Gil Jesus And The Lunch Room Encounter

[Scrum Drum]

Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum...I am banned there by the overly restrictive moderator James Gordon so I cannot respond directly...

The first mistake Jesus makes is he says the Couch/Darnell film clip of Baker running in to the Depository is 10 seconds after the last shot...Big mistake Gil...The presence of Lovelady & Shelley as well as Gloria Calvery seen in the clip denotes a time of 25 seconds after the last shot...Lovelady & Shelley spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps in the seconds before the start of the Couch/Darnell clip...Calvery's panicked telling of seeing Kennedy's head blasted open caused the pair to want to go up to the Knoll to check it out for themselves...I any case all this is coordinated with Baker revving his bike up and shooting over to the concrete divider where he parked his motorcycle...He is seen running to the front steps in Couch/Darnell in direct relation to the movements of those others...

In 2018 I interviewed the grand daughter of Depository secretary Sarah Stanton and she told me Sarah told her that she ran in to Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as she left to go out to watch the motorcade...Sarah thought Oswald was a loner so she went out the the staircase landing to invite him to go outside and watch the motorcade...Sarah's grand daughter told me Oswald responded "No, I'm going back in to the break room"...That "break room" was, of course, the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald alone eating his lunch at 12:25...Oswald was obviously out on the 2nd floor landing waiting for Mrs Reid to clear the ladies out of that lunch room...Recently Buell Frazier said someone told him there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting...Obviously Baker & Truly saw that same partly-eaten lunch and covered it up because it exonerated Oswald...No doubt the person who told Frazier was Truly...

In Captain Fritz's Warren Commission testimony he said "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...You can read the testimony and see Commissioner Ball desperately bring the interview to a halt and walk Fritz back to the official story...

In 1971 Gil Toff interviewed Jack Dougherty...Dougherty told Toff "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room while I ate my lunch in the Domino Room"...The fact Dougherty did not tell this to the Commission (or more likely the Commission omitted it) is proof of its real-ness...

Gil: The reason Baker saw Oswald was because Oswald was standing flat-footed and stationary in the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule window and looking out at the staircase landing...Oswald probably heard Adams and Styles clattering down the stairs and went to look or he heard Truly shouting for an elevator...Oswald was assigned to the 2nd floor lunch room so not being able to leave his assigned post he looked out through the vestibule window...If you look at Baker's testimony he is very fuzzy about how exactly he detected Oswald...The reason for that is because he could not tell the Commission he had seen Oswald standing stationary in that doorway window and when Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back and immediately drew the attention of Baker's cop instincts...Oswald being stationary in that vestibule doorway window with a partly-eaten sandwich on the table meant he had not just dashed down from the Sniper's Nest...

Mr Jesus, the simple solution to this is Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots as Oswald himself said and all the evidence points to...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Did Gloria Calvery ever say that she talked to Lovelady at the base of the steps?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum

Oh, goody.

>...I am banned there by the overly restrictive moderator James Gordon so I cannot respond directly...
>
> The first mistake Jesus makes is he says the Couch/Darnell film clip of Baker running in to the Depository is 10 seconds after the last shot...Big mistake Gil...The presence of Lovelady & Shelley as well as Gloria Calvery seen in the clip denotes a time of 25 seconds after the last shot...Lovelady & Shelley spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps in the seconds before the start of the Couch/Darnell clip...Calvery's panicked telling of seeing Kennedy's head blasted open caused the pair to want to go up to the Knoll to check it out for themselves...I any case all this is coordinated with Baker revving his bike up and shooting over to the concrete divider where he parked his motorcycle...He is seen running to the front steps in Couch/Darnell in direct relation to the movements of those others...
>
> In 2018 I interviewed the grand daughter of Depository secretary Sarah Stanton and she told me Sarah told her that she ran in to Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as she left to go out to watch the motorcade...Sarah thought Oswald was a loner so she went out the the staircase landing to invite him to go outside and watch the motorcade...Sarah's grand daughter told me Oswald responded "No, I'm going back in to the break room"...That "break room" was, of course, the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald alone eating his lunch at 12:25...Oswald was obviously out on the 2nd floor landing waiting for Mrs Reid to clear the ladies out of that lunch room...Recently Buell Frazier said someone told him there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting...Obviously Baker & Truly saw that same partly-eaten lunch and covered it up because it exonerated Oswald...No doubt the person who told Frazier was Truly...

The myths keep rolling in.

>
> In Captain Fritz's Warren Commission testimony he said "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...You can read the testimony and see Commissioner Ball desperately bring the interview to a halt and walk Fritz back to the official story...

Gee, why would Oswald lie about a thing like that.

>
> In 1971 Gil Toff interviewed Jack Dougherty...Dougherty told Toff "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room while I ate my lunch in the Domino Room"...The fact Dougherty did not tell this to the Commission (or more likely the Commission omitted it) is proof of its real-ness...

How the hell would Dougherty know Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom if he was in the first floor Domino room. Did the Domino room have a glass ceiling?

>
> Gil: The reason Baker saw Oswald was because Oswald was standing flat-footed and stationary in the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule window and looking out at the staircase landing...

Not what Baker said. He said Oswald was moving away from him indicating Oswald had just entered the lunchroom. If you aren't going to believe Baker, on what basis do you claim Oswald was in the vestibule looking out toward the staircase?

> Oswald probably heard Adams and Styles clattering down the stairs and went to look or he heard Truly shouting for an elevator...Oswald was assigned to the 2nd floor lunch room so not being able to leave his assigned post he looked out through the vestibule window...If you look at Baker's testimony he is very fuzzy about how exactly he detected Oswald...

He wasn't fuzzy at all. He said he caught a glimpse of Oswald in the lunchroom moving away from him.

> The reason for that is because he could not tell the Commission he had seen Oswald standing stationary in that doorway window and when Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back and immediately drew the attention of Baker's cop instincts...Oswald being stationary in that vestibule doorway window with a partly-eaten sandwich on the table meant he had not just dashed down from the Sniper's Nest...

I repeat my question. On what basis do you claim Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule?

>
> Mr Jesus, the simple solution to this is Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots as Oswald himself said and all the evidence points to...

There isn't a scrap of evidence that establishes Oswald was in the lunchroom when the shots were fired. Baker's account indicates Oswald had entered the lunchroom just before Truly and Baker reached the second floor landing.

I've been seeing conspiracy hobbyists try to peddle this horseshit for three decades and I'm sure they were doing it long before I started to pay attention to them.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum

I'm genuinely disappointed that Gil did not respond to my post...I honestly thought Gil had more research integrity than that...I really hope Gil is not including myself in his reference to the trolls that plague him...I am a serious researcher and the new evidence I am trying to bring to his attention is very serious and represents the most important evidence discovery in 40 years...A credible researcher would recognize that just from reading it...

Gil is provably wrong in his statement that the Couch/Darnell film is 10 seconds after the last shot...The people seen in that film clip and their known movements prove the Couch/Darnell film is about 25 seconds after the last shot...Gil also misquoted Captain Fritz by omitting his most important quote in his Warren Commission interview...Fritz stated plainly that he was fairly certain Oswald told him he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots...It is not coincidence that Carolyn Arnold and Baker & Truly saw Oswald in that same place...

The reason Gil got no responses to his post on this subject on the Education Forum is because the members there are shamefully dishonest and know they lied and banned an innocent person over that topic (myself)...They don't want to be reminded of their dishonesty so they ignored Gil's post and it got no comments...They have innocent blood on their hands in that department and they don't want anyone exposing it...There is a large percentage of the Education Forum's membership who believe the crap promoted by DiEugenio and Greg Parker that the Lunch Room Encounter never happened and Oswald was out on the front steps in the Couch/Darnell film...That is why those dishonest bastards are avoiding commenting in Gil's post because they know they are guilty...

It's too bad because I thought Gil had more to him than insultingly snubbing somebody who offered the level of analysis I did that should merit response from any credible researcher...Labeling a skilled researcher and his highly credible material a troll in order to escape answering it is Mickey Mouse level conduct and ranks the person who offers it...But I guess that is the benefit of membership in the Education Forum clique...Ignoring of good evidence overseen by that pompous ignoramus Gordon and his brute, anti-intellectual tactics...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum
<Tropp...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>> > Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum
>
>
>
>I'm genuinely disappointed that Gil did not respond to my post...I honestly thought Gil had more research integrity than that...I really hope Gil is not including myself in his reference to the trolls that plague him...I am a serious researcher and the new evidence I am trying to bring to his attention is very serious and represents the most important evidence discovery in 40 years...A credible researcher would recognize that just from reading it...

Someone posting as "Scrum Drum" can't figure out why someone might
consider him a troll?

How odd!

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum
> <Tropp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >> > Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum

> Someone posting as "Scrum Drum" can't figure out why someone might
> consider him a troll?
>
> How odd!

That's silly Ben...You are obviously a troll who is fishing for trolling excuses...

My material is verifiable and speaks for itself...

Like I said, a serious researcher would recognize that and respond...A JFK internet troll wouldn't...You offer high school children's ridicule...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum

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

>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 12:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum
>> <Tropp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 4:58:43 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>>>>> Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum
>
>> Someone posting as "Scrum Drum" can't figure out why someone might
>> consider him a troll?
>>
>> How odd!
>
>
> That's silly Ben...

And you're a kook.

[Scrum Drum]

A name-calling troll has now slid my message to Gil down so he probably won't read it...

The fact you can't directly answer my evidence says who is credible here...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum

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

>On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 1:02:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Scrum Drum
>> <Tropp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> And you're a kook.

You hear that?

It's the sound of you making my kill-filter. Bye!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you forget Gil has been around these confines for years and years... he like a few around here a confident in their evaluations of posters here. And MOST of those evaluations are dead-on-correct. Have a nice life, tell DVP hi for me....

[Scrum Drum]

Nice cheap shot Healy...In 2016 David Healy came in to the Prayer Man thread on the Deep Politics Forum and piled on with phony pretend expertise and self-reference...He patronized me and pretended I was beneath his garbage on Prayer Man that was mostly based on agreeing with the regular favorite members on that forum...I was then banned by the dumb-down moderator Lauren Johnson after he realized my correct proof on Prayer Man being Sarah Stanton made him look like the incompetent poseur he was who was simply moderating by his own will because he was too stupid to moderate by the rules and material...Lauren had to get rid of me because otherwise he would have to explain why he was breaking his own rules and siding with the people with the wrong evidence...Karma has since caught up with Lauren and the Deep Politics site which has reaped the whirlwind because of Lauren's ill-doings and been ran in to the ground as a dead site after they violated their own rules and banned an innocent person in direct violation of their posted site rules...Peter Lemkin and Lauren don't care however because their egos and quest for power are perfectly OK with a site with no members as long as they are the only voices and in control...Anyway, after I posted irrefutable proof that Prayer Man was Stanton I got a thumbs up from Healy but he wasn't man enough to admit he was wrong or that his similar taunting of me on Deep Politics was a sign of his lack of research credibility - even though he was talking down to me like he was an expert pitying an ignorant peasant like he does here...Healy is the type of low character who mocks a knowingly innocent person who was unfairly banned...He does that because he knows he's part of the insider clique on the Education Forum and cult of personality that the crook Gordon will let get away with murder instead defending someone with the facts like proper moderation should...Since I proved Prayer Man was Stanton David Josephs has suddenly stopped posting that Prayer Man is Oswald...

You've seen Healy in action here and he goes for the trolling of an innocent person instead of answering the evidence I posted...In any case Healy is a weasel who is assisting Gil in avoiding the evidence I posted...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:

> Gil Jesus has posted an essay on the lunch room encounter on the Education Forum...I am banned there by the overly restrictive moderator James Gordon so I cannot respond directly...
>
> The first mistake Jesus makes is he says the Couch/Darnell film clip of Baker running in to the Depository is 10 seconds after the last shot...Big mistake Gil...The presence of Lovelady & Shelley as well as Gloria Calvery seen in the clip denotes a time of 25 seconds after the last shot...Lovelady & Shelley spoke to Calvery at the base of the steps in the seconds before the start of the Couch/Darnell clip...Calvery's panicked telling of seeing Kennedy's head blasted open caused the pair to want to go up to the Knoll to check it out for themselves...I any case all this is coordinated with Baker revving his bike up and shooting over to the concrete divider where he parked his motorcycle...He is seen running to the front steps in Couch/Darnell in direct relation to the movements of those others...
>
> In 2018 I interviewed the grand daughter of Depository secretary Sarah Stanton

Wow. Practically from the horse’s mouth. Who could deny the obvious truthyness of the above?


> and she told me Sarah told her that she ran in to Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing as she left to go out to watch the motorcade...Sarah thought Oswald was a loner so she went out the the staircase landing to invite him to go outside and watch the motorcade...Sarah's grand daughter told me Oswald responded "No, I'm going back in to the break room"...That "break room" was, of course, the 2nd floor lunch room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald alone eating his lunch at 12:25...Oswald was obviously out on the 2nd floor landing waiting for Mrs Reid to clear the ladies out of that lunch room...Recently Buell Frazier said someone told him...

Is this a parody of conspiracy thinking, or are you being serious? You know it’s a good parody when you honestly can’t tell.

> there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sitting...Obviously Baker & Truly saw that same partly-eaten lunch and covered it up because it exonerated Oswald...No doubt the person who told Frazier was Truly...

No doubt, because who else would want to frame Oswald but Baker and Truly?

>
> In Captain Fritz's Warren Commission testimony he said "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...You can read the testimony and see Commissioner Ball desperately bring the interview to a halt and walk Fritz back to the official story...

And we should always believe what the accused person says because, after all, what possible reason would the accused have to lie, right?

>
> In 1971 Gil Toff interviewed Jack Dougherty...Dougherty told Toff "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room while I ate my lunch in the Domino Room"...The fact Dougherty did not tell this to the Commission (or more likely the Commission omitted it) is proof of its real-ness...

Yeah, because the absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.

>
> Gil: The reason Baker saw Oswald was because Oswald was standing flat-footed and stationary in the 2nd floor lunch room vestibule window and looking out at the staircase landing...Oswald probably heard Adams and Styles clattering down the stairs and went to look or he heard Truly shouting for an elevator...Oswald was assigned to the 2nd floor lunch room so not being able to leave his assigned post he looked out through the vestibule window...

In conspiracyville, facts are invented as needed. There is no evidence he was assigned to the second floor lunchroom or that he looked out the vestibule window. But you need that to be the case some you just assert that as a given.

> If you look at Baker's testimony he is very fuzzy about how exactly he detected Oswald...The reason for that is because he could not tell the Commission he had seen Oswald standing stationary in that doorway window and when Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back and immediately drew the attention of Baker's cop instincts...

He saw Oswald moving away from the closing door, and that attracted his attention.
== QUOTE==
Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
== UNQUOTE ==

> Oswald being stationary in that vestibule doorway window with a partly-eaten sandwich on the table meant he had not just dashed down from the Sniper's Nest...

What partially eaten sandwich? Oswald said he ate his lunch on the first floor.

>
> Mr Jesus, the simple solution to this is Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots as Oswald himself said and all the evidence points to...

Oswald is reported as telling a variety of stories.
For instance he says he ate his lunch on the first floor in this report:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm

[John Corbett]

Gil is a doofus. Anybody who admires him is an even bigger doofus.

[Scrum Drum]

I've had enough of John Iacoletti-like trolls in my tenure at MacRae's troll farm...My post was directed seriously at Gil Jesus because I thought his expertise would clue him that its contents were valid and worth listening to...I really didn't mean it to be nit-picked by an obnoxious troll looking to swat at serious research like some velveted Fauntleroy in a Machiavellian parlour...Never the less:

My depiction of the contents of the Couch/Darnell film is accurate and is backed up by lengthily discussed evidence by Mssr's Larsen, Graves, and myself...To mock it as truthyness without realizing its valid content is to only pronounce your own lack of credibility loudly in public...The things I spoke of are as I said in Couch/Darnell and they do indicate a time period of 25 seconds after the last shot in Couch/Darnell...Gil is seriously damaging his own credibility by saying 10 seconds...He is also damaging his credibility by ignoring my correction...The members of the Education Forum did not correct Gil because they are staying away from the topic because they know they lied and don't want to be drawn back in to it...They only ban there...They don't admit wrongness...

My interview with Sarah Stanton's grand-daughter is on You Tube...Which means I am a serious researcher who backs up his claims with serious documentation and Hank is an internet troll who nips at the ankles of serious researchers...That interview and its discovery of Oswald telling Stanton he intended to go back in to the break room is probably the most important evidence discovery in 40 years...To Hank however it is only an amusing source of trolling...

The partly-eaten cheese sandwich was spoken of by Buell Frazier who recently revealed that a Depository employee said it was seen on the lunch room table...That source had to be Truly and the reason Truly never mentioned it was because it exonerated Oswald...Baker & Truly were not "framing" Oswald as much as avoiding giving exonerating evidence...You can see this in Baker's 1st day affidavit where he stretched the encounter to the 4th floor and closer to the Sniper's Nest instead of its real exonerating location...

Hank trollishly ignores that every single witness who spoke of Oswald's location said 2nd floor lunch room...No witness said 1st floor...Hank grants himself the privilege of ignoring that Oswald told Sarah Stanton he was going back in to the break room...That "break room" was the 2nd floor lunch room that Carolyn Arnold would confirm Oswald as being in a few minutes later...It was the same break room where the partly-eaten sandwich was seen on the table...

You're not answering the point of why Dougherty told this to Toff but not to the Commission?...Could that be because your line of reasoning is trollishly evasive and isn't seriously interested in the facts?...

"I don't know how come I saw him"...Baker is more than obviously avoiding telling Dulles that he saw Oswald because Oswald was standing slack-jawed and flat-footed and stationary in the vestibule doorway window...This is more than obvious because the angle would not let Baker see in to the lunch room...They put Dulles on Baker's interview because his real witnessing was damning to the official BS so he had to be guided..."I saw a glimpse of him go away from me" Translation: "I saw him incriminatingly flinch back from the door window"...Baker could not tell the real way he saw Oswald because it made clear he was standing there after getting up from his lunch on the table and looking out on the the landing...Oswald had obviously not just run down from the 6th floor...Hank's pathetic trolling and inability to answer this only makes it stronger...

Hank left out the full quote from Fritz...Ball tried to bait Fritz in to saying Oswald went up to get a Coke from the 2nd floor lunch room...Fritz didn't take the bait...His wording in response is important to pay attention to...Fritz answered "He said he had a Coca Cola"...In other words Fritz was saying Oswald never said he went up there...He said he was in there the whole time...

[John Corbett]

Any truly serious researcher would have concluded a long time ago that Oswald did it and that there is no evidence he had any help. What you clowns have been engaging in for over five decades can only be described as a snipe hunt and has produced exactly what would be expected for such a silly endeavor. You got nothing.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ad hominem. You start out with logical fallacies, it won’t go well for you.

> Never the less:
>
> My depiction of the contents of the Couch/Darnell film is accurate and is backed up by lengthily discussed evidence by Mssr's Larsen, Graves, and myself...To mock it as truthyness without realizing its valid content is to only pronounce your own lack of credibility loudly in public...

