Lone Nut Theory Depends Upon Methodist Hospital Being Unable To Tell The Time

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

We don't require any such thing. We have a number of conflicting time estimates of various
events which contradict one another. We know some of them are correct and some of them
are not but we just don't know which is which so we are left to estimating the time of the
Tippit shooting. That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the
shooter.

[Bud]

The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.

Dear dumbass:

People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.

The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
It caused an uproar.

Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.

Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the
> shooter.

Wrong again, John.

Any uncertainty of the timing of the Tippit murder certainly DOES cast doubt on whether or not Oswald was the killer.

Here's where I pick apart your, "conclusive evidence".

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> > The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
> Dear dumbass:
>
> People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
> In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
>
> The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
> It caused an uproar.
>

The key word is "never". The witnesses to the Tippit shooting acted. We know one man failed
to work the radio correctly before Bowley took over and made the call. We can only guess how
much time elapsed between the shooting and the call but 6-10 minutes does not seem plausible.

> Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
> the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
> and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.
>
> Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.

Bud's assessment seems much more plausible than yours. In either case, it is an unknown
amount of time and therefore no conclusions can be drawn from it. We have ample evidence
that conclusively proves Oswald shot Tippit and the exact time is unknowable and not
important. Who is the important question. Not when.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:48:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the
> > shooter.
> Wrong again, John.
>
> Any uncertainty of the timing of the Tippit murder certainly DOES cast doubt on whether or not Oswald was the killer.

That is so illogical I don't know where to begin. The evidence is conclusive that Oswald shot
Tippit. It is inconclusive as to the precise minute it happened. That does nothing to cast doubt
on the conclusive evidence that Oswald did it.

>
> Here's where I pick apart your, "conclusive evidence".
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

"Picking apart" seems to be all conspiracy hobbyists know how to do. All they are really doing
is inventing silly excuses to dismiss rock solid evidence of Oswald's guilt. Once they dispose of
all the evidence, they have a blank canvass on which to do their fingerpainting.

The difference between LNs and CTs is the LNs explain the evidence. CTs try to explain it away
as you have just demonstrated.

The elapsed time between the shooting of Tippit and the call on his radio reporting the shooting
is unknown. Whether the shooting occurred at 1:07, 1:15, or any time in between does not
preclude Oswald from being the shooter. Since we don't know what time he left the rooming
house, we can't say what time he could have arrived at 10th and Patton. The WC determined
he could have walked the distance in 14-15 minutes. I made the same walk myself in 12-13 minutes, stopping briefly at a traffic light. I tend to walk faster than most people. We don't know
how fast Oswald was walking nor is that important to know. You can invent all kinds of silly
excuses for dismissing each and every piece of forensic and eyewitness testimony that Oswald
was the shooter. That is what people do who desperately want to believe Oswald was framed.
Sensible people who want to know the truth of the matter don't engage in silly exercises such as
yours.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton. What does Methodist Hospital have to do with that? Can you spell out your argument in detail so I know exactly what you are alluding to, complete with links to any and all documents you are basing your argument on?

[Bud]

Probably alluding to the time if death given by the folks at the hospital (1:15, if memory serves). Could be that the ambulance driver supplied the information that Tippit was dead when they got there, and they got there at 1:15.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Ambulance 602 was not dispatched until 1:18. Therefore, Little Bud, Tippit was pronounced dead before the ambulance got to 10th Street.

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Sorry, but you picking-apart of Buds conclusive evidence was itself picked apart in the “Bugliosi Shares a Spanking” thread.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.

[Bud]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> > The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
> Dear dumbass:
>
> People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
> In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
>
> The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
> It caused an uproar.

This speaks to the Tippit situation, how?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTOvy0eUhZQ

https://www.police1.com/vehicle-incidents/articles/officer-down-officer-down-good-samaritan-helps-unconscious-chp-cop-involved-in-crash-LkXWGCywrcoJcWba/

https://youtu.be/IP6OrChEL2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfanXlHLxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCp1dMMq6Pk

> Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
> the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
> and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.
>
> Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.

Oswald was long gone 30 seconds after the shooting.

As usual, your ideas make zero sense. There was a *crowd* around Tippit`s body after the shooting. So why are they there if they are so afraid?

Your ideas require them to stand around Tippit`s dead or mortally wounded body for six to ten minutes before thinking to use the radio. That is a long time. Makes much more sense that it was a minute or so, especially when you consider how many people said they saw Oswald there.

[Hank Sienzant]

I am asking him to spell out his evidence and make an argument, explaining why he thinks that is the most reasonable conclusion, not just vaguely allude to something or other accepted by conspiracy theorists as gospel. Let’s see if he has the courage to put his cards on the table.

[Hank Sienzant]

You just destroyed your own argument. How could he be pronounced dead by doctors at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 if his ambulance didn’t arrive at the scene of the shooting until 1:18?

Would you care to actually explain your argument in detail, citing the evidence with links you are relying on, rather than allusions to vague claims like in your initial post, “…that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clock.”

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

The NY Times in 2004 admitted its reporting in this case was flawed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

== quote ==
In September 2007, American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded that the story was more parable than fact, largely because of inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident….

