougherty back to the prepared text...So what does Hank do?...He goes and gets an excerpt from Dougherty's testimony that has nothing to do with what we're talking about
Hilarious. It has everything to do with what we're talking about. If the witness has a mental deficit as Dougherty did, his statements are unreliable. Dougherty said he served overseas and also said he never left the United States. Dougherty said he graduated high school in 1937 - when he was 13. Doughtery said he worked a year or so after his high school graduation before enlisting in 1942. There's five years between 1937 and 1942. Dougherty had mental deficit problems that you ignore because you need to interpret his testimony a certain way, and you can't do that if Dougherty was unreliable.
Dougherty was unreliable. There's no getting around that.
> and tries to change the subject with it...What Hank is shouting loudly to the readers here is that I have made a good point he can't answer so his best response is to try to throw a screwy wrench in to the works in order to avoid the fact he can't answer...If you quote the actual text I referenced it shows exactly what I said (which is why Hank dodged it)...
Your opinion is not evidence.
>
> Meanwhile back in the reality of credible discussion: When you juxtapose Dougherty's obviously being scripted for his Commission testimony
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> with his Gil Toff interview you can see he used the opportunity to tell what he had been held back from saying to the Commission...That he was sure that Oswald was up eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room at the time he himself was eating his lunch in the Domino Room...
Dougherty's contemporaneous statement puts him nowhere near the lunchroom at the time of the shooting. He says he heard the shots when he was on the fifth floor... "I had already gone back to work and I gone down on the fifth [sic] to get some stock when I heard a shot. It sounded like it was coming from inside the building, but I couldn't tell from where." He doesn't offer an alibi for Oswald.
> Dougherty, like Stanton, felt a need to tell what he had been dishonestly prevented from telling by the FBI...
Begged Question LOGICAL FALLACY. Just because you think something is true doesn't establish it is true.
Show your work, not your opinion.
> Even so Dougherty's witnessing was so dangerous that he didn't completely tell Toff why he was so sure...There's something in there Dougherty is not telling...It is obvious he had good reason to be so sure Oswald was up eating in the 2nd floor lunch room and it was probably some kind of direct witnessing he wasn't revealing...
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
> In any case Dougherty joins the long list of witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...
That second floor lunchroom must have been more jam-packed than the Marx Brothers in that cabin scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvugebaT6Q
> My postings here were not meant for the usual deniers...They were mostly meant for Conspiracy Theorists who have been corrupted by other more dubious "researchers" to steer them towards Oswald's true location and the evidence for it...
In other words, they can't withstand anyone asking for something beside your opinion, like asking for evidence.
> > > Your lying scenario of Oswald just beating Truly to the 2nd floor lunch room is disproven by Mrs Garner who stood at the 4th floor landing and watched it after Adams & Styles descended...Garner would have seen Oswald rushing down the stairs had your scenario been true...
> > Sorry, my *lying* scenario is the one accepted by every official investigation. You don't overturn it by simplly calling it a lie.
> You can't get past Mrs Garner...If your official story version were true Mrs Garner would have seen Oswald dashing down the stairs behind Adams & Styles...Your weak answer makes that obvious...
Begged Question LOGICAL FALLACY. You cannot establish Adams and Styles were ahead of Oswald, rather than several minutes behind. Garner doesn't help you there either. If Adams and Styles were descending the stairs ahead of Oswald, why didn't they run into Baker and Truly ascending the stairs?
> > > It is also disproven by Carolyn Arnold who insisted she saw Oswald sitting eating lunch alone at his regular seat at 12:25...
> > Her contemporaneous statement says no such thing:
> You are referencing deliberate lies inserted in to the testimony by FBI...
Begged Question LOGICAL FALLACY. Just because you think something is true doesn't establish it is true.
Show your work, not your opinion.
> You know just as well as I do that when Earl Golz first showed Carolyn Arnold her FBI statement in 1978 she adamantly insisted she never said she saw Oswald at 12:15 in the foyer...Carolyn Arnold was clear to Golz that she told them 12:25 in the 2nd floor lunch room...
Because 15-year-later statements are always more accurate than contemporaneous ones.
> And now I have found new witnessing from Sarah Stanton corroborating that...Oswald told Stanton he intended to go back in to the "break room" and that break room was the 2nd floor lunch room Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in moments later...
When did Stanton tell you that? Was it under oath? Oh, that's right. You don't have anything from Stanton. You have a hearsay statement from her *granddaughter* about a story Nana told.
> Once we establish FBI altered testimony
Yes, that's the first step. When do you intend to start? It's not by contrasting hearsay from someone's granddaughter to a story told 15 years after the fact, throwing in some eggs, and scrambling it all up into conspiracy cupcakes.
> then we have to ask what they did with Stanton when they had her saying she never saw Oswald that day
Maybe because she never saw Oswald that day? No, the FBI agents didn't care who killed the President, they just wanted to frame an innocent man to close the case.
> and what they did with Dougherty who Toff showed had a serious witnessing...
Dougherty had serious mental deficits and anything he said at any time cannot be relied upon.
> Proof that the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 version is the accurate one is shown in Carolyn Arnold's March 64 statement that she was allowed to proof-read where the time was clearly 12:25...
> > > There's no way Oswald ran up stairs right after Carolyn Arnold saw him and then ran back down in time for Baker & Truly to see him...