That’s a straw man argument. I merely pointed out interviewing the granddaughter of a witness isn’t exactly gospel. Hell, interviewing the witness isn’t exactly gospel, but “serious researchers” (CTs) such as yourself apparently never learned that lesson. So now you cite what the granddaughter says her grandmother said as meaningful.

> The things I spoke of are as I said in Couch/Darnell and they do indicate a time period of 25 seconds after the last shot in Couch/Darnell...Gil is seriously damaging his own credibility by saying 10 seconds...He is also damaging his credibility by ignoring my correction...The members of the Education Forum did not correct Gil because they are staying away from the topic because they know they lied and don't want to be drawn back in to it...They only ban there...They don't admit wrongness...

>
> My interview with Sarah Stanton's grand-daughter is on You Tube...

So it must be accurate as well as truthful, right? No, it’s still meaningless. Stanton’s daughter or granddaughter or sister, brother, niece or second cousin twice-removed couldn’t testify to any of this in court, but you’re more than willing to accept hearsay two generations deep.

> Which means I am a serious researcher who backs up his claims with serious documentation

Hilarious. You seriously think a YouTube interview of a witness’s granddaughter makes you a serious researcher with serious documentation? That’s the way it reads.

> and Hank is an internet troll who nips at the ankles of serious researchers...

And more ad hominem.

> That interview and its discovery of Oswald telling Stanton he intended to go back in to the break room is probably the most important evidence discovery in 40 years...To Hank however it is only an amusing source of trolling...

What evidence do you have that Oswald spoke to Stanton at all?

I regret to inform you it’s not anything Stanton’s granddaughter said. That’s not evidence. That’s a family story.

>
> The partly-eaten cheese sandwich was spoken of by Buell Frazier who recently revealed that a Depository employee said it was seen on the lunch room table...

Beware of stories coming forth only half-a-century or more after the fact. Do you know what a fish story is? CTs typically recoil in horror at the very thought that a witness might be making something up, but this late in the game, you have to take the emergence of new claims with a grain of salt — maybe a pound or two of salt.

> That source had to be Truly

That source is Buell Wesley Frazier and will forever remain BWF. Truly has nothing to do with it. It starts and stops with BWF. It’s a story Frazier only started telling decades after the fact.

> and the reason Truly never mentioned it was because it exonerated Oswald...

Have you even considered the possibility Truly never mentioned it is because Frazier made it up?

No, right, that’s not even a possibility as far as you’re concerned.

And Truly never mentioned it solely because Truly only hired Oswald in early October to frame him for the shooting along a motorcade route that hadn’t been decided upon yet, presumably. Like I said, it’s a good parody of conspiracy-thinking.

> Baker & Truly were not "framing" Oswald as much as avoiding giving exonerating evidence...

And the effective difference is?

> You can see this in Baker's 1st day affidavit where he stretched the encounter to the 4th floor and closer to the Sniper's Nest instead of its real exonerating location...

When Baker gave his statement was Oswald even arrested yet? And Baker and Truly are part of the conspiracy now.

>
> Hank trollishly ignores that every single witness who spoke of Oswald's location said 2nd floor lunch room...No witness said 1st floor...Hank grants himself the privilege of ignoring that Oswald told Sarah Stanton he was going back in to the break room...

Did Oswald confirm that? Did Stanton? Did anyone in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 confirm it? What you’ve got — and you don’t appear to understand human nature — is a story grandma told her grandkid about how she was important because she was probably the last person to talk to Oswald before the assassin. Totally human nature to inflate her importance in the eyes of her grandchild. You think this second-hand story is somehow important. It’s not.
P

> That "break room" was the 2nd floor lunch room that Carolyn Arnold would confirm Oswald as being in a few minutes later...It was the same break room where the partly-eaten sandwich was seen on the table...

Carolyn Arnold has been beaten to death. The partially eaten sandwich is new, but I can totally understand how BWF doesn’t want to go down in history as the guy who drove the President’s assassin - and his rifle - to work on the morning of the assassination.

>
> You're not answering the point of why Dougherty told this to Toff but not to the Commission?...Could that be because your line of reasoning is trollishly evasive and isn't seriously interested in the facts?...

This Dougherty? The guy who put himself on the fifth floor during the shooting?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dougher1.htm

And said on 11/22/63 the last time he saw Oswald was before noon? That Dougherty?

>
> "I don't know how come I saw him"...Baker is more than obviously avoiding telling Dulles that he saw Oswald because Oswald was standing slack-jawed and flat-footed and stationary in the vestibule doorway window...This is more than obvious because the angle would not let Baker see in to the lunch room...

How come you tell us twice it’s obvious when it’s not at all obvious? “Obviously” is CT code for “this is the only way I can make my argument work, so I will just pretend it’s obvious.”

I suspect Oswald barely beat Truly down and after Truly passed the second floor lunchroom, Oswald was ready to walk down and out of the building when he caught a glimpse of Baker rushing up the stairs and did an about-face and started to walk quickly away from the door.

Our two scenarios are almost identical once Oswald is in the second floor lunchroom.

> They put Dulles on Baker's interview because his real witnessing was damning to the official BS so he had to be guided..."I saw a glimpse of him go away from me" Translation: "I saw him incriminatingly flinch back from the door window"...

Translation, it’s not as obvious as you wish, so you have to “translate” it for us.

> Baker could not tell the real way he saw Oswald because it made clear he was standing there after getting up from his lunch on the table and looking out on the the landing...

You sure you don’t want to throw in an “Obviously” there?

> Oswald had obviously not just run down from the 6th floor...

So he brought in his rifle and the President some other day?

> Hank's pathetic trolling and inability to answer this only makes it stronger...

I point out the flaws, calling it “pathetic trolling” doesn’t make you argument stronger.

>
> Hank left out the full quote from Fritz...Ball tried to bait Fritz in to saying Oswald went up to get a Coke from the 2nd floor lunch room...Fritz didn't take the bait...His wording in response is important to pay attention to...Fritz answered "He said he had a Coca Cola"...In other words Fritz was saying Oswald never said he went up there...He said he was in there the whole time...

“In other words...” I’m guessing you didn’t want to use “Obviously” so soon again. Good call. It can be overused.

And this was asked and answered in any case. We should always take suspects at their word because suspects have no possible reason to lie to the police, right?

Please explain why on the day of the assassination — NOT half a century later — Frazier said Oswald had a long package in his car that morning, that Oswald told him was curtain rods, while Oswald in custody that same day denied having any such long package and claimed Frazier was mistaken about the curtain rod story.

Who was telling the truth, who was lying about what transpired that morning?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> That’s a straw man argument. I merely pointed out interviewing the
> granddaughter of a witness isn’t exactly gospel. Hell, interviewing
> the witness isn’t exactly gospel, but “serious researchers” (CTs) such
> as yourself apparently never learned that lesson. So now you cite what
> the granddaughter says her grandmother said as meaningful.

For Huckster, anything that doesn't toe the line of the WCR is a
"CT'er"...

But we true CT's know better.

Good to see Huckster busy himself with trolls... He needs something to
keep himself busy... Mark Lane terrifies him.

[Scrum Drum]

You're avoiding the evidence Hank...Stanton's regular telling of seeing Oswald waiting out on the staircase landing to go back in to the 2nd floor lunch room was also witnessed by her daughter in law and sister...It is obvious that Stanton kept retelling this story because of her consternation over never seeing it surface in any of the official accounts...If you go to Stanton's Commission statement it says Stanton never saw Oswald that day...Someone is lying here and I don't think it is Stanton...Obviously Stanton kept retelling the story because she wanted to get the real story out that the Commission was hiding...We know Stanton is telling the truth because she was backed up by Carolyn Arnold, Jack Dougherty, and Baker & Truly who all saw Oswald in that same place...I suggest Stanton told the Commission of her sighting of Oswald and they lied and buried it...It isn't just "hearsay" if it is backed up by other witnesses and fits a pattern of incrimination...Hank shows no curiosity why Stanton's FBI statement says she never saw Oswald that day but reality shows she was telling relatives of her encounter every chance she got...

Oswald was nearby in the police station when Baker wrote his 1st day affidavit...Later Baker would say he saw Oswald there in those offices when he filled out his affidavit...Instead of telling of seeing Oswald standing in the door window and flinching back and then following Oswald in to the 2nd floor lunch room where the same lunch of a cheese sandwich and apple Carolyn Arnold saw was on the table, as well as Coke, Baker fudges and says he saw this man on the 4th floor landing...Baker is fuzzing his exonerating witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room and shifting it closer to the Sniper's Nest...Later they would correct it to the 2nd floor lunch room and admit it because they realized there were too many witnesses to Oswald being there and they couldn't get away with it...

Dougherty told that to Toff because the Commission got him to lie and avoid his real witnessing...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...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...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...The obvious answer here is 8 years after the assassination Dougherty relieved his conscience by telling Toff the real story and that was he witnessed Oswald in the second floor lunch room just like Carolyn Arnold and Stanton...Either Dougherty went back upstairs at 12:30 and witnessed Oswald eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room on the way back up or he never went back upstairs...But one thing is clear...When out from under the Commission's control Dougherty told Toff that he knew Oswald was up eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while he himself ate in the Domino Room...Sorry Charley but Oswald was not on the first floor...Truly helped destroy Dougherty's credibility by saying he was retarded...Truly was doing damage control for dangerous witnessing he knew Dougherty possessed...

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...It is also disproven by Carolyn Arnold who insisted she saw Oswald sitting eating lunch alone at his regular seat at 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...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...

The language here is more than obvious: "I saw a glimpse of him go away from me"...Translation: "I saw him incriminatingly flinch back from the door window"...When Baker chased Oswald in to the lunch room he saw Oswald's lunch on the table and a Coke in his hand...Oswald had obviously been in there eating lunch just as Carolyn Arnold described...

Precise wording is very important in linguistic forensics...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...

"I am fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 5:45:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> For Huckster, anything that doesn't toe the line of the WCR is a
> "CT'er"...
>
> But we true CT's know better.
>
> Good to see Huckster busy himself with trolls... He needs something to
> keep himself busy... Mark Lane terrifies him.

Does anyone take this obvious self-referencing trolling jackass Ben Holmes seriously?...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

yep, including a shit pot of 1964 WCR believers and branded hypocrites. Ya need to give up the essay's moron, ya turn the spotlight on yourself. And, if you got bounced from all those forums you seek recognition from, ya might want to ask then ANSWER a few self revealing questions...

[David Von Pein]

THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html


"PRAYER MAN":
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1031.html

[Tim Brennan]

LOL! Oh, so NOW it's give up the <snicker> *essay's* [sic] is it, Dave/Ringo?

Well, in nearly FIFTEEN years of posting here, I have NEVER, even ONCE, seen YOU, Healy, manage to BLUNDER into a semi COHERENT post that ran for more than three PISS PATHETIC lines, you posting FRAUD!

You are all BULL, pal!

As is your TWO BIT mate, Benny YELLOW PANTS Holmes.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Ben Holmes]

Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable
people.

[John Corbett]

Benny Yellowpants accusing someone else of being a coward is like Louis Farrakhan accusing someone of being anti-Semitic.

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:



Ya need to give up the essay's moron, ya turn the spotlight on yourself. And, if you got bounced from all those forums you seek recognition from, ya might want to ask then ANSWER a few self revealing questions...

You can't get away with that David out here on an even playing field where you don't have the bully moderators James Gordon or Lauren Johnson to protect you with cowardly moderation...You are a cowardly liar because anyone can go to the existing original thread on the Deep Politics Forum and see the true record...You were amongst a clique of favored insider posters that Lauren automatically sided with because Lauren was too dumb to judge technical evidence...I was trying to tell Lauren and the other site members that they were breaking the Deep Politics Forum's rules by promoting the Prayer Man theory that said Oswald was seen on the front steps in newsreel films during the shooting...The Deep Politics board rules were very clear...The first rule on the list was "No false evidence" and the claim that Prayer Man was Oswald was obviously false...Jim DiEugenio, although a skilled book-based researcher, has an achilles heel of not having any abstract technical analysis skill...Because of this he failed to see that Prayer Man was bogus and did his usual by promoting Greg Parker and his silly work on Prayer Man on the Deep Politics board...When I protested to Lauren that he wasn't enforcing the rules against DiEugenio and he was allowing him to post false evidence Lauren started persecuting me by deleting my posts and sending others to the "Bear Pit" (a sub-forum for undesirable posts)...Researchers like David, Lauren, and Jim are not really serious researchers that go by the material like credible researchers do...They are internet boobies who deep-down go by a friendship network of school yard bullies when it comes down to it...David is showing us that right here in his childish responses...David came in to the thread on Deep Politics and did there what he is doing here and mocked and ridiculed me while ignoring my science...Anyone can go back and find the thread and see this is true...In any case, Mr Healy is calling the one researcher who had the skill to out-argue 95% of the research community on Prayer Man, and prove it was actually Sarah Stanton, a "moron" while still refusing to apologize like a man for all the hell he gave me when I was trying to do what those boards tell the public they are there for and prove the correct evidence...Author and researcher Richard Gilbride will back me up on this...Gilbride was also banned from the Education Forum by James Gordon who bans anyone who disproves his site's favorite pet theory...David and the other favorites were ridiculing me and saying outright that "Oswald was Prayer Man"...Since then I have proven beyond a doubt that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton and gotten a very important new discovery as part of that process...Because the current internet JFK Community is a social media clique those a**holes are deliberately ignoring my proof as well as important discovery just to burn me...It goes to show the childish level they operate on...They are not there for research...They are there for their private club and being the only ones allowed in it...Here you see Mr Healy showing his own personal research credibility by saying the person who got banned for proving important correct evidence is to blame and needs to look in the mirror while dishonestly ignoring his evidence...DiEugenio is a dirty bastard...He publicly praised Gordon for banning me saying I was a troll seeking attention knowing the whole time I was innocent and he was using his influence on an incompetent moderator to silence someone who disproved him...And the rest of those a**holes sat back and said nothing...There is Mr Healy telling me to "give up" the most important evidence discovery in 40 years while stupidly ignoring it...There is the clique and its corrupting influence at work...Tim Brennan knows a fraud when he sees one...It's a gang of internet bullies using weak-minded moderators to dominate the internet evidence be damned...You can tell who is right here because those cowards never come out to a fair playing field like this one to argue their creepy actions...They always stay under the safe umbrella of crooked moderation...The reason they banned me is because they had ridiculed and abused me so badly that when they realized I had turned around and handed them their asses with the best arguments on the subject they were so embarrassed that they were forced to take the cowardly route and censor...I burned them so badly that they are taking the pathetic route of ignoring me off the internet...In the end these great JFK heroes are just cheap school boys desperate to destroy those who disproved them...No mirrors needed...

[Chuck Schuyler]

Bwahahaha! Perfect.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER:
>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"PRAYER MAN":
>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1031.html
>>> Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
>>> TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable
>>> people.
>

>Bwahahaha! Perfect.

Notice folks, that Chuckles couldn't deny or refute what I stated
about Davy... Davy's a coward... he knows more than Chuckles does, and
for that reason, he refuses to publicly debate.

When all you have are lies and cowardice, you have nothing.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER:
> >>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>"PRAYER MAN":
> >>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1031.html
> >>> Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
> >>> TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable
> >>> people.
> >
> >Bwahahaha! Perfect.
>
> Notice folks, that Chuckles couldn't deny or refute what I stated
> about Davy...

I deny what you state about DVP, one of the most knowledgeable researchers in this niche, insular little world of JFK assassination studies who has ever written or spoken on the subject.

Can I REFUTE what you stated about him? Sure, but not to your satisfaction, an impossible hurdle to clear.


>Davy's a coward...


It takes no bravery to deal with you, Holmes, just a dogged persistence to respond to your non-stop logical fallacies and point them out.

>he knows more than Chuckles does,

Indeed he does. I'm a piker compared to DVP. So what? I will assert that one needs to know very little about the JFK assassination to point out the weaknesses in your lack of a case for conspiracy. Your entire premise that you can snip bits and pieces from R2J and force others to jump through hoops to answer logically fallacious claims is absurd.

and
> for that reason, he refuses to publicly debate.

He's "publicly debated" you countless times. His JFK blog has all sorts of exchanges between the two of you that were culled from this discussion board.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER:
>>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"PRAYER MAN":
>>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1031.html
>>>>> Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
>>>>> TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable
>>>>> people.
>>>
>>>Bwahahaha! Perfect.
>>
>> Notice folks, that Chuckles couldn't deny or refute what I stated
>> about Davy...
>
>I deny what you state about DVP,

Then you're a moron and a PROVEN liar.

Because you can't cite ANY debate recently where Davy has attempted
anything.

He's a coward, and you're a liar for telling such a blatant lie.

> one of the most knowledgeable researchers in this niche, insular
> little world of JFK assassination studies who has ever written or
> spoken on the subject.

What does that make me? I've walked CIRCLES around Davy on his flawed
knowledge of the case.

If *HE* is "one of the most knowledgeable reseachers" - then I'm an
absolute GENIUS!

I can easily quote him making mistakes on the evidence, Davy can't
reciprocate.

>Can I REFUTE what you stated about him?

Absolutely... JUST CITE WHERE HE'S BEEN DEBATING ME, OR ANY OTHER
KNOWLEDGEABLE CRITIC RECENTLY.


But you can't do it. You're a liar, and Davy's a coward.

> Sure, but not to your satisfaction, an impossible hurdle to clear.

It has *NOTHING* to do with any "satisfaction" on my part... YOU CAN'T
DO IT AT ALL!

>>Davy's a coward...
>
>
> It takes no bravery to deal with you, Holmes, just a dogged
> persistence to respond to your non-stop logical fallacies and point
> them out.

Then simply point out where you can determine mass based on a two
dimensional X-ray or photo. That's an example from *TODAY*.

But you won't.

You're a coward too.

>>he knows more than Chuckles does,
>
>Indeed he does.

Agreeing that I'm right is fine... if you did it more often, you might
raise your IQ a few points.

>> and
>> for that reason, he refuses to publicly debate.
>
>He's "publicly debated" you countless times.

And lost.

He's not stupid, he learns from his mistakes.


He no longer dares to do so - he's a coward.



HE NO LONGER DARE TO DO SO - HE'S A COWARD!

> His JFK blog has all sorts of exchanges between the two of you that
> were culled from this discussion board.

"Culled" is right... I've pointed out before what a liar he is ...
omitting anything detrimental to his faith. This is what believers
do, they hide in censored arenas...

And when they aren't in a censored arena, they get absolutely CRUSHED
by anyone who knows the evidence.

>> When all you have are lies and cowardice, you have nothing.

And, here we see - Chuckles has nothing.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 1:27:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:



Healy is going to miss my response to him because you two decided to hijack my thread with your feud...

[Tim Brennan]

BUMP! YOO HOO!! DAVE/RINGO!!!

Looks like you are trying to AVOID this response by Scrum Drum, Dave/Ringo.

Chop, chop, CHAMP! Batter UP!

Else people will think that YOU are the COWARD that you and Yellow Pants try to label EVERYBODY ELSE as being, Dave/Ringo.