More recent investigations have questioned the original version of events.[58][24][67] A 2004 article in The New York Times by Jim Rasenberger, published on the 40th anniversary of Genovese's murder, raised numerous questions about claims in the original Times article. A 2007 study (confirmed in 2014[24]) found many of the purported facts about the murder to be unfounded, stating there was "no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive".[7] After Moseley's death in March 2016, the Times called their second story "flawed", stating:[8]

“While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old[fn 1] woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.”

Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Investigation by police and prosecutors showed that approximately a dozen individuals had heard or seen portions of the attack, though none saw or was aware of the entire incident.[68] Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware Genovese was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide had taken place; some thought what they saw or heard was a domestic quarrel, a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese.[7] After the initial attack punctured her lungs, leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation, it is unlikely that Genovese was able to scream at any volume.[69]

…On October 12, 2016, the Times appended an Editor's Note to the online version of its 1964 article, stating that, "Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account."[5]
== unquote ==

Even your example cited here is erroneous. I doubt this will cause you to reflect on whether or not what you believe is true whatsoever, however.

[John Corbett]

If he thinks he has figured out the timeline of the various events, he should be able to spell it out,
the evidence that supports it, and the reason it precludes Oswald from being the shooter. If he
can't spell out a timeline, then he has no basis for saying Oswald could not have been the shooter.

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the shooter.

Damn straight, John.

CTers need to laminate the following fact for future use (and, yes, this *IS* a "fact" and always has been since the day of Tippit's murder, CTer whining notwithstanding):

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xpEpHmcfwCU/YPnmE4x3zEI/AAAAAAABZCI/_-fE_QfbBhkGj9qEwO7wFfYvQsVKgSQ8gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1000/DVP-Quote-Regarding-Tippit-Murder.png

[David Von Pein]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 11:56:09 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Your ideas require them to stand around Tippit`s dead or mortally wounded body for six to ten minutes before thinking to use the radio. That is a long time.

Indeed it is. I discussed that absurdly long delay with some CTers several years ago:

"Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike? And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio. Frankly...that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't. Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15." -- DVP; 2011

More:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html

[recip...@gmail.com]

A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.

If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15. But do gives us your link to the Golz article. Or at least the date the article was published. I haven't seen it. The only information I've seen to support your rumor that Methodist reported inaccurate times if death because they didn't know what time it was comes from Liar Myers.

[John Corbett]

How is the discrepancy between the recorded time of death and the recorded time of the
ambulance delivery less of an anomaly if someone other than Oswald had shot Tippit? What
you have is conflicting information for which there has to be a logical explanation even if that
explanation is not known now. That discrepancy does nothing to tell us who shot Tippit nor
does it eliminate Oswald as the shooter.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 12:22:30 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 9:31:59 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:05:35 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
> > > > Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.
> > > But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.
> > A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.
> >
> > If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.
> But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15.

So how is that a problem? Isn’t that the same time of death the Warren Commission determined the shooting occurred? Didn’t they determine Tippit died instantly when shot? How is a 1:15 time of death a problem? Right now, you are arguing the Warren Commission and the Methodist Hospital agree on the time of death of officer Tippit, and both put it at approximately 1:15.


Once more, can you start at the top, cite your sources, lay out your argument, and make a case for whatever you think the problem is?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#description

> But do gives us your link to the Golz article. Or at least the date the article was published. I haven't seen it. The only information I've seen to support your rumor that Methodist reported inaccurate times if death because they didn't know what time it was comes from Liar Myers.

Seems to me they reported an accurate time of death.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

1:15 is not the time of death, it is the time that Tippit was *pronounced* dead. You don't know the basics and I know it's a waste of time trying to teach you anything. Read the Davenport police report. He said 1:15 was the time that Dr. Liquori pronounced Tippit dead. I have no burden to post the damned thing for you. You've probably read it twice already. If you're really interested, then do something for yourself.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 03:51:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Only by running from the most credible evidence can you make such
wacky claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 04:11:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> > They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
>> We don't require any such thing. We have a number of conflicting time estimates of various
>> events which contradict one another. We know some of them are correct and some of them
>> are not but we just don't know which is which so we are left to estimating the time of the
>> Tippit shooting. That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the
>> shooter.
>
> The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
>
>Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton.

Good to see Huckster finally appear again... where's your citaton to
Jack Ruby's lie detector test?

You blatantly LIED about what it showed... and ran away last time when
I asked you for a citation.

Are you going to run away again?

Or retract your blatant lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:27:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Would you care to actually explain...

That indeed is the question - would you care to actually explain how
you used Frazier's lie detector test to prove something when you can't
produce it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 05:40:06 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>
>> > The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
>> Dear dumbass:
>>
>> People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
>> In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
>>
>> The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
>> It caused an uproar.
>>
>The key word is "never". The witnesses to the Tippit shooting acted. We know one man failed
>to work the radio correctly before Bowley took over and made the call. We can only guess how
>much time elapsed between the shooting and the call but 6-10 minutes does not seem plausible.

"Plausible" to *YOU*... always remember to add that.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:54:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the shooter.
>
>Damn straight, John.

Lies aren't generally considered "straight."

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>The NY Times in 2004 admitted its reporting in this case was flawed.