He could have taken the elevator up, and left the door open. He could have been up there all along and Arnold, as she initially admitted, was not certain she saw anyone, let alone that she saw Oswald.
> Also, it is very unlikely that Oswald dashed down only to turn around and stand in the doorway window itching to clear Truly and continue downstairs...That is nutty and doesn't make sense...You're bucking against the obvious and Oswald was in the lunch room during the shooting like Fritz said he told him...
Obvious to whom? You? You don't cite evidence. You post your opinion.
And we're back to accepting the word of the same guy who left a rifle behind on the sixth floor who fit the description of the guy in the window.
> > And we're back to accepting the word of the same guy who left a rifle behind on the sixth floor who fit the description of the guy in the window.
> Neither you or Gil have directly confronted the fact that Fritz's Warren Commission statement says verbatim in plain wording "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...
I am not doubting Oswald told Fritz that. If you think that's my issue here you have a reading comprehension problem.
My issue is you're taking the suspect's word for where he was, and the suspect isn't always the best person to ask.
> Not only that but you can see Ball desperately try to guide Fritz back to the pre-scripted version immediately upon hearing that...Ball was obviously worried about something...Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots is backed up by the witnessings of Sarah Stanton, Carolyn Arnold, Baker & Truly, and Dougherty...
I thought you accused Baker and Truly of lying to frame Oswald. I thought you accused Dougherty of lying in his testimony and only coming clean almost a decade later. I thought you said the information came not from Stanton, but was hearsay from Stanton's granddaughter.
Your problem is you have no evidence. Your have your opinion and you wield it like a sword to decide what survives and what doesn't.
> > > Precise wording is very important in linguistic forensics...
> > Please develop your background in this further. Where did you study? Under what expert(s)? When did you get licenced to practice linguistic forensics? Please show us how you know the things you proclaim are true but don't establish whatsoever.
I'm guessing you're attempting to lecture me above about something you have no clue about.
> > > Fritz didn't like being forced to lie by FBI Yankees...Ball tried to get Fritz to say Oswald went from the first floor up to the second to get a Coke but Fritz wouldn't bite...Fritz's wording is very clear that Oswald did not say he went up to get the Coke...Fritz said "He said he had a Coca Cola"...What Fritz was making very clear there is that Oswald never said to him that he went up to get the Coke...Oswald told Fritz he got a Coke while he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...The linguistic forensics are clear as daylight here and Fritz is resisting telling Ball what he was trying to get him to say...
> > >
> Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
> Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
> Mr. BALL. Did you question Oswald about that?
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
> Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
> Mr. FRITZ. He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
> Mr. BALL. Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
> Mr. FRITZ. He said he had a Coca-Cola.
>
>
> First off Fritz is fuzzy about how he learned that Baker confronted Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room because he is aware they altered the evidence in Baker's 1st day affidavit...
You know this how? You don't. You believe it, so you assert it as a given, but it is just your opinion.
> Fritz has a habit of conspicuous stumbles when recounting corrupted evidence...
You know this how? You don't. You believe it, so you assert it as a given, but it is just your opinion.
>> It is plainly obvious that Fritz is aware they tried to conceal Oswald's exonerating location in the 2nd floor lunch room by changing it to the stairway...This is a touchy subject because Fritz is aware it involves Oswald's true location during the shots, hence the sketchy wording...This is a linguistic forensics gold mine...
Still need to hear of your background in forensic linguistics before I want to hear your conclusions on that subject.
>
> It is then elevated to an even richer source of linguistic forensic guilt...Fritz recalls that Oswald told him he was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room...
So what?
> Ball is immediately aware of the danger of this so he asks Fritz if Oswald told him he went from the 1st floor up to the 2nd to get a soda to drink with his lunch?...The purpose of this is to place Oswald on the 1st floor in order to make his story ridiculous..."Up there" connotes going there from the 1st floor...Remember now that further back in this same transcript Fritz says in plain language that Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...So in that context Fritz responds to Ball's trying to bait him to say Oswald went up to get the soda by saying "He said he had a Coca Cola"...
So the coke story eminates from Oswald, not Baker nor Truly.
> It is plain as day that what Fritz is doing there is indirectly referring to his previous statement of Oswald being in the 2nd floor lunch room and not confirming that he went "up there"...Clearly - Fritz is saying Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room the whole time and never went up there...
No. Fritz isn't saying that. Fritz had no personal knowledge of where Oswald was at 12:30 on 11/22/63.
Fritz is saying Oswald told him Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom. But so what? Ted Bundy never admitted to killing all the women and children either until it was time for him to fry. Then he tried to use his knowledge of who he killed and where the bodies were to bargain for an extension on his execution date.
> Hank knows this which is why he also commits the linguistic forensic goof as asking me for professional credentials instead of answering the point...
Hank asks for your credentials because only experts in a subject are allowed to testify in court to their conclusions. You're providing conclusions without having any credentials.
> The Commission had a live landmine right in the middle of their investigation that it took nervous effort to avoid setting off and blowing up their en.tire cover-up....
It's curious that it has survived until your sleuthing finally figured it out. And that even other CTs disagree with you. And that you have your opinion, and not much else (I still can't get over how you think posting an interview on Youtube with Stanton's granddaughter makes you a "serious researcher"