[Hank Sienzant]

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > Never the less:
> > >
> > > My depiction of the contents of the Couch/Darnell film is accurate and is backed up by lengthily discussed evidence by Mssr's Larsen, Graves, and myself...To mock it as truthyness without realizing its valid content is to only pronounce your own lack of credibility loudly in public...
> > That’s a straw man argument. I merely pointed out interviewing the granddaughter of a witness isn’t exactly gospel. Hell, interviewing the witness isn’t exactly gospel, but “serious researchers” (CTs) such as yourself apparently never learned that lesson. So now you cite what the granddaughter says her grandmother said as meaningful.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > The things I spoke of are as I said in Couch/Darnell and they do indicate a time period of 25 seconds after the last shot in Couch/Darnell...Gil is seriously damaging his own credibility by saying 10 seconds...He is also damaging his credibility by ignoring my correction...The members of the Education Forum did not correct Gil because they are staying away from the topic because they know they lied and don't want to be drawn back in to it...They only ban there...They don't admit wrongness...
> >
> > >
> > > My interview with Sarah Stanton's grand-daughter is on You Tube...
> > So it must be accurate as well as truthful, right? No, it’s still meaningless. Stanton’s daughter or granddaughter or sister, brother, niece or second cousin twice-removed couldn’t testify to any of this in court, but you’re more than willing to accept hearsay two generations deep.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > Which means I am a serious researcher who backs up his claims with serious documentation
> > Hilarious. You seriously think a YouTube interview of a witness’s granddaughter makes you a serious researcher with serious documentation? That’s the way it reads.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > and Hank is an internet troll who nips at the ankles of serious researchers...
> > And more ad hominem.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > That interview and its discovery of Oswald telling Stanton he intended to go back in to the break room is probably the most important evidence discovery in 40 years...To Hank however it is only an amusing source of trolling...
> > What evidence do you have that Oswald spoke to Stanton at all?

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> >
> > I regret to inform you it’s not anything Stanton’s granddaughter said. That’s not evidence. That’s a family story.
> > >
> > > The partly-eaten cheese sandwich was spoken of by Buell Frazier who recently revealed that a Depository employee said it was seen on the lunch room table...
> > Beware of stories coming forth only half-a-century or more after the fact. Do you know what a fish story is? CTs typically recoil in horror at the very thought that a witness might be making something up, but this late in the game, you have to take the emergence of new claims with a grain of salt — maybe a pound or two of salt.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > That source had to be Truly
> > That source is Buell Wesley Frazier and will forever remain BWF. Truly has nothing to do with it. It starts and stops with BWF. It’s a story Frazier only started telling decades after the fact.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > and the reason Truly never mentioned it was because it exonerated Oswald...
> > Have you even considered the possibility Truly never mentioned it is because Frazier made it up?
> >
> > No, right, that’s not even a possibility as far as you’re concerned.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> >
> > And Truly never mentioned it solely because Truly only hired Oswald in early October to frame him for the shooting along a motorcade route that hadn’t been decided upon yet, presumably. Like I said, it’s a good parody of conspiracy-thinking.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > Baker & Truly were not "framing" Oswald as much as avoiding giving exonerating evidence...
> > And the effective difference is?

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > You can see this in Baker's 1st day affidavit where he stretched the encounter to the 4th floor and closer to the Sniper's Nest instead of its real exonerating location...
> > When Baker gave his statement was Oswald even arrested yet? And Baker and Truly are part of the conspiracy now.
> > >
> > > Hank trollishly ignores that every single witness who spoke of Oswald's location said 2nd floor lunch room...No witness said 1st floor...Hank grants himself the privilege of ignoring that Oswald told Sarah Stanton he was going back in to the break room...
> > Did Oswald confirm that? Did Stanton? Did anyone in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 confirm it? What you’ve got — and you don’t appear to understand human nature — is a story grandma told her grandkid about how she was important because she was probably the last person to talk to Oswald before the assassin. Totally human nature to inflate her importance in the eyes of her grandchild. You think this second-hand story is somehow important. It’s not.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > P
> > > That "break room" was the 2nd floor lunch room that Carolyn Arnold would confirm Oswald as being in a few minutes later...It was the same break room where the partly-eaten sandwich was seen on the table...
> > Carolyn Arnold has been beaten to death. The partially eaten sandwich is new, but I can totally understand how BWF doesn’t want to go down in history as the guy who drove the President’s assassin - and his rifle - to work on the morning of the assassination.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > >
> > > You're not answering the point of why Dougherty told this to Toff but not to the Commission?...Could that be because your line of reasoning is trollishly evasive and isn't seriously interested in the facts?...
> > This Dougherty? The guy who put himself on the fifth floor during the shooting?
> > https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dougher1.htm

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> >
> > And said on 11/22/63 the last time he saw Oswald was before noon? That Dougherty?

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > >
> > > "I don't know how come I saw him"...Baker is more than obviously avoiding telling Dulles that he saw Oswald because Oswald was standing slack-jawed and flat-footed and stationary in the vestibule doorway window...This is more than obvious because the angle would not let Baker see in to the lunch room...
> > How come you tell us twice it’s obvious when it’s not at all obvious? “Obviously” is CT code for “this is the only way I can make my argument work, so I will just pretend it’s obvious.”

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> >
> > I suspect Oswald barely beat Truly down and after Truly passed the second floor lunchroom, Oswald was ready to walk down and out of the building when he caught a glimpse of Baker rushing up the stairs and did an about-face and started to walk quickly away from the door.
> >
> > Our two scenarios are almost identical once Oswald is in the second floor lunchroom.
> > > They put Dulles on Baker's interview because his real witnessing was damning to the official BS so he had to be guided..."I saw a glimpse of him go away from me" Translation: "I saw him incriminatingly flinch back from the door window"...
> > Translation, it’s not as obvious as you wish, so you have to “translate” it for us.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > Baker could not tell the real way he saw Oswald because it made clear he was standing there after getting up from his lunch on the table and looking out on the the landing...
> > You sure you don’t want to throw in an “Obviously” there?
> > > Oswald had obviously not just run down from the 6th floor...
> > So he brought in his rifle and the President some other day?

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > > Hank's pathetic trolling and inability to answer this only makes it stronger...
> > I point out the flaws, calling it “pathetic trolling” doesn’t make you argument stronger.
> > >
> > > Hank left out the full quote from Fritz...Ball tried to bait Fritz in to saying Oswald went up to get a Coke from the 2nd floor lunch room...Fritz didn't take the bait...His wording in response is important to pay attention to...Fritz answered "He said he had a Coca Cola"...In other words Fritz was saying Oswald never said he went up there...He said he was in there the whole time...
> > “In other words...” I’m guessing you didn’t want to use “Obviously” so soon again. Good call. It can be overused.
> >
> > And this was asked and answered in any case. We should always take suspects at their word because suspects have no possible reason to lie to the police, right?

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> > Please explain why on the day of the assassination — NOT half a century later — Frazier said Oswald had a long package in his car that morning, that Oswald told him was curtain rods, while Oswald in custody that same day denied having any such long package and claimed Frazier was mistaken about the curtain rod story.

** YOU IGNORED THIS **

> >
> > Who was telling the truth, who was lying about what transpired that morning?

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?

> You're avoiding the evidence Hank...Stanton's regular telling of seeing Oswald waiting out on the staircase landing to go back in to the 2nd floor lunch room was also witnessed by her daughter in law and sister...It is obvious that Stanton kept retelling this story because of her consternation over never seeing it surface in any of the official accounts...If you go to Stanton's Commission statement it says Stanton never saw Oswald that day...Someone is lying here and I don't think it is Stanton...

You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that your opinion is evidence. It's not. Nobody cares what you think. What evidence can you bring to the table. An interview with the granddaughter of a witness is *not* evidence. Never has been. Never will be.

> Obviously Stanton kept retelling the story because she wanted to get the real story out that the Commission was hiding...We know Stanton is telling the truth because she was backed up by Carolyn Arnold, Jack Dougherty, and Baker & Truly who all saw Oswald in that same place...I suggest Stanton told the Commission of her sighting of Oswald and they lied and buried it...It isn't just "hearsay" if it is backed up by other witnesses and fits a pattern of incrimination...Hank shows no curiosity why Stanton's FBI statement says she never saw Oswald that day but reality shows she was telling relatives of her encounter every chance she got...

"Obviously" rears its ugly head again. If it was that obvious, you wouldn't need to precede it with the begged qualifier.

You aren't even citing anything Stanton is on record as saying. You're citing a hearsay claim, and elevating it to evidence. It's not. It's a story Stanton told to relatives. If Stanton was as concerned as you say about getting the truth out, she could have called the NY Times or any other media outlet. She could have posted it on Youtube herself or on a blog. She could have called up a local notary public and given a sworn statement. She had plenty of recourse to get her story in the public eye. She availed herself of none of it. Instead, she told a story to some relatives, elevating her status in their eyes. And that's all she did, at best.

Here's an example of a family story that got a bit out of control:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html

And I suppose the Warren Commission changed Dougherty's 11/22/63 affidavit as well.

>
> Oswald was nearby in the police station when Baker wrote his 1st day affidavit...Later Baker would say he saw Oswald there in those offices when he filled out his affidavit...

Because that actually happened, right?

> Instead of telling of seeing Oswald standing in the door window and flinching back and then following Oswald in to the 2nd floor lunch room where the same lunch of a cheese sandwich and apple Carolyn Arnold saw was on the table, as well as Coke, Baker fudges and says he saw this man on the 4th floor landing...

Baker wasn't familiar with the building and simply didn't recall how many flights he ran up. He said third or fourth, didn't he? You're attributing to malice what can be explained by human error.

> Baker is fuzzing his exonerating witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room and shifting it closer to the Sniper's Nest...Later they would correct it to the 2nd floor lunch room and admit it because they realized there were too many witnesses to Oswald being there and they couldn't get away with it...

There were two, Baker and Truly. Who is *They* in the above? What lunchroom is on the third or fourth floor? None whatsoever, right? You're still attributing to malice what can be explained by human error.

>
> Dougherty told that to Toff because the Commission got him to lie and avoid his real witnessing...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...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...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...

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.
# Forty, never married, still living at home, discharged in 1944, but didn't work until 1952 when he
was 28 or 29. Perhaps the parents were getting older and realized they weren't going to be around
forever and he needed to be gainfully employed to provide for himself.#

> The obvious answer here is 8 years after the assassination Dougherty relieved his conscience by telling Toff the real story and that was he witnessed Oswald in the second floor lunch room just like Carolyn Arnold and Stanton...

No, that's not the *obvious* answer. Read his testimony. Was his story to Toff sworn testimony, with someone to transcribe it? Or was it unsworn, with no penalties for falsehoods? Did Toff ask a bunch of leading questions? Is there a transcript of the interview, or just Toff's account?

> Either Dougherty went back upstairs at 12:30 and witnessed Oswald eating his lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room on the way back up or he never went back upstairs...But one thing is clear...When out from under the Commission's control Dougherty told Toff that he knew Oswald was up eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room while he himself ate in the Domino Room...

When he gave his affidavit to the Sheriff's Office on 11/22/63, was he under the Commission's control? Here's what he said then:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dougher1.htm

> Sorry Charley but Oswald was not on the first floor...Truly helped destroy Dougherty's credibility by saying he was retarded...Truly was doing damage control for dangerous witnessing he knew Dougherty possessed...

Hilarious. Oswald was on the sixth floor. Truly didn't need to say a damn thing. Dougherty's own father told the FBI this:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0320b.htm

>
> 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.

Where is Garner's testimony? Link, please?

And we know Adams and Styles descended within the first few minutes because they saw Truly and Baker rushing up the stairs? Or on the second floor landing?

Are we talking about Victoria Adams?
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
== QUOTE ==
Miss ADAMS - ...And after the third shot, following that, the third shot, I went to the back of the building down the back stairs, and encountered Bill Shelley and Bill Lovelady on the first floor on the way out to the Houston Street dock.
....
Mr. BELIN - Are there any other stairs that lead down from the fourth floor other than those back stairs in the rear of the stockroom?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Those stairs would be in the northwest comer of the building, is that correct?
Miss ADAMS - That's correct.
Mr. BELIN - You took those stairs. Were you walking or running as you went down the stairs?
Miss ADAMS - I was running. We were running.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of shoes did you have on?
Miss ADAMS - Three-inch heels.
Mr. BELIN - You had heels. Now, as you were running down the stairs, did you encounter anyone?
Miss ADAMS - Not during the actual running down the stairs; no, sir.
...
Mr. BELIN - Between the time you got off the stairs and the time you got to this point when you say you encountered them [Shelley and Lovelady], which was somewhat to the south and a little bit east of the front of the east elevator, did you see any other employees there?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.
== QUOTE ==

Aren't you claiming Lovelady and Shelley are on film outside the building at the time you have Adams running down 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:

> 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...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...

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.

>
> The language here is more than obvious: "I saw a glimpse of him go away from me"...Translation: "I saw him incriminatingly flinch back from the door window"...When Baker chased Oswald in to the lunch room he saw Oswald's lunch on the table and a Coke in his hand...

Please don't mischaracterize the testimony of the witness.

Baker said nothing about a lunch and said there was nothing in Oswald's hands. There are 24 mentions of lunchroom in his testimony. There are zero (0) mentions of lunch. He said Oswald had *nothing* in his hands.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN - Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more question, if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct, and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Were you carrying anything in either of your hands?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. BELIN - What were you carrying?
Mr. BAKER - I had my revolver out.
== UNQUOTE ==

> Oswald had obviously been in there eating lunch just as Carolyn Arnold described...
>

It's amazing how you derive that from nothing at all. Can anyone do this?

> 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.

> 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...
>
> "I am fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...

Yeah, and Ted Bundy denied killing any young women or girls as young as 12. So what?

Do you not understand that both innocent and guilty people deny their guilt? And that therefore the denial is not what is determinative of their actual guilt or innocence?

[Hank Sienzant]

Thanks for admitting you have nothing.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 1:27:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:58:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER:
> >>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"PRAYER MAN":
> >>>>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1031.html
> >>>>> Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
> >>>>> TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable
> >>>>> people.
> >>>
> >>>Bwahahaha! Perfect.
> >>
> >> Notice folks, that Chuckles couldn't deny or refute what I stated
> >> about Davy...
> >
> >I deny what you state about DVP,
> Then you're a moron and a PROVEN liar.
>

> Because you can't cite ANY debate *recently* where Davy has attempted
> anything.

We all noticed the moving of the goalposts Ben.

You changed the argument by adding *recently*.

>
> He's a coward, and you're a liar for telling such a blatant lie.
> > one of the most knowledgeable researchers in this niche, insular
> > little world of JFK assassination studies who has ever written or
> > spoken on the subject.
> What does that make me? I've walked CIRCLES around Davy on his flawed
> knowledge of the case.
>
> If *HE* is "one of the most knowledgeable reseachers" - then I'm an
> absolute GENIUS!
>
> I can easily quote him making mistakes on the evidence, Davy can't
> reciprocate.
> >Can I REFUTE what you stated about him?
> Absolutely... JUST CITE WHERE HE'S BEEN DEBATING ME, OR ANY OTHER

> KNOWLEDGEABLE CRITIC *RECENTLY*.

We all noticed the moving of the goalposts Ben.

You changed the argument by adding *recently*.

We all noticed the moving of the goalposts Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, Huckster, the "logical fallacy man" - whips out a logical
fallacy.

Tell us Huckster, can *YOU* point to any recent "debates" between Davy
Von Peiny and any knowledgeable critic?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 5:45:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > That’s a straw man argument. I merely pointed out interviewing the
> > granddaughter of a witness isn’t exactly gospel. Hell, interviewing
> > the witness isn’t exactly gospel, but “serious researchers” (CTs) such
> > as yourself apparently never learned that lesson. So now you cite what
> > the granddaughter says her grandmother said as meaningful.
> For Huckster, anything that doesn't toe the line of the WCR is a
> "CT'er"...
>
> But we true CT's know better.

Tell me how you can determine a "true CT" from an "untrue one".

I'd love to have that ability.

>
> Good to see Huckster busy himself with trolls...

According to whom? Mark Lane?

> He needs something to
> keep himself busy... Mark Lane terrifies him.

I've rebutted plenty of Lane's points in the last few months since you restarted your series.

You don't remember how I pointed out Lane's falsehoods about the Julia Ann Mercer incident, and how you failed to even attempt to rebut any of it?

You can see all that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/MYkiKB5MAAAJ

You can pretend Lane was honest, but he wasn't.

[Hank Sienzant]

We all see you still moving the goalposts, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 08:08:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 5:45:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That’s a straw man argument. I merely pointed out interviewing the
>>> granddaughter of a witness isn’t exactly gospel. Hell, interviewing
>>> the witness isn’t exactly gospel, but “serious researchers” (CTs) such
>>> as yourself apparently never learned that lesson. So now you cite what
>>> the granddaughter says her grandmother said as meaningful.
>>
>> For Huckster, anything that doesn't toe the line of the WCR is a
>> "CT'er"...
>>
>> But we true CT's know better.
>
>Tell me how you can determine a "true CT" from an "untrue one".

You can't... we can.

>I'd love to have that ability.
>>
>> Good to see Huckster busy himself with trolls...
>
>According to whom? Mark Lane?

I find it amusing how most believers can't recognize trolls on their
side.

>> He needs something to
>> keep himself busy... Mark Lane terrifies him.
>
> I've rebutted plenty of Lane's points in the last few months since
> you restarted your series.

It's good for you to think that...

> You don't remember how I pointed out Lane's falsehoods about the

> Julia Ann Mercer...


I remember how desperate you were to commit your logical fallacies
rather than address the Mark Lane quotes I provided... yes.

Your cowardice is noted.

[Ben Holmes]

You did, huh?

Tell us moron - WHAT FACTS ARE YOU GOING TO USE TO DETERMINE
IF DAVY VON PEINY IS A COWARD WHO REFUSES TO DEBATE?

Name them.

But... of course, you won't.

You're simply a cowardly liar...

>You changed the argument by adding *recently*.

No-one has argued that he's not debated in the past.

Just how stupid do you think I am, Huckster?

>> He's a coward, and you're a liar for telling such a blatant lie.
>>
>>> one of the most knowledgeable researchers in this niche, insular
>>> little world of JFK assassination studies who has ever written or
>>> spoken on the subject.
>>
>> What does that make me? I've walked CIRCLES around Davy on his flawed
>> knowledge of the case.
>>
>> If *HE* is "one of the most knowledgeable reseachers" - then I'm an
>> absolute GENIUS!

Huckster had nothing to say...

>> I can easily quote him making mistakes on the evidence, Davy can't
>> reciprocate.
>>
>>>Can I REFUTE what you stated about him?
>>
>> Absolutely... JUST CITE WHERE HE'S BEEN DEBATING ME, OR ANY OTHER
>> KNOWLEDGEABLE CRITIC *RECENTLY*.
>
>We all noticed the moving of the goalposts Ben.
>
>You changed the argument by adding *recently*.

I think I'm just going to label you a damned liar and be done with it.

You're DESPERATE to imply that I ever stated that Davy has *NEVER*
debated critics.

You're TERRIFIED of the fact that I'm absolutely correct, Davy is a
coward who refuses debate.

You too, for that matter. But at least you *pretend* to debate.

And I noticed your implied lie...

Go ahead and make it explicit, and I'll repost the email you sent me
talking about your molesting of neighborhood children.