Have you yet admitted that you lied about Frazier's lie detector test?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 05:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 12:22:30?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 9:31:59?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:05:35?AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:50:55?AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08?PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>>> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
>>>>> Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.
>>>> But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.
>>> A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.
>>>
>>> If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.
>> But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15.
>
> So how is that a problem? Isn’t that the same time of death the
> Warren Commission determined the shooting occurred? Didn’t they
> determine Tippit died instantly when shot? How is a 1:15 time of death
> a problem?

Because you're a liar? Because you think that the time of death was
provided by a doctor AFTER the fact?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I am asking him to spell out his evidence and make an argument...

Something **YOU** refuse to do when it comes to Frazier's lie detector
test.

You simply lied.

And got caught.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 17:04:54 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 11:56:09?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> Your ideas require them to stand around Tippit`s dead or mortally wounded body for six to ten minutes before thinking to use the radio. That is a long time.
>
>Indeed it is. I discussed that absurdly long delay with some CTers several years ago:

But you couldn't explain the evidence in a credible manner.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 05:53:12 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:48:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 6:51:57?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> >That uncertainty does not trump the conclusive evidence that Oswald was the
>> > shooter.

>> Wrong again, John.
>>
>> Any uncertainty of the timing of the Tippit murder certainly DOES cast doubt on whether or not Oswald was the killer.
>

>That is so illogical I don't know where to begin. The evidence is conclusive that Oswald shot
>Tippit. It is inconclusive as to the precise minute it happened. That does nothing to cast doubt
>on the conclusive evidence that Oswald did it.

This is the sort of nonsense that believers are famous for... Corbutt
doesn't appear to realize that the "uncertainty" in time absolutely
DOES favor Oswald's innocence... you **NEED** the latest time
possible... and that's the time the WC decided on.

The evidence is **NOT** conclusive as to Oswald's guilt. Lies won't
convince anyone, Corbutt - you need EVIDENCE for that!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 02:50:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>How is the discrepancy between the recorded time of death and the recorded time of the
>ambulance delivery less of an anomaly if someone other than Oswald had shot Tippit?

If you can't figure that one out, then you actually ARE a moron!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:50:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If he thinks he has figured out the timeline of the various events, he should be able to spell it out,
>the evidence that supports it, and the reason it precludes Oswald from being the shooter. If he
>can't spell out a timeline, then he has no basis for saying Oswald could not have been the shooter.

It's been done many times. Are you stupid?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:22:49 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 12:22:30 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 9:31:59 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:05:35 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > > > They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
> > > > > > Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.
> > > > > But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.
> > > > A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.
> > > >
> > > > If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.
> > > But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15.
> > So how is that a problem? Isn’t that the same time of death the Warren Commission determined the shooting occurred? Didn’t they determine Tippit died instantly when shot? How is a 1:15 time of death a problem? Right now, you are arguing the Warren Commission and the Methodist Hospital agree on the time of death of officer Tippit, and both put it at approximately 1:15.
> >
> >
> > Once more, can you start at the top, cite your sources, lay out your argument, and make a case for whatever you think the problem is?
> > https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#description
> > > But do gives us your link to the Golz article. Or at least the date the article was published. I haven't seen it. The only information I've seen to support your rumor that Methodist reported inaccurate times if death because they didn't know what time it was comes from Liar Myers.
> > Seems to me they reported an accurate time of death.
> 1:15 is not the time of death, it is the time that Tippit was *pronounced* dead.

Not what you said originally, you referred to it multiple times as The time of death:

“The only time of death report we have says 1:15”.
“Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor.”

That’s why I asked in my first post in this thread: “Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton. What does Methodist Hospital have to do with that? Can you spell out your argument in detail so I know exactly what you are alluding to, complete with links to any and all documents you are basing your argument on?”

> You don't know the basics and I know it's a waste of time trying to teach you anything.

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> Read the Davenport police report.

Citation?

> He said 1:15 was the time that Dr. Liquori pronounced Tippit dead.

So it was a cop, not the Hospital, responsible for the time of 1:15? Why’d you reference Methodist Hospital in your original post then?

> I have no burden to post the damned thing for you.

Your argument, your burden. Ball is still in your court.

> You've probably read it twice already. If you're really interested, then do something for yourself.

Attempt to shift the burden. I have no obligation to disprove an argument you’ve alluded to and that you are apparently happy to be changing on the fly (Methodist > Davenport, time of death > pronounced dead).

Perhaps you’ll understand why I asked you to actually formulate an argument and cite your sources.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> >> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
> >
> >Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton.
> Good to see Huckster finally appear again... where's your citaton to
> Jack Ruby's lie detector test?

The LOGICAL FALLACY of a red herring — also known as an attempt to change the subject.
Also the LOGICAL FALLACY of a non sequitur.

>
> You blatantly LIED about what it showed...

The LOGICAL FALLACY of a begged question and the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem.

> and ran away last time when
> I asked you for a citation.

The LOGICAL FALLACY of a begged question and the LOGICAL FALLACY of ad hominem.

I don’t recall talking about Ruby’s lie detector test in the recent past, but if you provide the link to where I supposedly lied about it, I’ll be happy to discuss.

>
> Are you going to run away again?

The LOGICAL FALLACY of a begged question and ad hominem.

>
> Or retract your blatant lie?

Ditto. Repeating your unproven assumptions do not make them more true.

[Hank Sienzant]

You were asking about Ruby’s lie detector test above. Which is it?