*MY* goalposts haven't changed, *I* never argued that Davy hasn't
debated.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 08:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

What people will see is your inability to refute what I state.

Davy's a coward. **YOU** are a coward.

Davy for his refusal to debate, you for your inability to acknowledge
the truth and your desperate need to be right.

Run coward... RUN!





(And Davy is *STILL* a coward.)

[Scrum Drum]

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...

> 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...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...

I made a direct reference to Dougherty's Commission testimony where it was obvious he had been coached 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 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 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)...

Meanwhile back in the reality of credible discussion: When you juxtapose Dougherty's obviously being scripted for his Commission testimony 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, like Stanton, felt a need to tell what he had been dishonestly prevented from telling by the FBI...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...In any case Dougherty joins the long list of witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...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...

> > 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...

> > 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...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...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...Once we establish FBI altered testimony then we have to ask what they did with Stanton when they had her saying she never saw Oswald that day and what they did with Dougherty who Toff showed had a serious witnessing...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...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...
> 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"...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...

> > 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.
> > 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...Fritz has a habit of conspicuous stumbles when recounting corrupted evidence...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...

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...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"...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...Hank knows this which is why he also commits the linguistic forensic goof as asking me for professional credentials instead of answering the point...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 entire cover-up....

[John Corbett]

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...
> > 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...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...

It's always funny when a conspiracy hobbyist uses the words "obvious" or "obviously" when making a claim for which there is absolutely zero evidence. In this case there is absolutely zero evidence Frazier was forced to do what Scrum Drum has claimed, so he says he was obviously forced to do that. Why is it obvious? Well it had to happen that way for Scrum Drum's silly beliefs to hold water.

So far Scrum Drum has used "obvious" twice.

There's that word again. "obvious". That's three. No evidence Dougherty was coached. So Scrum Drum just claims it was obvious.

> he had been coached 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 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 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)...
>
> Meanwhile back in the reality of credible discussion: When you juxtapose Dougherty's obviously

"obviously"? That's four so far.

> being scripted for his Commission testimony 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, like Stanton, felt a need to tell what he had been dishonestly prevented from telling by the FBI...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

"obvious" number five.

> 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...In any case Dougherty joins the long list of witnesses who placed Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room...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...
> > > 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...

"obvious" number six. That is if I haven't missed any.

> > > 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...

Well at least you didn't say it was obvious.

> 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...And now I have found new witnessing from Sarah Stanton corroborating that...

You have hearsay.

> 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...Once we establish FBI altered testimony then we have to ask what they did with Stanton when they had her saying she never saw Oswald that day and what they did with Dougherty who Toff showed had a serious witnessing...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...

I never ceased to be amazed at what conspiracy hobbyists consider proof. Do you really think at 12:25 on 11/22/63 Carolyn Arnold would have made a mental note of precisely what time had a casual meeting with Oswald? Why would you think her recollection precisely establishes the time she saw him?

> > > 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 run but he probably just walked. He had plenty of time to do so.

> 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...

Who said he stood in the doorway?

> That is nutty and doesn't make sense...You're bucking against the obvious

"obvious" number seven.

> and Oswald was in the lunch room during the shooting like Fritz said he told him...

Of course. Why would Oswald lie about a think like that?

> > 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"...

Why would you believe what Oswald told Fritz was the truth. He told numerous lies during his interrogation. He denied even owning a rifle despite the fact there is a clear paper trail and photos of him with the rifle.

> 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

"obvious" number eight.

> 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...
> > > 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.
> > > 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...Fritz has a habit of conspicuous stumbles when recounting corrupted evidence...It is plainly obvious

"obvious" number nine.

> 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...
>
> 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...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"...It is plain as day

Well at least you didn't say it was obvious this time.

> 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...Hank knows this which is why he also commits the linguistic forensic goof as asking me for professional credentials instead of answering the point...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 entire cover-up....

It is hilarious that you think because Oswald told Fritz he was in the second floor lunchroom during the shooting that it establishes that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom during the shooting.

[Hank Sienzant]

You did. "Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories, TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable people."

When challenged on this claim, you added the "recently", meaning you moved the goalposts.

It's a logical fallacy to do that, Ben.

Snip all this and call me names, Ben. It's what you're known for.

>
> Just how stupid do you think I am, Huckster?

I will avoid answering that, because I'm nice.

> >> He's a coward, and you're a liar for telling such a blatant lie.
> >>
> >>> one of the most knowledgeable researchers in this niche, insular
> >>> little world of JFK assassination studies who has ever written or
> >>> spoken on the subject.
> >>
> >> What does that make me? I've walked CIRCLES around Davy on his flawed
> >> knowledge of the case.
> >>
> >> If *HE* is "one of the most knowledgeable reseachers" - then I'm an
> >> absolute GENIUS!
> Huckster had nothing to say...

You can interpret (misinterpret) things any way you like. That doesn't make your misinterpretation true, or the intended meaning.

> >> I can easily quote him making mistakes on the evidence, Davy can't
> >> reciprocate.
> >>
> >>>Can I REFUTE what you stated about him?
> >>
> >> Absolutely... JUST CITE WHERE HE'S BEEN DEBATING ME, OR ANY OTHER
> >> KNOWLEDGEABLE CRITIC *RECENTLY*.
> >
> >We all noticed the moving of the goalposts Ben.
> >
> >You changed the argument by adding *recently*.
> I think I'm just going to label you a damned liar and be done with it.
>

Of course you resort to ad hominem, another logical fallacy, because the facts aren't on your side.
Snip all this and call me names, Ben. It's what you're known for.

> You're DESPERATE to imply that I ever stated that Davy has *NEVER*
> debated critics.

I know what you stated: "Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories, TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable people."

Now you're adding the "recently" to this, changing your original assertion.

>
> You're TERRIFIED of the fact that I'm absolutely correct, Davy is a
> coward who refuses debate.

And there's more ad hominem.

>
> You too, for that matter. But at least you *pretend* to debate.

How do I "pretend" to debate, Ben? I cite the words of the witnesses and the conclusions of the experts.
You snip all that and call me a child molester and other assorted names. We see this throughout your post to me.

> >> But you can't do it. You're a liar, and Davy's a coward.

See what I mean? More ad hominem.
Snip all this and call me names, Ben. It's what you're known for.

What implied lie? You claimed this, "Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories, TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable people."

When it was pointed out he had debated with you plenty of times in the past, you moved the goalposts, adding the "recently", as in here:
"Because you can't cite ANY debate recently where Davy has attempted anything."

With, of course, "recently" undefined by you. If DVP debated an issue with you three months ago, is that "recent" enough? A week ago? A day ago? Whenever it last was, you'll simply claim it wasn't recent enough, and declare victory. We know your routine inside and out by now.

Snip all this and call me names, Ben. It's what you're known for.

>
> Go ahead and make it explicit, and I'll repost the email you sent me
> talking about your molesting of neighborhood children.

See what I mean? You don't do debate. You do logical fallacies like ad hominem and moving the goalposts and begging the question.
Snip all this and call me names, Ben. It's what you're known for.

>
> *MY* goalposts haven't changed, *I* never argued that Davy hasn't
> debated.

QUOTE: "Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories, TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable people."

Who were you talking about when you said that?

Whoever it was, it was begging the question and ad hominem multiple times over.

Ad Hominem: "Coward", "terrified".
Begging the Question: " lives on his idea of past victories", "TERRIFIED of debating the evidence", "knowledgeable people".

None of those are established by you.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 16:49:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> No-one has argued that he's not debated in the past.
>
> You did. "Here we see a coward, who lives on his idea of past victories,
> TERRIFIED of debating the evidence in this case with knowledgeable people."

Since everyone can see that I reference HIS PAST DEBATES - you're
simply molesting your own mother now, aren't you?

You'll either debate what I *ACTUALLY* say - or I'll just laugh at
you, Huckster.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you paying for bandwidth or sumpin'? Who cares and why should they care?

What is exceedingly "obvious" is this: you have absolutely no adult friends, which leads one to think what?

[Jason Burke]

Utoh. 1700's come and gone. Bye bye Bennie until Monday morning. Don't
drop the soap!

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 9:04:39 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:


> you paying for bandwidth or sumpin'? Who cares and why should they care?
>
> What is exceedingly "obvious" is this: you have absolutely no adult friends, which leads one to think what?

The regular members at the Education Forum are allowed to do openly juvenile trolling and they have no problem with their membership and posting under James Gordon...Show serious skill and refute the Prayer Man theory single-handed and you get booted off the board with Gordon assigning himself as your personal persecutor who makes sure you are removed from the community and ignored...So now you are defending Lone Nutters Healy?...Is this how you apologize and admit you were wrong on Prayer Man?...It takes a particular type of mannish character to come back and admit you were wrong and that an innocent skilled poster and his correct evidence were unfairly banned because of your actions...

I'm beginning to wonder if some of the people who are consider the main conspiracy researchers are not conspiracy researchers at all but are instead government agents pretending to by conspiracy researchers...

In any case, Hank ran from my last response to him and was unable to answer it...Oswald was clearly in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots and Healy thinks it is only good for trolling...These people use obnoxious trolling and banning as one of their main methods because the JFK internet is overseen by a network of self-appointed a**holes who see good research as a trolling opportunity...

The problem isn't Lone Nutters...The problem is conspiracy research has been hijacked by an insider group of friends who get away with murder because of their censorship-protected clique...

That's a dumb question Healy...They should care because it solves the assassination and ends the garbage most mainstream researchers seem to prefer...A credible researcher wouldn't need to ask...

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 9:04:39 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > you paying for bandwidth or sumpin'? Who cares and why should they care?
> >
> > What is exceedingly "obvious" is this: you have absolutely no adult friends, which leads one to think what?
> The regular members at the Education Forum are allowed to do openly juvenile trolling and they have no problem with their membership and posting under James Gordon...Show serious skill and refute the Prayer Man theory single-handed and you get booted off the board with Gordon assigning himself as your personal persecutor who makes sure you are removed from the community and ignored...So now you are defending Lone Nutters Healy?...Is this how you apologize and admit you were wrong on Prayer Man?...It takes a particular type of mannish character to come back and admit you were wrong and that an innocent skilled poster and his correct evidence were unfairly banned because of your actions...
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if some of the people who are consider the main conspiracy researchers are not conspiracy researchers at all but are instead government agents pretending to by conspiracy researchers...
>
> In any case, Hank ran from my last response to him and was unable to answer it...

Speaking of running, you failed to address my post in which I pointed out numerous fallacies in your reasoning. Your best argument that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when the shots were fired is that Oswald told Fritz he was in the second floor lunchroom when the shots were fired. Is that what you consider empirical evidence?

Oswald was clearly in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots and Healy thinks it is only good for trolling...

Aside from Oswald's "alibi", what evidence do you have he was in the second floor lunchroom during the shots?

> These people use obnoxious trolling and banning as one of their main methods because the JFK internet is overseen by a network of self-appointed a**holes who see good research as a trolling opportunity...

A good researcher would be able to address the tough questions I posed to you. So far you have failed to make the grade.

>
> The problem isn't Lone Nutters...The problem is conspiracy research has been hijacked by an insider group of friends who get away with murder because of their censorship-protected clique...

You are all on a fool's errand. You are all hunting for non-existent evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved in the assassination of JFK. You define yourselves only by where you do your snipe hunting. I would not want to say any one group are bigger fools than any other group. You seem all equally silly in my eyes.

>
> That's a dumb question Healy...They should care because it solves the assassination and ends the garbage most mainstream researchers seem to prefer...A credible researcher wouldn't need to ask...

The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:

The notorious pseudo analyst Andrej Stancak has responded to Gil Jesus's post on the Education Forum...Andrej is trying to posit that Oswald must have come from the front stairs and entered the lunch room via the 2nd floor offices otherwise Baker would have seen the vestibule door swinging closed...Andrej is saying this because he's a Prayer Man believer and is trying to bend the evidence towards Oswald running up from his position as Prayer Man and just making it in to the 2nd floor lunch room ahead of Baker & Truly...

Thanks to James Gordon's brute tyrannical censorship I cannot go set Stancak and his cross-eyed offerings straight...Gordon is like a Neanderthal who stands at the gate of the Education Forum and makes sure the skilled posters with the correct evidence are disallowed and clueless hacks like Stancak are given preferred access...You don't see Healy over there correcting Stancak because Healy doesn't have the skill for this kind of thing so he prefers boy's trolling...

The one thing Stancak refuses to consider is that Oswald was not walking in to the 2nd floor lunch room from the 2nd floor offices...What Oswald was doing was standing there stationary looking out the window of the vestibule door...The Prayer Man people have dominated and hijacked the entire JFK internet and they have dumb moderators like James Gordon acting as their protectors...It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the reason Baker saw Oswald was because Oswald was standing there in the vestibule door window looking out at the staircase landing to see who was going up and down the stairs...Even Stancak admits that the angle of the vestibule door window only allowed a very narrow vantage point to see persons in the vestibule...This is correct, except the one thing that the Prayer Man hijackers have kept people from considering is the fact that the one thing that would make that angle irrelevant is if Oswald stood in the door window looking out...It means persons entering the landing after climbing the stairs would see Oswald right there looking back at them...It is more than obvious that Oswald was looking out at the staircase landing because he either heard Adams & Styles clattering down the stairs or he heard Truly shouting for the elevator...Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating lunch at the 2nd floor lunch room table at 12:25 and that's where Oswald was during the shots as he told Captain Fritz...What the notorious hack Stancak is not admitting is that Oswald got up from his lunch at that table and went to the vestibule door window and looked out at the staircase landing...That is the one direction of travel for Oswald that Stancak doesn't consider because the dishonest Stancak knows it scuttles the Prayer Man theory so he pretends he doesn't realize it...Truly saw Oswald standing in that vestibule door window and quickly kept going in order to lead Baker past him and up the stairs...The reason the Commission never sorted out who was going first up the stairs is because they were trying to avoid Truly telling them that Oswald was standing stationary in that vestibule window and obviously hadn't just dashed down from the 6th floor...When Oswald saw a cop arrive on the 2nd floor landing he flinched back from the vestibule window and Baker caught it square and pursued Oswald in to the lunch room...Baker could not tell of this either for the same reason which is why you see the mush he used to describe how he detected Oswald in his Commission testimony...Neither Baker or Truly could admit they saw Oswald's lunch on the table and a Coke because it confirmed Carolyn Arnold's sighting of Oswald eating lunch at that same table...Truly (or somebody Truly spoke to) would privately tell Buell Frazier that a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple was on that table sealing the deal that Oswald came from the lunch room and went to look out the vestibule window...The best laid plans of mice and men always have the potential for screw up so the conspirators could not anticipate Baker taking the initiative and dashing in to the Depository at that exact time...Nor could they anticipate Oswald blowing his cover at that exact moment and making himself visible to the vigilant Baker...The conspiracy now had a problem it couldn't explain away easily so it required the best effort of avoidance of obvious logic, altered witnessing, and guided testimony...By the way, Stancak is ignoring my photographic evidence of Prayer Man being Sarah Stanton...

Apparently Gil Jesus is intellectually lazy and finds membership in the Education Forum clique preferable to honest fair playing field discussion...We'll see if he responds to Stancak and approves of his evidence hackery and avoidance of the correct solution...I guess Gil finds it easier to get automatic approval from a corrupted moderator rather than earn your own way out there on the hard playing field of fair debate where you have to prove your own worth directly via your material...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you looking for a writing gig drum? All ya gotta do my friend is simple, ask the WCR believers right here on this forum how that worked out for THEM. Only Dale Meyer's appeared in public to promote his writing and "wanna see my emmy" cartoon. And .john of course who is currently in purgatory.

Best you boys can hope for is a term paper at Marquette Univ. that might earn you a # of Folger's coffee in a plastic tub, ENJOY.

[Jason Burke]

Do you have ANY functioning brain cells left, Ringo?

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 1:27:17 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:



> you looking for a writing gig drum? All ya gotta do my friend is simple, ask the WCR believers right here on this forum how that worked out for THEM. Only Dale Meyer's appeared in public to promote his writing and "wanna see my emmy" cartoon. And .john of course who is currently in purgatory.
>

Oswald was standing in the vestibule window looking out on to the staircase landing to see who was going up or down the stairs...

When Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back from the window...Baker saw that guilty flinching and homed right in on it chasing Oswald in to the lunch room...

Baker could not tell the Commission that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window because it would make it clear he had not just dashed down from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest...

Nor could Baker & Truly tell the Commission they saw a Coke and partly eaten sandwich on the lunch room table because it would make it all too clear Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination and had gotten up to go look out the vestibule window when he heard the girls on the stairs...

Captain Fritz - Warren Commission Testimony: "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...

Sarah Stanton: Oswald told me "No, I'm not going out to watch the motorcade...I'm going back in to the break room"...

Carolyn Arnold: "I saw Oswald sitting alone at his regular booth seat in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch at 12:25"...

Jack Dougherty: "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room when I was eating my lunch in the Domino Room"...

[John Corbett]

WOW!!! You only used the word "obvious" three times in this latest post. That's down from the nine you used recently. Do you think that when you are making a claim for which you have no evidence that attaching the word "obvious" to it makes it more convincing. If that's your purpose, it's not working.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:58:54 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> WOW!!! You only used the word "obvious" three times in this latest post. That's down from the nine you used recently. Do you think that when you are making a claim for which you have no evidence that attaching the word "obvious" to it makes it more convincing. If that's your purpose, it's not working.

Your avoidance of what I am actually saying and my evidence in order to troll semantics is what isn't working here...

What you are really saying the loudest is you can't answer a single thing I wrote...

The only way Baker could see Oswald is if Oswald was standing directly in the vestibule window looking out on to the staircase landing...This fits Oswald's behavioral circumstances perfectly after getting up from his lunch to go see who was using the stairs....

That's why they had to lie and cross-out the Coke...

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:56:24 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 1:27:17 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > you looking for a writing gig drum? All ya gotta do my friend is simple, ask the WCR believers right here on this forum how that worked out for THEM. Only Dale Meyer's appeared in public to promote his writing and "wanna see my emmy" cartoon. And .john of course who is currently in purgatory.
> >
> Oswald was standing in the vestibule window looking out on to the staircase landing to see who was going up or down the stairs...

Which witness said that?

>
> When Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back from the window...Baker saw that guilty flinching and homed right in on it chasing Oswald in to the lunch room...

Baker's statement was that Oswald was already moving away from him when he spotted him through the window of the door leading to the lunchroom.

>
> Baker could not tell the Commission that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window because it would make it clear he had not just dashed down from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest...

How do you know Baker didn't tell the Commission that because it didn't happen that way?

>
> Nor could Baker & Truly tell the Commission they saw a Coke and partly eaten sandwich on the lunch room table because it would make it all too clear Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination and had gotten up to go look out the vestibule window when he heard the girls on the stairs...

I don't suppose you considered that the reason they didn't say that is because they didn't see that.

>
> Captain Fritz - Warren Commission Testimony: "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...

And you think that establishes it as a fact? Strange.

>
> Sarah Stanton: Oswald told me "No, I'm not going out to watch the motorcade...I'm going back in to the break room"...

And you think that proves that is what Oswald really did? Strange.

>
> Carolyn Arnold: "I saw Oswald sitting alone at his regular booth seat in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch at 12:25"...

Caroline Arnold stated that in her FBI statement made in March 1964. Do you really think she would remember precisely what time she saw Oswald four months after the fact? Do you think when she spotted Oswald she would have marked the time of such a casual encounter? What reason would she have for noting the time?

>
> Jack Dougherty: "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room when I was eating my lunch in the Domino Room"...

How would Jack Dougherty know Oswald was in the second floor lunch room if he was in the Domino Room?

So far Scrum Drum has avoided these questions. I expect him to continue to do the same. When people can't answer critical questioning regarding their pet theories, it makes it quite easy to dismiss those theories as fantasies.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

sit, puppy...

[Scrum Drum]

The behavioral circumstantial evidence forces it...

Baker could not say Oswald was standing there stationary because that would give the game away that Oswald could not have just ran down from the 6th floor...Baker & Truly had to have seen the same Coke and sandwich Carolyn Arnold did only they covered it up because it was obvious evidence that Oswald was in there the whole time...You don't register that the dimensions of the vestibule only allow Baker to see Oswald if he was very close to the window...So seeing Oswald moving away from the window is Baker's way of saying Oswald flinched away from the window when he saw him and was standing stationary before he did...

No, I think all the other repeated layers of evidence that support it that you're trollishly ignoring establishes it as fact...

You are trollishly ignoring that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in that break room moments after Oswald told Stanton he intended to go back in to it...

No...Arnold's 1964 FBI statement omitted her statement that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room but it did include the 12:25 time...It was her 1978 statement to Earl Golz where she insisted it was the 2nd floor lunch room...It was the first time she had seen her statements and she emphatically insisted to Golz that she never said foyer at 12:15 like they quoted her...You are trollishly ignoring that my new evidence from Sarah Stanton corroborates Carolyn Arnold's 12:25 time and also has Oswald saying in plain words that he intended to go back in to the 2nd floor lunch room...Don't play dumb...Carolyn Arnold explained that she was pregnant and didn't want to stand in the sun so she waited til the last minute to go to the break room and get a drink of water before going outside to watch the motorcade (12:25)...

Obviously Dougherty had a specific reason to be sure that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room...He didn't share that specific reason almost certainly because he had been gag ordered not to:



Q: Did anybody tell you, for instance, you like Oswald probably if he was up on the sixth floor headed truly downstairs too, cause someone saw him down there on second floor, pretty fast
JD: Yes, they had to, but I don’t know who it was.
Q: You don’t know what?
JD: I don’t know who it was, who saw him come down.
Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
JD: Yes, uh huh.
Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
JD: Yes.
Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
JD: That was after.
Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
Q: And he was already in eating?
JD: Yes uh huh.


Now if you had any smarts you would realize that Mrs Reid and a bunch of ladies were eating their lunches in the 2nd floor lunch room until right before the motorcade so they could get their lunches in and not miss the president...So if Dougherty saw Oswald in there it had to be after Oswald told Stanton he intended to go back in there...In fact Stanton was almost certainly one of the ladies who was with Mrs Reid getting their lunches in before the motorcade...Dougherty saw Oswald after he himself ate lunch in the Domino Room and he saw Oswald during that critical time Carolyn Arnold did...If you are smart you'll realize the Commission covered this up and omitted it from their interview of Dougherty...Dougherty was then discredited by being called "retarded"...

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:56:24 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 1:27:17 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > you looking for a writing gig drum? All ya gotta do my friend is simple, ask the WCR believers right here on this forum how that worked out for THEM. Only Dale Meyer's appeared in public to promote his writing and "wanna see my emmy" cartoon. And .john of course who is currently in purgatory.
> > > >
> > > Oswald was standing in the vestibule window looking out on to the staircase landing to see who was going up or down the stairs...
> > Which witness said that?
> > >
> > > When Baker turned the corner Oswald flinched back from the window...Baker saw that guilty flinching and homed right in on it chasing Oswald in to the lunch room...
> > Baker's statement was that Oswald was already moving away from him when he spotted him through the window of the door leading to the lunchroom.
> > >
> > > Baker could not tell the Commission that Oswald was standing stationary in the vestibule window because it would make it clear he had not just dashed down from the 6th floor Sniper's Nest...
> > How do you know Baker didn't tell the Commission that because it didn't happen that way?
> > >
> > > Nor could Baker & Truly tell the Commission they saw a Coke and partly eaten sandwich on the lunch room table because it would make it all too clear Oswald was eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room during the assassination and had gotten up to go look out the vestibule window when he heard the girls on the stairs...
> > I don't suppose you considered that the reason they didn't say that is because they didn't see that.
> > >
> > > Captain Fritz - Warren Commission Testimony: "I'm fairly certain Oswald told me he was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots"...
> > And you think that establishes it as a fact? Strange.
> > >
> > > Sarah Stanton: Oswald told me "No, I'm not going out to watch the motorcade...I'm going back in to the break room"...
> > And you think that proves that is what Oswald really did? Strange.
> > >
> > > Carolyn Arnold: "I saw Oswald sitting alone at his regular booth seat in the 2nd floor lunch room eating lunch at 12:25"...
> > Caroline Arnold stated that in her FBI statement made in March 1964. Do you really think she would remember precisely what time she saw Oswald four months after the fact? Do you think when she spotted Oswald she would have marked the time of such a casual encounter? What reason would she have for noting the time?
> > >
> > > Jack Dougherty: "Oswald was eating lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room when I was eating my lunch in the Domino Room"...
> > How would Jack Dougherty know Oswald was in the second floor lunch room if he was in the Domino Room?
> >
> > So far Scrum Drum has avoided these questions. I expect him to continue to do the same. When people can't answer critical questioning regarding their pet theories, it makes it quite easy to dismiss those theories as fantasies.
> The behavioral circumstantial evidence forces it...
>
> Baker could not say Oswald was standing there stationary because that would give the game away that Oswald could not have just ran down from the 6th floor...Baker & Truly had to have seen the same Coke and sandwich Carolyn Arnold did only they covered it up because it was obvious evidence that Oswald was in there the whole time...You don't register that the dimensions of the vestibule only allow Baker to see Oswald if he was very close to the window...So seeing Oswald moving away from the window is Baker's way of saying Oswald flinched away from the window when he saw him and was standing stationary before he did...

It is amazing how many logical errors you could jam into one short paragraph. First you start with the assumption that Baker was trying to cover something up, something you have never established. You just assume that to be true and that leads you to assume that Baker lied.

You do the same with Baker and Truly not mentioning seeing a Coke and a sandwich. You assume they saw that and withheld that information. You never explain how you know they saw a Coke and a sandwich. You simply assume that to be true and then try to force the evidence to fit our assumption. You invent silly excuses to twist eyewitness accounts that don't conform to your assumptions.

Lastly you assumed Oswald flinched away from the window when Baker spotted him. Another baseless assumption. You don't explain how you know Baker's statements that he saw Oswald moving away from the door are not true. How do you know that what Baker described isn't what he actually saw?

>
> No, I think all the other repeated layers of evidence that support it that you're trollishly ignoring establishes it as fact...
>
> You are trollishly ignoring that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in that break room moments after Oswald told Stanton he intended to go back in to it...
>
> No...Arnold's 1964 FBI statement omitted her statement that she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room but it did include the 12:25 time...

I asked you what reason she would have had to make a mental note of the time she saw Oswald. When you see somebody you know, do you make a habit of noting the exact time you saw them? If months later you were asked what time you saw that person, do you think you would be able to give a precise time?

> It was her 1978 statement to Earl Golz where she insisted it was the 2nd floor lunch room...It was the first time she had seen her statements and she emphatically insisted to Golz that she never said foyer at 12:15 like they quoted her...

So you think a recollection of an event 15 years earlier would be more precise than her contemporaneous statements?

> You are trollishly ignoring that my new evidence from Sarah Stanton corroborates Carolyn Arnold's 12:25 time and also has Oswald saying in plain words that he intended to go back in to the 2nd floor lunch room...Don't play dumb...Carolyn Arnold explained that she was pregnant and didn't want to stand in the sun so she waited til the last minute to go to the break room and get a drink of water before going outside to watch the motorcade (12:25)...

A hearsay second hand account of an event that happened decades earlier does not constitute evidence. This does establish anything. What does establish Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting are his fingerprints on the top of the boxes stacked for a rifle rest, the shells located at the window where several witnesses saw the gunman that were positively matched to the rifle which Oswald owned, had been photographed with, an which was found a short distance from that window, the two recovered bullets that were positively matched to that same rifle, the rifle bag which not only had Oswald's prints on it but fibers matching the blanket he stored his rifle in, Oswald's palm print on the rifle, fibers matching the shirt he was wearing on the butt plate of the rifle, and an eyewitness who IDed him as the shooter. It is comical you would think that decades old accounts by witnesses who would have no reason to note the time they saw Oswald would trump all that physical evidence and the eyewitness who IDed Oswald.

>
> Obviously Dougherty had a specific reason to be sure that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room...He didn't share that specific reason almost certainly because he had been gag ordered not to:

So you have no explanation for how Dougherty could have possibly known Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom if Dougherty was in the first floor Domino Room. You just accept that statement disregarding that it makes absolutely no sense.

>
>
>
> Q: Did anybody tell you, for instance, you like Oswald probably if he was up on the sixth floor headed truly downstairs too, cause someone saw him down there on second floor, pretty fast
> JD: Yes, they had to, but I don’t know who it was.
> Q: You don’t know what?
> JD: I don’t know who it was, who saw him come down.
> Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
> JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
> Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
> JD: Yes, uh huh.
> Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
> JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
> Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
> JD: Yes.
> Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
> JD: That was after.
> Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
> JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
> Q: And he was already in eating?
> JD: Yes uh huh.
>

This does not establish that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom AT THE TIME THE SHOTS WERE FIRED! Dougherty described seeing Oswald before then.

>
> Now if you had any smarts you would realize that Mrs Reid and a bunch of ladies were eating their lunches in the 2nd floor lunch room until right before the motorcade so they could get their lunches in and not miss the president...

Right before does not establish where Oswald was during the shooting. JFK's motorcade was running late. No one could have known that in advance. Any of these people who wanted to see the President would have been out on the street BEFORE the scheduled time of his arrival which was 12:10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_John_F._Kennedy_assassination

"The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m., followed by a 12:15 p.m. arrival at the Trade Mart, where President Kennedy was scheduled to deliver a speech and share a steak luncheon with local government, business, religious, and civic leaders and their spouses."

If Caroline Arnold and these other ladies wanted to see the motorcade, why would they not be out on the street at the time it was scheduled to arrive in Dealey Plaza and how could they have seen Oswald anywhere in the building after that time?

> So if Dougherty saw Oswald in there it had to be after Oswald told Stanton he intended to go back in there...

Which at the latest would have been 12:10 if Stanton intended to see the motorcade.

> In fact Stanton was almost certainly one of the ladies who was with Mrs Reid getting their lunches in before the motorcade...

At 12:10.

> Dougherty saw Oswald after he himself ate lunch in the Domino Room and he saw Oswald during that critical time Carolyn Arnold did...

Before 12:10.

> If you are smart you'll realize the Commission covered this up and omitted it from their interview of Dougherty...Dougherty was then discredited by being called "retarded"...

I'm smart enough to realize that if the motorcade was scheduled to go through Dealey Plaza at 12:10, anyone wanting to see the motorcade would have been out on the street before that time and any recollection they had of seeing Oswald anywhere in the TSBD would have been before 12:10. Any recollections of seeing him after that are dubious at best, especially recollections given decades later.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 5:09:14 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:


>
> You do the same with Baker and Truly not mentioning seeing a Coke and a sandwich. You assume they saw that and withheld that information. You never explain how you know they saw a Coke and a sandwich. You simply assume that to be true and then try to force the evidence to fit our assumption. You invent silly excuses to twist eyewitness accounts that don't conform to your assumptions.
>
> Lastly you assumed Oswald flinched away from the window when Baker spotted him. Another baseless assumption. You don't explain how you know Baker's statements that he saw Oswald moving away from the door are not true. How do you know that what Baker described isn't what he actually saw?
> >

> I asked you what reason she would have had to make a mental note of the time she saw Oswald. When you see somebody you know, do you make a habit of noting the exact time you saw them? If months later you were asked what time you saw that person, do you think you would be able to give a precise time?

> So you think a recollection of an event 15 years earlier would be more precise than her contemporaneous statements?

> So you have no explanation for how Dougherty could have possibly known Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom if Dougherty was in the first floor Domino Room. You just accept that statement disregarding that it makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> >
> >
> > Q: Did anybody tell you, for instance, you like Oswald probably if he was up on the sixth floor headed truly downstairs too, cause someone saw him down there on second floor, pretty fast
> > JD: Yes, they had to, but I don’t know who it was.
> > Q: You don’t know what?
> > JD: I don’t know who it was, who saw him come down.
> > Q: Did you see him at all that day do you remember?
> > JD: Well, just downstairs in the lunch room, was about all.
> > Q: But that was when you were having lunch right?
> > JD: Yes, uh huh.
> > Q: And he was having lunch in there too?
> > JD: No, I was downstairs having lunch and he was having lunch upstairs on two.
> > Q: Oh he had lunch on two? And you had lunch on one?
> > JD: Yes.
> > Q: And did you see him have lunch before you had it or after?
> > JD: That was after.
> > Q: You had your lunch first and then you saw him at lunch?
> > JD: Well, I come down and I saw him on two see and then I went downstairs and had mine.
> > Q: And he was already in eating?
> > JD: Yes uh huh.
> >
> This does not establish that Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom AT THE TIME THE SHOTS WERE FIRED! Dougherty described seeing Oswald before then.
> >

> Right before does not establish where Oswald was during the shooting. JFK's motorcade was running late. No one could have known that in advance. Any of these people who wanted to see the President would have been out on the street BEFORE the scheduled time of his arrival which was 12:10.
>

>

> "The motorcade was scheduled to enter Dealey Plaza at 12:10 p.m., followed by a 12:15 p.m. arrival at the Trade Mart, where President Kennedy was scheduled to deliver a speech and share a steak luncheon with local government, business, religious, and civic leaders and their spouses."
>

> Which at the latest would have been 12:10 if Stanton intended to see the motorcade.
> > In fact Stanton was almost certainly one of the ladies who was with Mrs Reid getting their lunches in before the motorcade...
> At 12:10.
> > Dougherty saw Oswald after he himself ate lunch in the Domino Room and he saw Oswald during that critical time Carolyn Arnold did...
> Before 12:10.
> > If you are smart you'll realize the Commission covered this up and omitted it from their interview of Dougherty...Dougherty was then discredited by being called "retarded"...
> I'm smart enough to realize that if the motorcade was scheduled to go through Dealey Plaza at 12:10, anyone wanting to see the motorcade would have been out on the street before that time and any recollection they had of seeing Oswald anywhere in the TSBD would have been before 12:10. Any recollections of seeing him after that are dubious at best, especially recollections given decades later.

I answered why Truly & Baker had to have seen the sandwich...You just ignored that answer and asked the same question over again...I really don't want to debate with denial trolls who are obviously not interested in the facts and are only here to gum up good research with trollish excuse-seeking...Truly & Baker had to have seen the sandwich because Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was eating lunch...Carolyn must have seen Oswald's sandwich and Coke if she assumed he was eating lunch...Dougherty also saw the same lunch and said so in his interview with Gil Toff...That same sandwich shows up again in Buell Frazier's admission that he was told of a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and it shows up again in Fritz's Commission testimony where Fritz says Oswald told him about that sandwich...So who am I going to believe?...Repeated references by the people who were there at the time or the obnoxious denials of an obvious denial troll?...Truly & Baker had to have seen the sandwich because for Frazier to hear it was still on the table after the assassination means it had to be there when Truly & Baker popped in to the lunch room...If they erased the Coke then they definitely erased the sandwich...By the way, Stanton told her grand daughter that Oswald had a soda when she saw him on the staircase landing...

I already proved that Oswald had to have flinched away because the angle of the vestibule window was so tight that for Baker to have seen him at all would require that he was up close to the window before he backed off...You just don't understand the forensics of what I'm telling you...You have failed to answer the question that if Oswald was eating his lunch at the 2nd floor lunch room table then what was he doing at the vestibule door window?...The only answer is he got up to go look at who was going up or down the stairs and to do that he had to stand stationary in the window to look out...If he moved away when Baker arrived it was because he had seen a cop he hadn't expected and flinched away...You haven't answered why Baker was checking out a guy in the 2nd floor lunch room if he intended to go upstairs to look for a shooter?...The obvious answer is he checked out Oswald because he had good cop instincts and Oswald's agent provocateur status gave him a facial expression Baker read like a book as well as the guilty flinching...

I have already answered that question...Carolyn Arnold knew what time she went outside because she was pregnant and waited until the last moment to go outside in order to avoid standing in the sun...She went to the 2nd floor break room to get a drink of water as was her habit because she was pregnant...If Oswald was alone in that break room it was after Mrs Reid and the ladies left...They left at the last moment because Mrs Reid said she was on the telephone with her husband and he was tracking the motorcade's progress on his radio...Mrs Reid gave a statement on this and mentioned where the motorcade was when she rushed the ladies out of the break room...It was at a progress point that made Carolyn Arnold's witnessing at 12:25 after they left...So your weak denial has now failed to answer the superior evidence that Oswald could not have been seen contently eating lunch at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold and then gone up and made some pretty good shots on the 6th floor and then rushed back down not out of breath 6 minutes later with Mrs Garner not seeing him...You think you are being clever with your nit-picking denial but he greater evidence you are not answering destroys your attempt...

That 12:10 strawman you are desperately using to get out of the evidence isn't working...The motorcade was the reason they were all there and they had something called "television" and "radio" back then and knew the motorcade left Love Field 22 minutes late at 12:52...They knew when it left that it wouldn't get to Dealey Plaza until 12:25...Mrs Reid was on the phone with her husband who was listening to a radio and informing her of the motorcade's progress that she was relaying to the other employees in the 2nd floor lunch room...If you were smart you would realize Mrs Reid was Intel and her job was to excite the employees in to all getting up and leaving the lunch room so it would be empty for Oswald...Like Baker, Carolyn Arnold and her habit of getting drinks of water for her pregnancy was a wild card they hadn't anticipated...

If Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 and was witnessed in that same lunch room 6 minutes later by Truly & Baker then he was in there in between like he told Captain Fritz...

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.

Sure was....
http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.html

[John Corbett]

It was a stupid answer because it was based on an equally stupid assumption.

> You just ignored that answer and asked the same question over again...I really don't want to debate with denial trolls who are obviously not interested in the facts

Your assumptions are not facts, much as you would like them to be.

> and are only here to gum up good research

What you are doing is not good research. You are simply engaged in a silly hobby, trying to rewrite history with you fantasies.

> with trollish excuse-seeking...Truly & Baker had to have seen the sandwich because Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was eating lunch...

That assumes Oswald didn't finish his lunch and just left it laying out there.

> Carolyn must have seen Oswald's sandwich and Coke if she assumed he was eating lunch...