Same concept as before: If you provide the link to where I supposedly lied about it, I’ll be happy to discuss.

[Hank Sienzant]

Still begging the question. Provide the link in this thread to where I supposedly lied about Ruby’s and/or Frazier’s lie detector test and I’ll be happy to discuss.

Ball in your court.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:48:31 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >
> > > The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
> > Dear dumbass:
> >
> > People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
> > In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
> >
> > The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
> > It caused an uproar.
> >

> > Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
> > the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
> > and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.

> The NY Times in 2004 admitted its reporting in this case was flawed.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
>
> == quote ==
> In September 2007, American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded that the story was more parable than fact, largely because of inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident….
>
> More recent investigations have questioned the original version of events.[58][24][67] A 2004 article in The New York Times by Jim Rasenberger, published on the 40th anniversary of Genovese's murder, raised numerous questions about claims in the original Times article. A 2007 study (confirmed in 2014[24]) found many of the purported facts about the murder to be unfounded, stating there was "no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive".[7] After Moseley's death in March 2016, the Times called their second story "flawed", stating:[8]
>
> “While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old[fn 1] woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.”
>
> Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Investigation by police and prosecutors showed that approximately a dozen individuals had heard or seen portions of the attack, though none saw or was aware of the entire incident.[68] Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware Genovese was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide had taken place; some thought what they saw or heard was a domestic quarrel, a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese.[7] After the initial attack punctured her lungs, leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation, it is unlikely that Genovese was able to scream at any volume.[69]
>
> …On October 12, 2016, the Times appended an Editor's Note to the online version of its 1964 article, stating that, "Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account."[5]
> == unquote ==
>
> Even your example cited here is erroneous. I doubt this will cause you to reflect on whether or not what you believe is true whatsoever, however.

Gil? Gil?

Tap,tap… is this thing working?

Any further thoughts? Any clarifications or revisions, or you gonna double down on the erroneous example you posted to support Sky Throne’s original post?


> >
> > Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.

That at best applies to the witnesses on the street. What prevented people in their homes from picking up the phone?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:48:31?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
>>> Dear dumbass:
>>>
>>> People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
>>> In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
>>>
>>> The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
>>> It caused an uproar.
>>>
>>> Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
>>> the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
>>> and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.
>> The NY Times in 2004 admitted its reporting in this case was flawed.
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
>>
>> == quote ==
>> In September 2007, American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded that the story was more parable than fact, largely because of inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident….
>>
>> More recent investigations have questioned the original version of events.[58][24][67] A 2004 article in The New York Times by Jim Rasenberger, published on the 40th anniversary of Genovese's murder, raised numerous questions about claims in the original Times article. A 2007 study (confirmed in 2014[24]) found many of the purported facts about the murder to be unfounded, stating there was "no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive".[7] After Moseley's death in March 2016, the Times called their second story "flawed", stating:[8]
>>
>> “While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old[fn 1] woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.”
>>
>> Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Investigation by police and prosecutors showed that approximately a dozen individuals had heard or seen portions of the attack, though none saw or was aware of the entire incident.[68] Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware Genovese was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide had taken place; some thought what they saw or heard was a domestic quarrel, a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese.[7] After the initial attack punctured her lungs, leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation, it is unlikely that Genovese was able to scream at any volume.[69]
>>
>> …On October 12, 2016, the Times appended an Editor's Note to the online version of its 1964 article, stating that, "Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account."[5]
>> == unquote ==
>>
>> Even your example cited here is erroneous. I doubt this will cause you to reflect on whether or not what you believe is true whatsoever, however.
>
>Gil? Gil?
>
>Tap,tap… is this thing working?

Clearly not... you're still provably running.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:36?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:27:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Would you care to actually explain...
>>
>> That indeed is the question - would you care to actually explain how
>> you used Frazier's lie detector test to prove something when you can't
>> produce it?
>
>You were asking about Ruby’s lie detector test above. Which is it?

What part of "Frazier's lie detector test" didn't you understand?

>Same concept as before: If you provide the link to where I supposedly lied about it, I’ll be happy to discuss.

New thread already posted... you can run coward, but you can't hide in
a public non-censored forum.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You don't remember your lie about Frazier's lie detector test? You
should, you ran away IMMEDIATELY after posting it.

This is your frequently repeated tactic - you run away each time you
get caught lying - and only come back when you think everyone's
forgotten.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:06:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
>>>
>>>Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton.
>> Good to see Huckster finally appear again... where's your citaton to
>> Jack Ruby's lie detector test?
>>

>> You blatantly LIED about what it showed...
>>

>> and ran away last time when
>> I asked you for a citation.
>>

>> Are you going to run away again?
>>

>> Or retract your blatant lie?

Frazier's of course...

RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

As cowards always do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Bud]

An idiot might think that.

[Hank Sienzant]

The LOGICAL FALLACIES of a red herring, non sequitur, AND begging the question.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:08:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:36?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:27:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Would you care to actually explain...
> >>
> >> That indeed is the question - would you care to actually explain how
> >> you used Frazier's lie detector test to prove something when you can't
> >> produce it?
> >
> >You were asking about Ruby’s lie detector test above. Which is it?
> What part of "Frazier's lie detector test" didn't you understand?