So your assumption is based on her assumptions. Did Carolyn Arnold go out front to see the motorcade? With the motorcade scheduled to arrive in Dealey Plaza at 12:10, what time do you think she would have gone out to see the motorcade?

a. Before 12:10
b. Exactly 12:10
c. After 12:10

> Dougherty also saw the same lunch and said so in his interview with Gil Toff...That same sandwich shows up again in Buell Frazier's admission that he was told of a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and it shows up again in Fritz's Commission testimony where Fritz says Oswald told him about that sandwich...So who am I going to believe?

The question was not whether there was a sandwich in the second floor lunchroom. The question is what time the sandwich was seen in the second floor lunchroom. It seems to me all the people you are relying on to establish that there was a sandwich there were also people who went outside to see the motorcade.....scheduled to arrive at 12:10.

>...Repeated references by the people who were there at the time or the obnoxious denials of an obvious denial troll?...Truly & Baker had to have seen the sandwich because for Frazier to hear it was still on the table after the assassination means it had to be there when Truly & Baker popped in to the lunch room...

From whom did Frazier hear the sandwich was still on the table after the assassination?

> If they erased the Coke then they definitely erased the sandwich...By the way, Stanton told her grand daughter that Oswald had a soda when she saw him on the staircase landing...

Probably. Oswald bought the Coke after his encounter with Baker and Truly. Mrs. Reid saw him with the Coke when he walked past her desk. Baker said Oswald had nothing in his hands when the encounter took place. He and Truly were the only witnesses to the encounter. You have no one who can establish Oswald had the Coke when Baker confronted him.

>
> I already proved that Oswald had to have flinched away because the angle of the vestibule window was so tight that for Baker to have seen him at all would require that he was up close to the window before he backed off...

Not true. As Baker reached the second floor landing he would have turned to his left and been looking right through the window of the outer door. He could see Oswald had gone through the vestibule door because it had not closed behind him.

> You just don't understand the forensics of what I'm telling you...

No but I understand the forensics of what actually happened. Those two have very little in common.

> You have failed to answer the question that if Oswald was eating his lunch at the 2nd floor lunch room table then what was he doing at the vestibule door window?...

Your question is based on not one but two false pretenses, one that Oswald was eating his lunch and two that he was at the vestibule door. The reality is he had just gone through the vestibule door and into the lunchroom when Baker spotted him.

> The only answer is he got up to go look at who was going up or down the stairs and to do that he had to stand stationary in the window to look out...

Just because that is the only answer you can think of does not mean it is the only answer.

> If he moved away when Baker arrived it was because he had seen a cop he hadn't expected and flinched away...You haven't answered why Baker was checking out a guy in the 2nd floor lunch room if he intended to go upstairs to look for a shooter?...

Are you serious? He thought the shots came from the top of the TSBD. Do you think he would expect the shooter to remain up there or would he be looking for somebody who might have come from there?

> The obvious answer is he checked out Oswald because he had good cop instincts and Oswald's agent provocateur status gave him a facial expression Baker read like a book as well as the guilty flinching...

His training would have told him to check out anybody who might have fired the shots from at or near the top of the building. That would include anybody who might have just come down from there, like somebody who had just ducked into the lunchroom.

>
> I have already answered that question...Carolyn Arnold knew what time she went outside because she was pregnant and waited until the last moment to go outside in order to avoid standing in the sun...

The last moment would have been right before 12:10.

> She went to the 2nd floor break room to get a drink of water as was her habit because she was pregnant...

She would have done that before 12:10 if she wanted to get outside in time to see a motorcade that was scheduled to arrive at 12:10. She would have allowed herself enough time to get to the front of the building and probably a few extra minutes just to be safe.

> If Oswald was alone in that break room it was after Mrs Reid and the ladies left...They left at the last moment because Mrs Reid said she was on the telephone with her husband and he was tracking the motorcade's progress on his radio...Mrs Reid gave a statement on this and mentioned where the motorcade was when she rushed the ladies out of the break room...It was at a progress point that made Carolyn Arnold's witnessing at 12:25 after they left...So your weak denial has now failed to answer the superior evidence that Oswald could not have been seen contently eating lunch at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold and then gone up and made some pretty good shots on the 6th floor and then rushed back down not out of breath 6 minutes later with Mrs Garner not seeing him...You think you are being clever with your nit-picking denial but he greater evidence you are not answering destroys your attempt...

You have never established that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at 12:25. You have never addressed the question of why she would have mentally marked the time she actually saw Oswald.

>
> That 12:10 strawman you are desperately using to get out of the evidence isn't working...The motorcade was the reason they were all there and they had something called "television" and "radio" back then and knew the motorcade left Love Field 22 minutes late at 12:52...They knew when it left that it wouldn't get to Dealey Plaza until 12:25...Mrs Reid was on the phone with her husband who was listening to a radio and informing her of the motorcade's progress that she was relaying to the other employees in the 2nd floor lunch room...If you were smart you would realize Mrs Reid was Intel and her job was to excite the employees in to all getting up and leaving the lunch room so it would be empty for Oswald...Like Baker, Carolyn Arnold and her habit of getting drinks of water for her pregnancy was a wild card they hadn't anticipated...
>
> If Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 and was witnessed in that same lunch room 6 minutes later by Truly & Baker then he was in there in between like he told Captain Fritz...

Lots of ifs which you have never established as facts. Your whole premise is based on people remembering months or even years after the fact exactly what time they saw certain things when they would have had no reason at all to make note of the precise time. All these times people give are nothing more than estimates (i.e. guesses) as to what time they actually happened. Reid's statement is a perfect example. She testified she ate her lunch hurriedly at noon. She said her husband had told her the motorcade was 10 minutes late (not 22) but she went down rather soon anyway. Later she said she went out front at 12:30 which makes no sense because the shots were fired at 12:30. She was guessing what time she did any of these things. She would have had no reason to note at the time, what time she finished eating her lunch or what time she actually went out front.

Eyewitnesses are a very unreliable form of evidence because eyewitnesses don't get important details correct all the time. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It is especially dubious to rely on them to establish precisely when certain key events took place because at the time those events happened, there would have been no reason for them to know they were key events and to make note of the time they happened. During the course of a normal workday I would encounter dozens of people. Do you think I noted the time I saw each of those people. Do you think months later I would be able to tell someone exactly what time each of these encounters occurred? Do you think my memory would get more precise if I was asked decades later what time they occurred?

[John Corbett]

That's a great collection, David. Both big and small city newspapers. I remember being surprised that our afternoon Omaha World-Herald had the news. I didn't think they could turn around a story that quickly. It had a simple banner headline KENNEDY ASSASSINATED in the largest type I'd ever seen them use. The story only had a couple paragraphs with the basic facts. I recently learned that there was a Wall Street edition of the paper that came out after the afternoon paper and I found a copy of that online with a little more detail. I've never found an online copy of the afternoon World-Herald from that day.

[Jason Burke]

On 8/7/2021 6:48 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> And David von Penis continues to gnaw away on JFK's corpse.
>
> Why would anyone (even a conspiracy fantasist such a Nineteen-EF-Triple P) want to utter such an idiotic statement?
>

'Cause they gots nothing better to do than embarrass themselves.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:42:23 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> DVP loves the taste of old dead Kennedy.

Idiotic Statement #2.

Are you planning on going for the Hat Trick, Triple-P?

[Jason Burke]

On 8/7/2021 11:42 PM, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> Thank you. The Penis deleted his comment, but I can see it because of your response. DVP loves the taste of old dead Kennedy.
>

Way wrong answer, retard.

[Scrum Drum]

You're trolling Mr Corbett and I am not interested in wasting my time answering trolls...Carolyn Arnold was a Depository employee who was there and witnessed the things she did...You, on the other hand, are just an internet troll looking to engage anyone stupid enough to respond to your nay-say trolling...Carolyn Arnold wrote in her March 1964 FBI report that she saw Oswald at 12:25...You have already ignored that Carolyn herself told that she was pregnant and went out at the last minute in order not to have to stand too long in the sun...She knows when she went out and she knew how long it was before the motorcade and she expressedly said it was 12:25...She was the last one out so it had to be late...It also had to be in the 12:25 range because Oswald was alone which means Mrs Reid and the ladies had cleared out (as I already explained to you and you trollishly ignored)...More proof of the 12:25 time is FBI tried to alter it to 12:15 and the foyer - which is a sign of guilt and knowledge of the dangerousness of the true 12:25 time...So for you to ignore this, and the fact the employees at the Depository were keep informed of the motorcade's 11:52 departure from Love Field and knew it was late, means that your responding by posting your 12:10 canard over and over shows you are gas-light trolling and not seriously interested in the facts...It shows that you are simply here to troll invalid responses in order to psychologically discourage me from expecting any serious answer...The simple answer is Carolyn Arnold knew what time she went out because moments later she witnessed what was probably the most important event of her life and the times burned in to her memory...She repeated that true memory in her 1964 FBI report and 1978 interview with Earl Golz...It is clear to anyone reading this that you are aware of the damning nature of her witnessing which is why you troll it so badly...No serious Assassination researcher thinks the Depository employees expected the motorcade at 12:10...Proof of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing is seen in the fact she was intimidated to never talk about it again after Earl Golz...

The question IS about the sandwich because if it was in the 2nd floor lunch room then that means Oswald ate lunch up there like he told Fritz...There's no way Oswald bundled all of his lunch and soda in to his arms and carried them down to the 1st floor only to carry them right back up again...Your analysis is stupid because it doesn't answer the fact that even if Carolyn Arnold's sighting was earlier than 12:25 that sandwich is still on that table and still carries through in that spot during the assassination...Which means Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots like he told Fritz...Your using the original 12:10 scheduled time to try to wiggle out of that dismisses you from serious discussion and means I don't have to respond to your trolling any more...The fact Frazier refuses to reveal who told him about the sandwich proves there was a conspiracy and naming those persons is still dangerous...It also proves that knowledge of that sandwich was covered-up at the time...

You're a nut because Sarah Stanton saw Oswald with that soda when she went out to watch the motorcade...I'm guessing that was in the 12:17 to 12:20 range, which means the long sleeved Oswald (Harvey) bought that soda prior to that time...You obviously have no working knowledge of the evidence because most of what you offer is based on gratuitous trolling...The Oswald Mrs Reid saw with the soda was (Lee) in the white T-shirt...In Baker's first accounts he wrote that Oswald had a Coke...It was disappeared out of later accounts because the plotters realized Oswald didn't have enough time to buy that Coke and still run down from the 6th floor (as if you don't know that)...I have to assume Sarah Stanton told FBI of her witnessing Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing so we can assume they lied and omitted it from her FBI statement...In any case, your weak, transparent, evasive denials have done nothing to disprove the sandwich that goes from Carolyn Arnold's witnessing, to Baker & Trulys', to Buell Frazier's and proves Oswald was in that lunch room during the shots like he told Fritz...

Your lie about Baker having to see the automatic door closing behind Oswald is disproven by the fact Truly said he saw nothing as he ran by...If Baker saw the door closing then Truly would had to have seen Oswald in the even more open door...It's pretty stupid of you not to realize that and even more stupid to not realize Baker & Truly were trying to convict Oswald so if they had seen that door swinging closed they would have been the first to say so...So you still haven't answered the fact that the window angle and vestibule dimensions prove that for Baker to have seen Oswald moving away from the window would mean Oswald was up close to that window when he did - which is the definition of flinching away from the window...

Your squirming out of the question of why did Oswald get up from his lunch at the 2nd floor lunch room table and go stand in the vestibule window is plainly apparent...You have failed to answer for Mrs Garner who followed the panicked Adams & Styles to the 4th floor staircase landing and stood there watching the stairs...For your scenario to be true would require Mrs Garner to see Oswald racing down the stairs behind the girls...Mrs Garner said she saw Baker & Truly emerge on that 4th floor landing after Adams & Styles descended which meant Oswald would have gone down before they emerged...And don't forget you still haven't managed to squirm out of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing who put Oswald calmly eating lunch alone in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25...Your attempt to repeat 12:10 over and over in response to this only wins the debate for me...Your trolling evasion of making me answer why Carolyn Arnold would mentally mark that 12:25 time is not a valid response to the crushing evidence I have presented so therefore I win...And it is corroborated by Sarah Stanton whom Oswald told he intended to go back in to that break room...

You're lying Mr Corbett...Mrs Reid said she went out when her husband told her the motorcade was nearing...They waited until the last minute so Oswald could not have been in the 2nd floor lunch room alone until after those ladies had left just prior to 12:25...Sarah Stanton saw an Oswald who was out on the staircase landing knowing the "break room" would be cleared out for him by fellow Intel ops who were monitoring the motorcade for the purpose of exciting the other employees to all get up and go out - leaving the break room empty for Oswald...Carolyn Arnold was the one wild card they couldn't predict...

[Hank Sienzant]

It’s worse than that. In her initial statement she said she had a recollection of perhaps seeing someone and *perhaps* the person she saw was Oswald. She wasn’t at all certain she she saw anyone, let alone that it was Oswald.

Of course, according to the poster who likes to resort to ad hominem and call us trolls, any statements to the FBI can be dismissed, unless of course it records something he likes.

Basically, he is charging that almost every FBI agent, many of whom must have served honorably in WWII and been willing to lay down his life to protect and preserve the US and our constitution, was willing to simply go along with a treasonous plot to cover up a conspiracy to assassinate a President and also frame an innocent man.

But then the supposed conspiracy gets larger and larger. Our current CT finds it necessary to include a Dallas Policeman, Marrion Baker, AND a private citizen, Roy Truly, in this plot to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald. “Whatever it takes”, it appears is the CT motto, as there’s no restraints whatsover on their imagination.

When you take a step back from their minutia it becomes more obvious how bizarre their claims are.

[Hank Sienzant]

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"

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:28:29 AM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 9:04:39 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > you paying for bandwidth or sumpin'? Who cares and why should they care?
> >
> > What is exceedingly "obvious" is this: you have absolutely no adult friends, which leads one to think what?
> The regular members at the Education Forum are allowed to do openly juvenile trolling and they have no problem with their membership and posting under James Gordon...Show serious skill and refute the Prayer Man theory single-handed and you get booted off the board with Gordon assigning himself as your personal persecutor who makes sure you are removed from the community and ignored...So now you are defending Lone Nutters Healy?...Is this how you apologize and admit you were wrong on Prayer Man?...It takes a particular type of mannish character to come back and admit you were wrong and that an innocent skilled poster and his correct evidence were unfairly banned because of your actions...
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if some of the people who are consider the main conspiracy researchers are not conspiracy researchers at all but are instead government agents pretending to by conspiracy researchers...
>
> In any case, Hank ran from my last response to him and was unable to answer it...

Wow. For future reference exactly how many hours do I have to respond before you declare victory?


> Oswald was clearly in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots and Healy thinks it is only good for trolling...These people use obnoxious trolling and banning as one of their main methods because the JFK internet is overseen by a network of self-appointed a**holes who see good research as a trolling opportunity...
>
> The problem isn't Lone Nutters...The problem is conspiracy research has been hijacked by an insider group of friends who get away with murder because of their censorship-protected clique...
>
> That's a dumb question Healy...They should care because it solves the assassination and ends the garbage most mainstream researchers seem to prefer...A credible researcher wouldn't need to ask...

[John Corbett]

I am someone who applies critical thinking to eyewitness accounts and weighs those accounts against the physical evidence to determine the credibility of the witness giving the account. You on the other hand, as is customary for conspiracy hobbyists, weigh eyewitness accounts against your pet theory and deem a witness to be credible based on how well their account conforms to your pet theory. If a witness' account doesn't square with your theory, such as Baker and Truly, you accuse them a liar. Then you turn around and claim to be a researcher. A real researcher would never employ such dubious methods to weigh the evidence.

> Carolyn Arnold wrote in her March 1964 FBI report that she saw Oswald at 12:25...

No she didn't. She made that claim in 1978. Her 1964 account said she last saw Oswald at 12:15 and wasn't sure where it was she saw him.

> You have already ignored that Carolyn herself told that she was pregnant and went out at the last minute in order not to have to stand too long in the sun...She knows when she went out and she knew how long it was before the motorcade and she expressedly said it was 12:25...

15 years later.

> She was the last one out so it had to be late...

Why? Why couldn't the last one out have left at 12:10?

> It also had to be in the 12:25 range because Oswald was alone which means Mrs Reid and the ladies had cleared out (as I already explained to you and you trollishly ignored)...

You haven't established what time they left the lunchroom either. All you have are estimates which are nothing more than educated guesses and establish nothing.

> More proof of the 12:25 time is FBI tried to alter it to 12:15 and the foyer - which is a sign of guilt and knowledge of the dangerousness of the true 12:25 time...

Here is where you give and example of your shoddy methodology which I stated earlier. You reject the FBI account because it doesn't fit with your pet theory yet you accept what Arnold said 15 years after the fact because that is what you want to believe. The body of evidence taken as a whole clearly establishes that Oswald was the on firing the shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest at 12:30. You try to make all that evidence go away by relying on one witness' account given 15 years later. No wonder you can't figure out such a simple case.

> So for you to ignore this, and the fact the employees at the Depository were keep informed of the motorcade's 11:52 departure from Love Field and knew it was late, means that your responding by posting your 12:10 canard over and over shows you are gas-light trolling and not seriously interested in the facts...

Mrs. Reid is the only one who testified to hearing that the motorcade was late and she said her husband told her it was 10 minutes late.

> It shows that you are simply here to troll invalid responses in order to psychologically discourage me from expecting any serious answer...

I really don't give a shit what you expect or what you believe.

> The simple answer is Carolyn Arnold knew what time she went out because moments later she witnessed what was probably the most important event of her life and the times burned in to her memory...She repeated that true memory in her 1964 FBI report

Her 1964 FBI report indicated that she thought she saw Oswald about 12:15 and wasn't sure where that was. You prefer to put all your chips on her 1978 account which conflicts with the entire body of physical evidence which clearly establishes Oswald was the shooter in the 6th floor nest at 12:30. Bud said it best many years ago. Conspiracy hobbyists are really bad at weighing evidence as you are demonstrating. You put your faith in Arnold's 15 year old memory of the event and believe that outweighs all the the physical evidence and contemporaneous accounts of what happened.
'

> and 1978 interview with Earl Golz...It is clear to anyone reading this that you are aware of the damning nature of her witnessing which is why you troll it so badly...

An eyewitness account that conflicts with all the physical evidence and other witness accounts is not damning. It is suspect.

> No serious Assassination researcher thinks the Depository employees expected the motorcade at 12:10...Proof of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing is seen in the fact she was intimidated to never talk about it again after Earl Golz...

If I ever meet a serious assassination researcher, I will ask him.

>
> The question IS about the sandwich because if it was in the 2nd floor lunch room then that means Oswald ate lunch up there like he told Fritz...

If there was a sandwich left there, it could have been left there by anyone who ate their lunch there and we don't know what time they left it there.

> There's no way Oswald bundled all of his lunch and soda in to his arms and carried them down to the 1st floor only to carry them right back up again...Your analysis is stupid because it doesn't answer the fact that even if Carolyn Arnold's sighting was earlier than 12:25 that sandwich is still on that table and still carries through in that spot during the assassination...

You are simply asserting things you cannot prove.

> Which means Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shots like he told Fritz...

A silly assertion by a silly conspiracy hobbyist.