The part where you asked about Ruby’s lie detector test here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QYtepoNgM_w/m/24oFYtErBQAJ
“ Good to see Huckster finally appear again... where's your citaton to
Jack Ruby's lie detector test? ”

Did you forget you asked about that?

> >Same concept as before: If you provide the link to where I supposedly lied about it, I’ll be happy to discuss.
> New thread already posted... you can run coward, but you can't hide in
> a public non-censored forum.

I’m looking for a link to my original post where you say I lied.
A new thread (without a link provided to it and without a link to my original post) does not suffice.
I am not about to check every thread searching for your new thread. You could post it here.

We’ll await your link.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:41:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>The LOGICAL FALLACY...

Truth is not a logical fallacy...

RUN COWARD!!! RUN!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:10:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:47:23?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am asking him to spell out his evidence and make an argument...
> >>
> >> Something **YOU** refuse to do when it comes to Frazier's lie detector
> >> test.
> >>
> >> You simply lied.
> >>
> >> And got caught.
> >
> > Still begging the question. Provide the link in this thread to where
> > I supposedly lied about Ruby’s and/or Frazier’s lie detector test and
> > I’ll be happy to discuss.
> >
> >Ball in your court.
> You don't remember your lie about Frazier's lie detector test? You
> should, you ran away IMMEDIATELY after posting it.

Repeating your begged question LOGICAL FALLACIES about lies and running does nothing to establish them as true.

You can repeat them for infinity and it will not make them true.

>
> This is your frequently repeated tactic - you run away each time you
> get caught lying - and only come back when you think everyone's
> forgotten.

Repeating your begged question LOGICAL FALLACIES about lies and running does nothing to establish them as true.

When do you intend to post the evidence to support your assertions, instead of just endlessly repeating them?

[Hank Sienzant]

So in addition to the begged questions of me running and lying (as well as his attempt to change the subject initially), Ben resorts to ad hominem as well, calling me a coward.

[Hank Sienzant]

Deleting my points, resorting to LOGICAL FALLACIES of begging the question (proclaiming your prior begged questions are “the truth”) and ad hominem (“COWARD”) do nothing to advance the discussion.

Post the link to my supposed lie aand I will be happy to discuss.

Or repeat all your logical fallacies again.

Your choice.

Do you want to discuss the supposed lie or not?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 8:22:49 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 12:22:30 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 9:31:59 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:05:35 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > > > They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

> > > > > > Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.
> > > > > But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.
> > > > A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.
> > > >
> > > > If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.
> > > But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15.
> > So how is that a problem? Isn’t that the same time of death the Warren Commission determined the shooting occurred? Didn’t they determine Tippit died instantly when shot? How is a 1:15 time of death a problem? Right now, you are arguing the Warren Commission and the Methodist Hospital agree on the time of death of officer Tippit, and both put it at approximately 1:15.
> >
> >
> > Once more, can you start at the top, cite your sources, lay out your argument, and make a case for whatever you think the problem is?
> > https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#description
> > > But do gives us your link to the Golz article. Or at least the date the article was published. I haven't seen it. The only information I've seen to support your rumor that Methodist reported inaccurate times if death because they didn't know what time it was comes from Liar Myers.
> > Seems to me they reported an accurate time of death.

> 1:15 is not the time of death, it is the time that Tippit was *pronounced* dead. You don't know the basics and I know it's a waste of time trying to teach you anything. Read the Davenport police report. He said 1:15 was the time that Dr. Liquori pronounced Tippit dead. I have no burden to post the damned thing for you. You've probably read it twice already. If you're really interested, then do something for yourself.

It says he was "pronounced DOA [dead on arrival] @115pm".

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340504/m1/1/?q=Dr.%20Liquori

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:14:38 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Deleting my points...

The truth is not a logical fallacy.

You've been RUNNING from your lying claim ever since you made it.

You thought I'd forget...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:50:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:08:24?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:09:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:36?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:27:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Would you care to actually explain...
>>>>
>>>> That indeed is the question - would you care to actually explain how
>>>> you used Frazier's lie detector test to prove something when you can't
>>>> produce it?
>>>
>>>You were asking about Ruby’s lie detector test above. Which is it?
>> What part of "Frazier's lie detector test" didn't you understand?
>>

>>>Same concept as before: If you provide the link to where I supposedly lied about it, I’ll be happy to discuss.
>>
>> New thread already posted... you can run coward, but you can't hide in
>> a public non-censored forum.
>
>I’m looking for a link to my original post where you say I lied.
>A new thread (without a link provided to it and without a link to my original post) does not suffice.
>I am not about to check every thread searching for your new thread. You could post it here.
>
>We’ll await your link.

If you're too stupid to be able to find the original post WHEN I QUOTE
YOUR EXACT WORDS FROM IT... then you're simply a coward.

Indeed, I RESPONDED ORIGINALLY to your lie, and you ran from that.

You made an assertion - and you can't back it up.

You cited hearsay, KNOWING that the lie detector test no longer
exists...

You're a dishonest coward, Huckster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:10:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:47:23?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I am asking him to spell out his evidence and make an argument...
>>>>
>>>> Something **YOU** refuse to do when it comes to Frazier's lie detector
>>>> test.
>>>>
>>>> You simply lied.
>>>>
>>>> And got caught.
>>>
>>> Still begging the question. Provide the link in this thread to where
>>> I supposedly lied about Ruby’s and/or Frazier’s lie detector test and
>>> I’ll be happy to discuss.
>>>
>>>Ball in your court.
>> You don't remember your lie about Frazier's lie detector test? You
>> should, you ran away IMMEDIATELY after posting it.
>>

>> This is your frequently repeated tactic - you run away each time you
>> get caught lying - and only come back when you think everyone's
>> forgotten.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:11:43?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:06:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:46:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 06:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 12:31:08?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>>> They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tippit was shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton.
>>>> Good to see Huckster finally appear again... where's your citaton to
>>>> Jack Ruby's lie detector test?
>>>>
>>>> You blatantly LIED about what it showed...
>>>>
>>>> and ran away last time when
>>>> I asked you for a citation.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to run away again?
>>>>
>>>> Or retract your blatant lie?
>>
>> Frazier's of course...
>>
>> RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
>>
>> As cowards always do...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!

Notice folks, that Huckster proved me right yet again...

>So in addition to the begged questions of me running and lying...

Sorry stupid... it cannot POSSIBLY be "begged" to state that you're
running from a post YOU HAVE PROVABLY REFUSED TO ANSWER.

[Bud]

The most dishonest person walking on two legs appoints himself the arbiter of truth.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

So says the Nutter walking on half a brain!

[Hank Sienzant]

So Ben, given this choice here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QYtepoNgM_w/m/p0lGXEZEBQAJ
== quote ==

Deleting my points, resorting to LOGICAL FALLACIES of begging the question (proclaiming your prior begged questions are “the truth”) and ad hominem (“COWARD”) do nothing to advance the discussion.

Post the link to my supposed lie aand I will be happy to discuss.

Or repeat all your logical fallacies again.

Your choice.

Do you want to discuss the supposed lie or not?

== unquote ==

Has opted for repeating his logical fallacies rather than discussing my supposed lie.

[Hank Sienzant]

[Hank Sienzant]

[recip...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 11:22:30 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 9:31:59 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:05:35 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 11:31:08 PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > They don't know what time it is at Methodist Hospital? That is what Nutters require for Tippit to have been shot on 10th Street, that the doctors at Methodist Hospital did not know the time of day, that in 1963 the hospital hadn't quite figured out clocks.

> > > > Whether you like it or not, that’s what Norse Thompson and Dr Mollenhoff have said. And they were there.
> > > But your Slow Clock Rumor didn't get going until the 1970's, same as the Jack Tatum Hoax.
> > A rumor is a second- (or third- or fourth- etc, the more the better) hand account of uncertain if not dubious origin. Earl Golz' interview with Nurse Thompson and Myers' interview with Dr Mollenhoff are fit fit neither horn of the definition of "rumor." Thomson and Mollenhoff were there that afternoon, and they were reporting what the experienced first-hand. Mollenhoff was the guy who removed one of the bullets from Tippit's body at Methodist.
> >
> > If the best you can do is falsely label the Thompson and Mollenhoff information as "rumor," then you have nothing. No wonder you're on a multi-thread tantrum about it.

> But Dr. Liquori reported the time of 1:15, so Dr. Liquori is the only first person source for why he wrote that time. Perhaps instead of calling it the Clock Rumor, I should have said the Time Of Death Rumor. The only time of death report we have says 1:15. But do gives us your link to the Golz article. Or at least the date the article was published. I haven't seen it. The only information I've seen to support your rumor that Methodist reported inaccurate times if death because they didn't know what time it was comes from Liar Myers.

I don't feel like digging the original 1978 hardcopy out of my files, scanning it, and uploading it. Especially since you've already shown that you'll simply resort to cheap dodges to avoid dealing with it. As a consolation prize, you can find John Armstrong's gloss and quoting of Golz' interview of Lottie Thompson here: https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/tippitt-shooting-nov.-22-1963-d.o.a.-at-methodist-hospital/690058?item=690063

The underlying problem is that there is no way to figure out how far off of "real" time the Methodist clocks, or Markham's laundromat clock, or Bowley's watch were. Which also means that we have no idea how closely the time on any of those clocks agreed with each other. The DPD channel one and channel two tapes are different. For one, they spew timestamps left and right. There are also simulcasts and instances of crosstalk between the channels that allow the recordings to be synchronized exactly at specific points. This allows the careful and the clever to get a good idea as to how far off the two channels are. BBN used a regression analysis and came to the conclusion that the clocks on channel one and channel two were about 15 seconds apart, give of take about 30 seconds. Other researchers used the simulcasts and/or the crosstalk instances to determine that the ch 1 and ch 2 clocks are within a minute of each other.

On the channel two recording, the period covering the assassination is bracketed by two transmissions by Curry. The first is, "approaching triple overpass" followed by "GO TO THE HOSPITAL." In between these two transmissions is the dispatcher's station identification announcement "KKB364, 12:30." It should cause little wonder that, in the McKintire photo showing the limousine sprinting past the lead car between the triple overpass and the I-35E entry ramp, the Hertz clock atop the TSBM clearly reads "12:30." A bit less than a minute earlier, as the lead car started up Houston, one of the SS agents in the lead car looked at his watch and noted that the time was "just about 12:30." A couple of cars back in the Queen Mary, Dave Powell looked at his watch as the car made the turn onto Elm. He noted that the time was almost 12:30, and told Kenny O'Donnell that it was in fact 12:30. And in the limousine, as it was lurching forwards under Greer's belated lead foot beneath the overpass, Kellerman looked at his watch and told Greer that the time was 12:30. However far off of "real" time the channel one clock was, it couldn't be more than a couple of minutes.