> Your using the original 12:10 scheduled time to try to wiggle out of that dismisses you from serious discussion and means I don't have to respond to your trolling any more...

12:10 was the scheduled time for the motorcade to arrive in Dealey Plaza. Anyone wanting to see the President and First Lady would have planned to be out there by then which means if they were going to eat lunch inside, they would do it well before that time. Some of them might have heard reports that the motorcade was running late but Mrs. Reid was the only one to testify that she had heard it and she was told it was only 10 minutes late by her husband. It is pure conjecture whether anyone else had heard the motorcade was running late. Whether others heard it or not is irrelevant. We don't have established times for when anyone ate their lunch and when they left to go outside. All we have are their estimates which establish nothing. There is absolutely no reason to believe anyone would have made a mental note of what time they actually went outside to see the motorcade. All these estimates do not outweigh the physical evidence that clearly establishes Oswald was the shooter. He was the owner of the murder weapon. He smuggled it into the TSBD. His prints and blanket fibers were in the bag used to smuggle the weapon. All the recovered shells and the two recovered bullets were positively matched to his rifle. His fingerprints were on the tops of the boxes stacked up in the sniper's nest as a rifle rest and they were oriented just as they would be for a shooter facing down Elm St. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel where it could only have been placed with the rifle disassembled. Fibers matching his shirt were lodged in the butt plate of the rifle. Explain how all that evidence could be as it was if Oswald was not the shooter.

> The fact Frazier refuses to reveal who told him about the sandwich proves there was a conspiracy and naming those persons is still dangerous...It also proves that knowledge of that sandwich was covered-up at the time...

Amazing what you consider proof.

>
> You're a nut because Sarah Stanton saw Oswald with that soda when she went out to watch the motorcade...I'm guessing that was in the 12:17 to 12:20 range,

At least for once you admit you are guessing. You are doing it rather badly. A five decades old second hand hearsay account doesn't carry any weight. But to you it outweighs all the physical evidence I summarized above.

> which means the long sleeved Oswald (Harvey) bought that soda prior to that time...You obviously have no working knowledge of the evidence because most of what you offer is based on gratuitous trolling...

You ignore the evidence. You have never tried to explain how the evidence I summarized above could have been as it was if Oswald was not the shooter.

> The Oswald Mrs Reid saw with the soda was (Lee) in the white T-shirt...In Baker's first accounts he wrote that Oswald had a Coke...

Another statement showing you don't know what you are talking about. Baker never wrote a statement. It was written for him based on the FBI interview. He was asked to read it and sign it. He declined because the person who wrote the statement inserted the part about Oswald having a Coke. Baker knew that wasn't true which is why he refused to sign it. The agent asked him to make the correction and initial the correction which Baker did and only then did he sign it.

> It was disappeared out of later accounts because the plotters realized Oswald didn't have enough time to buy that Coke and still run down from the 6th floor (as if you don't know that)...

There is no record of Baker ever saying Oswald had a Coke in his hands during the encounter. The only record of someone seeing Oswald with a Coke was Mrs. Reid and that was after Oswald's encounter with Baker.

> I have to assume

You do a lot of assuming and guessing.

> Sarah Stanton told FBI of her witnessing Oswald on the 2nd floor staircase landing so we can assume

There you go again.

> they lied and omitted it from her FBI statement...

Your assumptions do not establish that the FBI or anyone else lied.

> In any case, your weak, transparent, evasive denials have done nothing to disprove the sandwich that goes from Carolyn Arnold's witnessing, to Baker & Trulys', to Buell Frazier's and proves Oswald was in that lunch room during the shots like he told Fritz...

Keep putting all your eggs in Carolyn Arnold's 15 year old memory of the event and ignore all the real evidence. It will keep you perpetually confused about what happened on 11/22/63.

>
> Your lie about Baker having to see the automatic door closing behind Oswald is disproven by the fact Truly said he saw nothing as he ran by...

Nothing is proven or disproven. All it means is Truly didn't glance toward the lunchroom when he reached the second floor landing and headed for the stairs leading to the third floor.

> If Baker saw the door closing then Truly would had to have seen Oswald in the even more open door...

I never said Baker saw the door closing. I said he saw Oswald before the door closed. The door closed automatically so if Oswald had gone through that door more than a few seconds before Baker looked that way, the door would have closed behind him and Baker wouldn't have seen Oswald walking away from him.

> It's pretty stupid of you not to realize that and even more stupid to not realize Baker & Truly were trying to convict Oswald so if they had seen that door swinging closed they would have been the first to say so...

You are a very poor judge of who is stupid.

> So you still haven't answered the fact that the window angle and vestibule dimensions prove that for Baker to have seen Oswald moving away from the window would mean Oswald was up close to that window when he did - which is the definition of flinching away from the window...

That's the conclusion you reached? And you call me stupid? That's funny.

>
> Your squirming out of the question of why did Oswald get up from his lunch at the 2nd floor lunch room table and go stand in the vestibule window is plainly apparent...

I don't answer questions based on false pretenses. Your pretense is that Oswald got up from the lunchroom to look out the vestibule window. The evidence indicates he had reached the lunchroom just before Baker and Truly reached the second floor landing.

> You have failed to answer for Mrs Garner who followed the panicked Adams & Styles to the 4th floor staircase landing and stood there watching the stairs...For your scenario to be true would require Mrs Garner to see Oswald racing down the stairs behind the girls...Mrs Garner said she saw Baker & Truly emerge on that 4th floor landing after Adams & Styles descended which meant Oswald would have gone down before they emerged...

There is no reason to believe Adams, Styles, or Garner would have seen Oswald if he went down the stairs before they did.

> And don't forget you still haven't managed to squirm out of Carolyn Arnold's witnessing who put Oswald calmly eating lunch alone in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25...

Because that didn't happen. You have this silly belief that everything a witness says is true, at least if what they say is what you want to believe.

> Your attempt to repeat 12:10 over and over in response to this only wins the debate for me...Your trolling evasion of making me answer why Carolyn Arnold would mentally mark that 12:25 time is not a valid response to the crushing evidence I have presented so therefore I win...

Really? What did you win?

> And it is corroborated by Sarah Stanton whom Oswald told he intended to go back in to that break room...

So in your wacky world, a five decades old hearsay account corroborates a 15 year old account that conflicts with that same person's account 14 years earlier as well as all the physical evidence. This is why I bother spending my time in these forums. The nutty reasoning conspiracy hobbyists such as yourself come up with never fails to amuse.

>
> You're lying Mr Corbett...Mrs Reid said she went out when her husband told her the motorcade was nearing...They waited until the last minute so Oswald could not have been in the 2nd floor lunch room alone until after those ladies had left just prior to 12:25...Sarah Stanton saw an Oswald who was out on the staircase landing knowing the "break room" would be cleared out for him by fellow Intel ops who were monitoring the motorcade for the purpose of exciting the other employees to all get up and go out - leaving the break room empty for Oswald...Carolyn Arnold was the one wild card they couldn't predict...

I base my beliefs on hard evidence gathered the day of the assassination. You base your beliefs on decades old hearsay accounts that conflict with all that hard evidence. One of us is a damn fool and the other is named John Corbett.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

and all of it OLD... That's why WE have multiple sources and open minds Sherlock... Mark Lane in particular. And we damn sure know him and his evidence. You on the other hand, are a nobody, alleged to be a John Corbett Umpire, from the .john looney bin called alt.assassination.jfk. As far. as beliefs, lmfao, you own none. Hard evidence? All gathered by questionable and some outright criminal sources complete with badges. Simple!

[David Von Pein]

JOHN CORBETT SAID:

[Carolyn Arnold's] 1964 FBI report indicated that she thought she saw Oswald about 12:15 and wasn't sure where that was.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

I'm a little confused why you say that Carolyn Arnold, in her FBI interview, "wasn't sure" where she said she might have seen Oswald. The document below (CD5) makes it quite clear where Arnold said she might have seen Oswald -- "in the hallway between the front door and the double doors":

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44

That CD5 document, however, is actually from a 1963 FBI interview with Arnold, not 1964. Is that the one you're referring to, or is there another Arnold/FBI interview from '64?

But even though the above information is, indeed, in the official FBI record concerning the JFK case regarding a possible "Oswald sighting" shortly before the assassination of President Kennedy, that particular November 26, 1963, interview with Mrs. Carolyn Arnold is also providing the virtual *proof* that Mrs. Arnold was making up a false Oswald "sighting" in 1978 when she said she had seen Lee Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom eating his lunch just a few minutes prior to the assassination.

Because if her 1978 "In The Lunchroom" tale had actually been a fact, then why wouldn't she have mentioned such a sighting to the FBI on 11/26/63, when the events of November 22nd were quite obviously *fifteen years fresher* in her memory?

Instead, she told the FBI this after telling them she had *possibly* seen Oswald near the TSBD front entrance a little before 12:15:

"...she could furnish no...other information concerning Oswald..." [Commission Document No. 5; p.41].

So, what the conspiracy theorists now must do is somehow taint the FBI and their 11/26/63 interview with Arnold. That FBI report, in a CTer's mind, must now be turned into one of many "lies" being told by the FBI. And that's because it's a report that---all by itself!---indicates the high probability that Mrs. Carolyn Arnold told a big whopper of a tall tale in 1978 when she said she saw Lee Harvey Oswald sitting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom just a few minutes before JFK was shot.

"S. DRUM" SAID:

The question IS about the sandwich because if it was in the 2nd floor lunch room then that means Oswald ate lunch up there like he told Fritz.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Mr. "Drum":

Can you please cite something in the official record which indicates that Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that he (Oswald) ate lunch on the SECOND FLOOR of the Depository on 11/22?

In Fritz' written report, Fritz clearly indicates that at around the time when JFK was shot, "he [Oswald] said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor" [Warren Report; p.600].

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm

In the very next sentence or two of the same written report, Fritz also says that Oswald said he had been on the SECOND floor "drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in".

So within just a couple of sentences of each other, Fritz says in his report that Oswald *himself* said that he (LHO) had been on both the FIRST floor and the SECOND floor right around the time of the assassination. But I'm wondering if there's a report somewhere that specifically has Oswald saying he "ate lunch up there like he told Fritz" (which is what "Scrum Drum" is saying).

FWIW .... There is a made-for-television movie that depicts Oswald telling Captain Fritz that he ate his lunch on 11/22/63 "on both floors" (the 1st and 2nd floors of the TSBD). The TV movie I'm talking about is called "Ruby And Oswald" (1978), directed by Mel Stuart, who also helmed the best JFK assassination film ever made (IMO), "Four Days In November".

As a general rule, however, it's probably not a good idea to use a Hollywood film as a firm and reliable "source" for much of anything. (And Oliver Stone's 1991 movie "JFK" is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to do that.) But since "Ruby & Oswald" was directed by the same man who directed David Wolper's "Four Days" film in 1964, which is a documentary film that contains almost no factual errors at all [see link below]....

http://four-days-in-november.blogspot.com/#Very-Few-Mistakes

....then I think a little more confidence can be placed in the script of Stuart's "Ruby & Oswald" motion picture when it comes to deciding whether or not the things contained in that film are fairly accurate. (YMMV on this particular point.)


DVP ALSO ADDED:

Here is what author Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Carolyn Arnold on pages 830-832 of his 2007 mega-tome "Reclaiming History":

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FnX5qr3K90o/YRD4sRvEuqI/AAAAAAABZJs/VOrO3KijiK4_ZbRoMUoS9nBBMUivSZ7hQCLcBGAsYHQ/s4000-h/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpts-Regarding-Carolyn-Arnold.png


SOME RELATED LINKS:

CAROLYN ARNOLD & VARIOUS OTHER TOPICS:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-4.html#Carolyn-Arnold

OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html

VICKIE ADAMS & SANDRA STYLES:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, & JACK DOUGHERTY:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1165.html

THE DEPOSITORY ELEVATORS:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html

"RUBY AND OSWALD" (1978 FILM):
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruby-and-oswald.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.
>
>Sure was....

And, gutlessly yellow as you are, you'll **NEVER** cite what evidence
anyone had at midnight that solved anything at all.

You've never answered that question, and your cowardice means you
never will.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

You know his assertions and quotes out of context and logical fallacies. And the evidence he wants you to see. But you don’t know what he ignored that changes the meaning of the evidence.

For example, he started his book with Julia Ann Mercer’s sighting of a stalled truck on the knoll, and left the impression to his readers her sighting was never investigated. But it was, and the truck was identified, and there was no gunman carrying a weapon in broad daylight up the knoll. It was just a stalled truck, and it was gone a good hour before the President’s motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza.

This was his FIRST witness he discussed in his book, and presumably his best and strongest evidence for a conspiracy. Instead, we find there absolutely no evidence of a conspiracy in her sighting when we examine all the evidence — including everything Lane left out.

Here it is again. You will note Holmes couldn’t deal with the fact that Lane left out the evidence that Mercer’s claim was investigated, but Lane pretended it was not:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/qHBxWFk5AAAJ

==== quote ====
Still waiting for you to deal with how the evidence supports Mark Lane's assertions when compared to what I actually posted, Ben. If you can't validate Lane's first witness and his assertions about that witness, there's not a lot of sense going on to his second, third, or fourth witness, et. al., is there?

To date, all you've done is call the evidence I posted "logical fallacies" and snipped it in almost every (if not every) response. You know that's inadequate. Confront the evidence. Tell us why Mark Lane didn't tell the truth about what transpired concerning Julia Ann Mercer.

Here's my post contrasting what Lane said with the actual evidence once more:

===== QUOTE =====
Here's what Lane wrote:
== QUOTE ==
Miss Mercer signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office on November 22, describing the incident in detail, and it was published in the volumes of evidence by the Warren Commission. Yet the Commission did not call her as a witness. Neither was she questioned by a Commission investigator, nor did any reference to the event appear in the Commission Report, not even her name. The Commission did not try to identify the three police officers so as to question them or to locate the truck which Miss Mercer had described.

The so-called gun case may have been empty, but a man carrying the case toward the bushes above the President's route was possibly observed and yet unchallenged by the Dallas police. Great security precautions had been taken to protect the President in hostile Dallas; here was an apparent violation. If the case was empty, it was still negligent of the Commission not to investigate.

And perhaps the case was not empty.
== UNQUOTE ==

The Mercer claim was investigated.

All three of the men from the truck were observed and investigated at the time by the Dallas police. Their presence did not go unchallenged. Mark Lane is not telling his readers the truth. He never intended to. His book was written to make him money, not expose a conspiracy that didn't exist. All he did was muddy the water and lie throughout his book. The Julia Ann Mercer incident is the first one he discusses in his first chapter of RUSH TO JUDGMENT. His actions here reveal a concerted effort to create an impression of a failure to properly investigate an incident but he lies throughout in discussing this incident.

First off, the truck was gone by 11:10, which, if this was an assassin, meant he arrived 80 minutes before the assassination with a rifle and had to somehow remain concealed for all that time. See the police log here which states the truck which was stuck on Elm was gone:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=868
See the right-hand side of the page, which states the truck was moved by 11:09. This is directly from the police log, which Lane should be familiar with, and should reference. He conceals this information from his readers.

And officer Joe Murphy dispels the notion that anyone remained behind with a weapon in this FBI interview:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=323

"...All three of the men [from the stopped truck] left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.
"Murphy noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade.
"... Murphy further stated ... these men were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street ... and it would have been impossible for them to have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy."

So what exactly is the problem with the stalled truck? Nobody stayed behind. The police were on the scene, checked out the stalled truck, and took action to get the truck off the route before the assassination.

Mark Lane paints an entirely different, and disingenuous scene utilizing Mercer's statement.
(1) He pretends it wasn't investigated (it was),
(2) He pretends Mercer wasn't interviewed by any Commission investigator (she was interviewed by the FBI and the Commission supplied with a summary of that interview - the FBI acted as one investigatory staff arm of the Warren Commission as the Warren Commission admitted*),
(3) He pretends someone with a gun case remained behind (they didn't) and
(4) He pretends the police on the scene did nothing (that too is untrue - they took an active part in checking out the truck and ensuring it was long gone before the motorcade arrived).

In short, Lane accuses the Warren Commission of perfidy but it is his perfidy that is exposed by the evidence.
== QUOTE ==

"When you have no evidence... and have no logical argument... you announce that fact with ad hominem. You lose!" -- Ben Holmes
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7PlRAXggAiY/m/V55rB-qiAAAJ
===== UNQUOTE =====

We're still awaiting your first attempt to confront the evidence in the case, and your attempt to defend Lane when confronted with that evidence.

Delete it again. Anyone reading this understands that what Lane wrote is in serious conflict with the evidence. This is why you treat the above as if it's radioactive and delete it every time I post it.

Hank
==== unquote =====

[Hank Sienzant]

It’s Monday morning, and Ben has posting privileges again.

And so he’s back, complete with the same shtick, including but not limited to ad hominem and Begged Questions Logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> You know his assertions and quotes out of context and logical
> fallacies. And the evidence he wants you to see. But you don’t know
> what he ignored that changes the meaning of the evidence.

That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
need to prove.

(I trust you don't mind me quoting you.)


>For example,


And actually, the following is *NOT* an example of Huckster's logical
fallacy above, but an example of his cowardice & dishonesty...

> he started his book with Julia Ann Mercer’s sighting of a stalled
> truck on the knoll, and left the impression to his readers

Here, in a nutshell, is the problem faced by dishonest & cowardly
believers... they cannot debate what someone actually says... Huckster
here pretends that Mark Lane said something, then argues against
*THAT*.

Quite dishonest of him, and when he pulls it on me, I simply reference
the emails I got from him describing his child molestation.

Examples like this are all you really need to know about believers -
the fact that they are CONSTANTLY lying about what critics have said
shows that *THEY* know they lost.

Tell us Huckster, why can't you respond to what Mark Lane actually
said?

Why do you run away all the time?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.
>>>
>>>Sure was....
>>
>> And, gutlessly yellow as you are, you'll **NEVER** cite what evidence
>> anyone had at midnight that solved anything at all.
>>
>> You've never answered that question, and your cowardice means you
>> never will.
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!!!

Logical fallacies deleted...

Looks like Huckster's a coward too... he ALSO refuses to post the
evidence the DPD had at midnight.

Why all the falsehoods? Why all the logical fallacies?

Why can't believers simply make their case?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You know his assertions and quotes out of context and logical
> > fallacies. And the evidence he wants you to see. But you don’t know
> > what he ignored that changes the meaning of the evidence.
> That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
> need to prove.
>
> (I trust you don't mind me quoting you.)

Not at all. But you deleted the proof I provided. Confront it. Explain what I got wrong. Don’t just ignore it and call me names.


>
>
> >For example,
>

You deleted the proof here, and failed to confront the facts everyone can see in my post above.
You echo Mark Lane’s treatment by ignoring everything Inconvenient to the story you’re trying to sell.

>
> And actually, the following is *NOT* an example of Huckster's logical
> fallacy above, but an example of his cowardice & dishonesty...

Deleted the points made and called me names. Not a rebuttal among reasoned and rational discussion anywhere on this planet.