And on Channel 1, Bowley begins to transmit at about 1:17:45 PM, give or take about 10 seconds.

Given all of this, you have to work hard to not think that the Methodist clock had to be off. Bowley told McBride that his watch could have been as much as five minutes off. If it's 5 minutes slow, and the DPD channel one clock is two minutes fast, then they are copacetic with each other, given the constraints of the situation. The 1:18 time Dudley Moore gives for ambulance dispatch works with this as well.

[Haywood Jablomi]

As a neutral observer and a silent reader on this up until now, I must agree with the other poster named Skythrone, in that your timeline is a complete shambles and doesn't at all reflect the actual facts on the ground at the time of the Tippit killing. You know, I'm glad you're not an ambulance driver, in that rigamortis would finally start to set in on the long deceased and you'd still be out galivanting around trying to find the right address with a broken Timex strapped to your wrist. So it is in Warren Omission land.

[recip...@gmail.com]

I didn't create a "timeline," so you're already off the pavement from the get-go. I pointed out that you cannot just assume that every clock shows the same time as every other clock at any given instant. This was especially true in the old analog days. Further, for most of the timepieces, there is no good way to relate them to any other clock. The only exception is the DPD channel one clock for reasons that I've already mentioned. If you want to build an actual timeline, then it has to be anchored around the DPD ch one clock.

Anyway, If my "timeline" is the shambles that you claim, then you should be able to explain why. But you'd rather post ascii porn under the banner of a tired old pun.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I have read that before, I now remember. I probably read the John Armstrong file. I don't see any such story in my Golz pdf's. Armstrong isn't "quoting" anything. This is a photocopy of the Golz interview, I believe, probably more complete than whatever was published in the paper. As Myers does, she seems to be confusing Liquori with Moellenoff. Anyway, you think that the doctor was using a 15-minute-slow clock for his times of death. You think that's credible only because it fits your theory, because some nurse, who appears nowhere else, said so 15 years later. Okay. At least you didn't just make it all up.

I'm not arguing with the police radio or ambulance service records, or the possibility that maybe Bowley's watch might have been off, either way, by 5 minutes, or that Helen Markham wasn't a wack job who had no idea of what time it was. But your way requires three clocks to be honestly inaccurate, all the right direction for your theory to work. I think that's very unlikely. Of course the shooting on 10th street was around 1:17. But where was Tippit? Tippit's car was on 10th Street. We know that. But nobody identified Tippit on 10th Street. He's not identified until he's at Methodist. And your witness Lottie tells a story that should be compared with the Officer Davenport report, which of course you will not do because you just stop when you can adjust the evidence to fit your theory. No need for you to go further. You've got the answer you want.

[Hank Sienzant]

Are you *seriously* questioning whether it was Tippit who was shot near the corner of 10th and Patton on November 22nd, 1963 and suggesting there was a swap of bodies between the shooting site and Methodist Hospital? It sure reads that way.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:10:15 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Are you *seriously* questioning whether it was Tippit who was shot near the corner of 10th and Patton on November 22nd, 1963...?

Yes, Hank, Mr. Throne is, indeed, doing that very (silly) thing, as I've archived recently at my own site:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1364.html#Sky-Throne-Thinks-Tippit-Was-Shot-In-Dealey-Plaza

(Just when you thought CTers couldn't get any more bizarre and ridiculous....somebody name "Sky Throne" shows up.) :-)

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:10:15 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Are you *seriously* retarded or are you a disinformation traitor who needs to be tried and hanged for murder and treason?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

That's Great! I am on a DVP page! It's presented in a biased Nutter way, but he does quote me accurately. And my cat remains beyond his reach!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 18:35:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Post the link to my supposed lie aand I will be happy to discuss.

Do you deny that you claimed that the lie detector test you CANNOT
PRODUCE "proved" something"?

You can continue to run from the posts, I really could care less.

I'm simply pointing out your dishonesty & cowardice.

You've done this repeatedly... when caught in a lie, you disappear for
a few weeks or so, hoping that your cowardice hasn't been noted, and
then re-appear, thinking that the slate is wiped clean.

It hasn't been... you've NEVER responded to me pointing out that you
quite dishonestly relied on hearsay, and **CANNOT** cite any primary
evidence for your lying claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 18:38:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 7:45:28?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 14:00:38 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 4:10:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 May 2023 12:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:47:23?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2023 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am asking him to spell out his evidence and make an argument...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something **YOU** refuse to do when it comes to Frazier's lie detector
>>>>>> test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply lied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And got caught.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still begging the question. Provide the link in this thread to where
>>>>> I supposedly lied about Ruby’s and/or Frazier’s lie detector test and
>>>>> I’ll be happy to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ball in your court.
>>>> You don't remember your lie about Frazier's lie detector test? You
>>>> should, you ran away IMMEDIATELY after posting it.
>>>>
>>>> This is your frequently repeated tactic - you run away each time you
>>>> get caught lying - and only come back when you think everyone's
>>>> forgotten.
>> Run coward... RUN!!!