> > he started his book with Julia Ann Mercer’s sighting of a stalled
> > truck on the knoll, and left the impression to his readers
> Here, in a nutshell, is the problem faced by dishonest & cowardly
> believers... they cannot debate what someone actually says... Huckster
> here pretends that Mark Lane said something, then argues against
> *THAT*.

I *QUOTED* what Lane said, and argued against *THAT*. Run again, Ben.



Here it is again:

> Quite dishonest of him, and when he pulls it on me, I simply reference
> the emails I got from him describing his child molestation.

There’s nothing dishonest about quoting Lane and posting the evidence he failed to discuss.

You resort to child molestation charges because you have no rebuttal to the facts I bring forth.

>
> Examples like this are all you really need to know about believers -
> the fact that they are CONSTANTLY lying about what critics have said
> shows that *THEY* know they lost.

What did I lie about, Ben? Be specific. Quote what Lane said and what I said about what Lane said. Establish your unproven assertion.

>
> Tell us Huckster, why can't you respond to what Mark Lane actually
> said?

Begged Question. I *QUOTED* what Lane said, and argued against *THAT*. Run again, Ben.

Delete my points, pretend very thing I say is a logical fallacy, call me names. It exposes you and Lane for what you are.

>
> Why do you run away all the time?

I’m still here, waiting for a reasoned rebuttal. It’s clear at this point you don’t have a reasoned rebuttal. I’ve been pointing out how Lane didn’t deal with all the facts of the case and left a lot of evidence out since May of 2021, and you have failed to respond to my points in all that time.

Lane concealed evidence from his readers to change a nothing sighting by Mercer that was investigated into a conspiratorial sighting that he claimed should have been investigated, ignoring that it was investigated.

Hank

[John Corbett]

Oh, it's old. I guess that invalidates it. Everybody knows that things like fingerprints, ballistics, fiber evidence, etc. wears out over time. Can't put any faith in it now.

> That's why WE have multiple sources and open minds Sherlock...

Of course you have multiple sources when you focus on all the wrong things. Having an open mind about the JFK assassination is another way of saying you have a hole in your heads.

> Mark Lane in particular.

Perfect example. He focuses on all the wrong things. And you idiots follow him like lemmings.

> And we damn sure know him and his evidence.

Yes we know him. I've never known him to present any compelling evidence.

> You on the other hand, are a nobody, alleged to be a John Corbett Umpire, from the .john looney bin called alt.assassination.jfk. As far. as beliefs, lmfao, you own none. Hard evidence? All gathered by questionable and some outright criminal sources complete with badges. Simple!

Questionable and outright criminal sources??? Oh, you mean the DPD. I guess we should never trust evidence gathered by cops. So who should we trust?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>>> The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.
> >>>
> >>>Sure was....
> >>
> >> And, gutlessly yellow as you are, you'll **NEVER** cite what evidence
> >> anyone had at midnight that solved anything at all.
> >>
> >> You've never answered that question, and your cowardice means you
> >> never will.
> >>
> >> Run coward... RUN!!!
> Logical fallacies deleted...
>
> Looks like Huckster's a coward too...

And there’s the name-calling shtick we’ve all grown accustomed to when Ben has no response worthy of note.

> he ALSO refuses to post the
> evidence the DPD had at midnight.

Admit you don’t know this evidence and I’ll post it.

>
> Why all the falsehoods? Why all the logical fallacies?
>

Since the falsehoods and logical fallacies are coming from you and yours (Mark Lane, in all his writings about the assassination), that explantation should best come from you. But if you want mine, I’ve already provided it numerous times. Lane saw a goldmine in the Kennedy assassination and milked it for all it was worth. He got rich in the process while sowing doubt and discord in the country. But did he care? No, he laughed about the suckers that bought his nonsense all the way to the bank.

> Why can't believers simply make their case?

I made a small part of it, exposing how Lane mistreated the evidence concerning his very first witness, Julia Ann Mercer.

You deleted it numerous times and never did attempt to rebut any of it. Your claim that we can’t make our case is simply a falsehood

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:48:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:44:41 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>>> The assassination was solved by midnight on the day it occurred. It was in all the papers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure was....
>>>>
>>>> And, gutlessly yellow as you are, you'll **NEVER** cite what evidence
>>>> anyone had at midnight that solved anything at all.
>>>>
>>>> You've never answered that question, and your cowardice means you
>>>> never will.
>>>>
>>>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>>
>> Logical fallacies deleted...
>>
>> Looks like Huckster's a coward too...
>
>And there’s the name-calling shtick we’ve all grown accustomed to
> when Ben has no response worthy of note.

Notice folks, that I labeled Huckster a coward BASED ON THE FACT that
he refuses to anwer.

Hate to be the one to school you Huckster, but labeling someone a
coward BASED ON THEIR ACTIONS is perfectly correct.

>> he ALSO refuses to post the
>> evidence the DPD had at midnight.
>
>Admit you don’t know this evidence and I’ll post it.

It's not my burden. It's the burden of cowards who post that the case
was solved by midnight, then refuse to support that claim.

You've refused to deny that claim, yet you refuse to support it
either... that makes you a coward.


YOU'RE A COWARD, HUCKSTER SIENZANT!


And you continue to prove it with every single post... as you run away
from supporting your own words, or the claims of other believers.

>> Why all the falsehoods? Why all the logical fallacies?
>>
> Since the falsehoods and logical fallacies are coming from you and
> yours (Mark Lane, in all his writings about the assassination),

That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
need to prove.

> that explantation should best come from you. But if you want mine,
> I’ve already provided it numerous times.

Let no-one say that Tony Marsh is no longer posting... here he is, in
the flesh!

> Lane saw a goldmine in the Kennedy assassination and milked it for all
> it was worth. He got rich in the process while sowing doubt and
> discord in the country. But did he care? No, he laughed about the
> suckers that bought his nonsense all the way to the bank.

That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
need to prove.

You can't convince people with logical fallacies, Huckster...

>> Why can't believers simply make their case?
>
> I made a small part of it, exposing how Lane mistreated the evidence
> concerning his very first witness, Julia Ann Mercer.

There you go again, Huckster... That’s begging the question - a

classic example of assuming what you need to prove.

> You deleted it numerous times and never did attempt to rebut any of
> it. Your claim that we can’t make our case is simply a falsehood

Come on, Huckster... lie and state that you were responding to WHAT I
QUOTED MARK LANE SAYING.

But you can't.

Your logical fallacy was deleted quite properly.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 5:58:10 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN CORBETT SAID:
>
> [Carolyn Arnold's] 1964 FBI report indicated that she thought she saw Oswald about 12:15 and wasn't sure where that was.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> I'm a little confused why you say that Carolyn Arnold, in her FBI interview, "wasn't sure" where she said she might have seen Oswald. The document below (CD5) makes it quite clear where Arnold said she might have seen Oswald -- "in the hallway between the front door and the double doors":
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44
>
> That CD5 document, however, is actually from a 1963 FBI interview with Arnold, not 1964. Is that the one you're referring to, or is there another Arnold/FBI interview from '64?

Looking at what I wrote, I should have chosen my words more carefully. My comment that Arnold was unsure where she saw Oswald was based on the fact that her memory of where it was changed from one account to the next. As the earlier memo indicates, she wasn't even sure it was Oswald she saw. I don't think Arnold was ever lying, just confused. It's a classic case of a false memory which can easily be influenced by what people learn later on. By 1978, Arnold was probably aware that Oswald was seen in the lunchroom shortly after the shooting so in her mind, she figured that must have been where she saw him. Regardless of what the reason was for her later belief she had seen him in the lunchroom, it doesn't trump the fact that all the hard forensic evidence tells us Oswald was the one in the sniper's nest. That would be true even if Arnold had said on 11/22/63 that she saw Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:25.

>
> But even though the above information is, indeed, in the official FBI record concerning the JFK case regarding a possible "Oswald sighting" shortly before the assassination of President Kennedy, that particular November 26, 1963, interview with Mrs. Carolyn Arnold is also providing the virtual *proof* that Mrs. Arnold was making up a false Oswald "sighting" in 1978 when she said she had seen Lee Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom eating his lunch just a few minutes prior to the assassination.
>
> Because if her 1978 "In The Lunchroom" tale had actually been a fact, then why wouldn't she have mentioned such a sighting to the FBI on 11/26/63, when the events of November 22nd were quite obviously *fifteen years fresher* in her memory?
>
> Instead, she told the FBI this after telling them she had *possibly* seen Oswald near the TSBD front entrance a little before 12:15:
>
> "...she could furnish no...other information concerning Oswald..." [Commission Document No. 5; p.41].
>
> So, what the conspiracy theorists now must do is somehow taint the FBI and their 11/26/63 interview with Arnold. That FBI report, in a CTer's mind, must now be turned into one of many "lies" being told by the FBI. And that's because it's a report that---all by itself!---indicates the high probability that Mrs. Carolyn Arnold told a big whopper of a tall tale in 1978 when she said she saw Lee Harvey Oswald sitting in the 2nd-floor lunchroom just a few minutes before JFK was shot.

What is amazing is conspiracy hobbyists think the WC ignored Arnold's account. Apparently they should have known that 15 years later she would change her story.

> "S. DRUM" SAID:
>
> The question IS about the sandwich because if it was in the 2nd floor lunch room then that means Oswald ate lunch up there like he told Fritz.
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Mr. "Drum":
>
> Can you please cite something in the official record which indicates that Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that he (Oswald) ate lunch on the SECOND FLOOR of the Depository on 11/22?
>
> In Fritz' written report, Fritz clearly indicates that at around the time when JFK was shot, "he [Oswald] said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor" [Warren Report; p.600].
>
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm
>
> In the very next sentence or two of the same written report, Fritz also says that Oswald said he had been on the SECOND floor "drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in".
>
> So within just a couple of sentences of each other, Fritz says in his report that Oswald *himself* said that he (LHO) had been on both the FIRST floor and the SECOND floor right around the time of the assassination. But I'm wondering if there's a report somewhere that specifically has Oswald saying he "ate lunch up there like he told Fritz" (which is what "Scrum Drum" is saying).
>
> FWIW .... There is a made-for-television movie that depicts Oswald telling Captain Fritz that he ate his lunch on 11/22/63 "on both floors" (the 1st and 2nd floors of the TSBD). The TV movie I'm talking about is called "Ruby And Oswald" (1978), directed by Mel Stuart, who also helmed the best JFK assassination film ever made (IMO), "Four Days In November".
>
> As a general rule, however, it's probably not a good idea to use a Hollywood film as a firm and reliable "source" for much of anything. (And Oliver Stone's 1991 movie "JFK" is a perfect example of why it's not a good idea to do that.) But since "Ruby & Oswald" was directed by the same man who directed David Wolper's "Four Days" film in 1964, which is a documentary film that contains almost no factual errors at all [see link below]....

I remember seeing that movie many years after it came out in 1978. By then I was much better versed on the facts of the assassination. I was impressed that the producers seemed to make an effort to get the small details right. For example the had Oswald wearing the same type of shirt he was wearing when he shot JFK. One thing I thought was interesting is the Frederic Forrest who played Oswald was over 40 years old at the time the movie was made but he did look right for the part. Forrest was actually born almost three years before Oswald.

>
> http://four-days-in-november.blogspot.com/#Very-Few-Mistakes

As I recall, Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton originally planned to do a miniseries based on Reclaiming History but ended up doing a much scaled down project, the movie Parkland. I have still not seen that movie. I'd like to know your thoughts on it both from the perspective of accuracy and entertainment value.

>
> ....then I think a little more confidence can be placed in the script of Stuart's "Ruby & Oswald" motion picture when it comes to deciding whether or not the things contained in that film are fairly accurate. (YMMV on this particular point.)
>
>
> DVP ALSO ADDED:
>
> Here is what author Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Carolyn Arnold on pages 830-832 of his 2007 mega-tome "Reclaiming History":
>
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FnX5qr3K90o/YRD4sRvEuqI/AAAAAAABZJs/VOrO3KijiK4_ZbRoMUoS9nBBMUivSZ7hQCLcBGAsYHQ/s4000-h/Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpts-Regarding-Carolyn-Arnold.png
>
>
> SOME RELATED LINKS:
>
> CAROLYN ARNOLD & VARIOUS OTHER TOPICS:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-4.html#Carolyn-Arnold
>
> OSWALD'S WHEREABOUTS AT 12:30 PM:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html
>
> VICKIE ADAMS & SANDRA STYLES:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html
>
> MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, & JACK DOUGHERTY:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1165.html
>
> THE DEPOSITORY ELEVATORS:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html
>
> "RUBY AND OSWALD" (1978 FILM):
> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruby-and-oswald.html

None of this matters to a dedicated conspiracy hobbyists like Scrum Drum. In 1978 Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at 12:25 and, by God, that is proof positive Oswald was there at the time she said. It doesn't matter how much that statement conflicted with her earlier accounts or how much forensic evidence there is that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:05:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know his assertions and quotes out of context and logical
>>> fallacies. And the evidence he wants you to see. But you don’t know
>>> what he ignored that changes the meaning of the evidence.
>>
>> That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
>> need to prove.
>>
>> (I trust you don't mind me quoting you.)
>
>Not at all. But you deleted the proof I provided.

No coward, I constantly delete your logical fallacies.

> Confront it. Explain what I got wrong. Don’t just ignore it and call
> me names.

You're using your logical fallacies to evade what I post...

You're a coward, and *THAT* fact is based on your actions in this
forum.

>>>For example,
>>
>
> You deleted the proof here,

That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
need to prove.

> and failed to confront the facts everyone can see in my post above.

Why should *ANYONE* need to "confront" logical fallacies?

> You echo Mark Lane’s treatment by ignoring everything Inconvenient
> to the story you’re trying to sell.

That’s begging the question - a classic example of assuming what you
need to prove.

>> And actually, the following is *NOT* an example of Huckster's logical
>> fallacy above, but an example of his cowardice & dishonesty...
>
> Deleted the points made

I'm going to keep right on deleting any changes of goalposts... get
used to it.

If you want to whine about logical fallacies, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HELD
TO YOUR OWN STANDARD.


> and called me names.


How silly! If you run, and refuse to answer... you're demonstrating
cowardice. It's not "calling names" to point out actual behavior.

It's merely accurate.

> Not a rebuttal among reasoned and rational discussion anywhere on
> this planet.

What's to "rebut?" You keep running away... I just keep pointing it
out.

>>> he started his book with Julia Ann Mercer’s sighting of a stalled
>>> truck on the knoll, and left the impression to his readers
>>
>> Here, in a nutshell, is the problem faced by dishonest & cowardly
>> believers... they cannot debate what someone actually says... Huckster
>> here pretends that Mark Lane said something, then argues against
>> *THAT*.
>
>I *QUOTED* what Lane said, and argued against *THAT*. Run again, Ben.

You admitted above that Mark Lane was leaving "the impresssion".


That's not a quote that you're addressing, that's *YOUR OPINION" that
you're addressing.

Why do you think you can get away with such obvious and blatant lies?


>Here it is again:


And I deleted it again.

It's not relevant to ANYTHING in this post.

You're DESPERATELY trying to run from the facts I keep posting.

>> Examples like this are all you really need to know about believers -
>> the fact that they are CONSTANTLY lying about what critics have said
>> shows that *THEY* know they lost.
>
> What did I lie about, Ben?

Actually, you just did it again above. You admit that you're arguing
against what you believe Mark Lane was leaving as an impresssion -
then claim that you quoted Mark Lane and was addressing *that*.

You're a liar.

You were addressing YOUR OPINION of some mythical "impression" that
you thought Mark Lane was providing... yet you can't EXPLICITLY QUOTE
HIM and respond to what he said.

I'm proving that on a daily basis.


> Be specific.


Just did.


> Quote what Lane said ...


No "impressions" to be quoted.

I've been quoting Mark Lane Monday through Friday... do try not to
convince anyone that you failed to notice that fact, it will backfire
on you.

> and what I said about what Lane said.

Still here in this thread: "he started his book with Julia Ann

Mercer’s sighting of a stalled truck on the knoll, and left the

impression to his readers..."


> Establish your unproven assertion.


Just did. Again.

Lie, and claim that you're not debating your opinion of Mark Lane's
"impressions" you believe he's giving...

Lie and claim that it's not shifting the goalposts OF WHAT I QUOTED
MARK LANE SAYING.

>> Tell us Huckster, why can't you respond to what Mark Lane actually
>> said?
>
> Begged Question. I *QUOTED* what Lane said, and argued against
> *THAT*. Run again, Ben.

You're lying again, Huckster... What part of " and left the impression
to his readers" is a quote?


>Delete my points,


Get used to it. You want to whine about logical fallacies, you're
going to be held to your own standards.

No logical fallacies permitted.

> pretend very thing I say is a logical fallacy

Provably a begged logical fallacy.


>call me names.


Nope... I'm pointing out actual facts.

> It exposes you and Lane for what you are.

There you go again, begging the question.

>> Why do you run away all the time?
>
>I’m still here, waiting for a reasoned rebuttal.

To what? Your repeated attempts to change the topic?

Your repeated lying about addressing what Mark Lane actually said?

> It’s clear at this point you don’t have a reasoned rebuttal.

It's perfectly reasonable to simply delete your logical fallacies.

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that you're debating your
opinions of Mark Lane's "impressions" - rather than what he said.

It's perfectly reasonable to point out your lies & cowardice.

> I’ve been pointing out how Lane didn’t deal with all the facts of the
> case and left a lot of evidence out since May of 2021, and you have
> failed to respond to my points in all that time.

There you go again, begging the question...

> Lane concealed evidence from his readers to change a nothing
> sighting by Mercer that was investigated into a conspiratorial
> sighting that he claimed should have been investigated, ignoring that
> it was investigated.

There you go again, begging the question.


>Hank
>

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:48:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> As I recall, Tom Hanks and Bill Paxton originally planned to do a miniseries based on Reclaiming History but ended up doing a much scaled down project, the movie Parkland. I have still not seen that movie. I'd like to know your thoughts on it both from the perspective of accuracy and entertainment value.

I liked the "Parkland" movie. I think it was good on both the "accuracy" and "entertainment value" scales. Here's my MOVIES page for the film:

http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2013/11/parkland.html

And here's a few more "Parkland" comments (with this post performing the very fun dual function of being another well-deserved DiEugenio-bashing installment). Enjoy:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-91.html

[healyd...@gmail.com]

oh sit.... your ego is about a 1/10th the size of Hankster's... therefore irrelevant at this time. Your chain will be pulled when it matters. I doubt anytime soon...

[Ben Holmes]

Hey COWARD!!!

There's a question awaiting your answer.

How much longer are you going to keep running?

[John Corbett]

HICCUP!!!

BBBBBBEEEEEELLLLLLLLCCCCCCHHHHHHH!!!

Isn't Monday the day you change your adult diapers?

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 11:35:30 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:



> > Carolyn Arnold wrote in her March 1964 FBI report that she saw Oswald at 12:25...
> No she didn't. She made that claim in 1978. Her 1964 account said she last saw Oswald at 12:15 and wasn't sure where it was she saw him.

You obviously have very loose knowledge of the case since anyone can go to the March 1964 FBI statement made by Carolyn Arnold and see it firmly says 12:25...

This one point disqualifies you from being taken seriously which relieves me of having to answer your otherwise obvious denial-trolling (some people CAN validly be called trolls and ignored)...