And Huckster choses to run... And cannot deny that he ran away
IMMEDIATELY after I pointed out a lie he cannot defend.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 18:35:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

Keep running Huckster - I'll keep pointing out your cowardice.

You used HEARSAY, not even under oath, to make a claim about a
document YOU KNOW YOU CANNOT PRODUCE.

You lied.

It's that simple.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 03:39:58 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 6:10:15?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> Are you *seriously* questioning whether it was Tippit who was shot near the corner of 10th and Patton on November 22nd, 1963...?
>
>Yes, Hank, Mr. Throne is, indeed, doing that very (silly) thing, as I've archived recently at my own site:
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/05/jfk-ass

What you CANNOT archive is your non-existent answers to my refutation
of Bugliosi's 53 "reasons."

You simply refuse to respond.

Your cowardice can't be seen in your website.

But it's obvious and clear in THIS forum.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 03:10:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Are you *seriously* questioning...

Are you *seriously* using hearsay to make a claim about a document you
KNOW FOR A FACT you cannot produce?

And then running for the hills when it's pointed out?

[Hank Sienzant]

Given an opportunity to post a simple link so we can discuss, or continue with his LOGICAL FALLACIES, Ben issues a series of LOGICAL FALLACIES.

It’s pretty clear from here Ben is avoiding posting the link so he can avoid discussing what I actually wrrote in context. He’d rather call me names than advance the discussion.

Ball is still in your court, Ben. All it takes is the link to advance the discussion.

Or continue to call m names and triple- or quadruple-down on the LOGICAL FALLACIES.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 10:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Given an opportunity to post a simple link...

No.

You RAN from my response... you're RUNNING from each of these
reminders, you RAN from my repost of your lying claim.

YOU'RE A COWARD HUCKSTER SIENZANT!!!

You gave unsworn hearsay to replace a lie detector test YOU KNOW FOR A
FACT no longer exists anywhere.

You OUTRIGHT LIED when you claimed it supported your theory... You
lied when you didn't acknowledge that it was hearsay you were
depending on.

Why would posting a single link change the fact THAT YOU RAN FROM THE
ORIGINAL REPONSE TO YOUR LIE, and you've run from a repost of your
lie, and you've run from EACH OF THESE REMINDERS of your lie?

[recip...@gmail.com]

So you've decided the reconcile the dueling clocks by kill Tippit off downtown and introducing another stiff on 10th street. But why stop there? Why not just add bullet riddled corpses to account for Markham's 1:06, Bowley's 1:10, Dudley Hughes 1:18, etc?

Anyway, doesn't your Tippit-got-it-in-Dealey notion negates any claim for Markham to see his killing at 1:06? And why did Tippit go to Dealey when he acknowledged the order to patrol Oak Cliff?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're too stupid. Or maybe it is cognitive dissonance. Why are you here? Do you just enjoy being a lame brained asshole? You obviously don't give a shit.

[recip...@gmail.com]

Ah. So your theory is simply your own pale whim, and there is nothing in it that can be defended, so the best defense becomes abuse and offence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

There's plenty of evidence, but you're here merely to attack, and you can't understand evidence if your purpose is to attack it. You are STUPID, made stupid by your purpose, which is to NOT understand, but to attack. If you are interested, you can follow DVP's link to my videos. If you are not interested, then why should I waste my time on you?

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben continues to rattle off LOGICAL FALLACIES rather than post the link to my supposed lie and advance the conversation.

We can wait while Ben avoids advancing the conversation. He does not want to discuss the assassination or any related events. He merely wants to call me names. You can see by his actions here.

Ball is still in Ben’s court.

Post the link and advance the conversation, or continue to call me names, Ben.

Ball in your court.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 10:40:16 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

> Given all of this, you have to work hard to not think that the Methodist clock had to be off.

All hospital clocks run 10 minutes slow.
It's a requirement of Medicare.

[Hank Sienzant]

And what’s really funny is he accuses you of attacking when you merely asked a question about his theory, as Ben accuses me of running when it’s more than clear he is avoiding advancing the conversation by his failure to post a link to my supposed lie.

[John Corbett]

Medicare wasn't passed until after JFK was dead.

[recip...@gmail.com]

That's nothing. VA hospitals are 20 minutes slow by MIL-STD

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

What's really funny is that you think you know anything about the assassination. nutters are always good for a laugh!

[Hank Sienzant]

How many of the 26 WC volumes or 12 HSCA Volumes have you read?

How much of the evidence do you accept? Not much, it appears. Do you have Tippit being shot near the corner of Tenth and Patton? That where the evidence indicates he was shot. But you are apparently not happy, nor desirous, of thatoutcome, so you claim he was shot elsewhere, and direct everyone to a YouTube video to see the evidence. Hilarious!

Post the “evidence” here.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You've read the 26 volumes twice, and you still know nothing.

[recip...@gmail.com]

I'm here to attack? You're the nattering nabob resorting to all that neener-neener naughty name-calling. Is the best that you can do in response is to make a vague reference to some unspecified video on your youtube channel?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You call me a "nattering nabob" and a "name-caller." You are Hilarious! Agnew was so misunderstood, wasn't he?

[Hank Sienzant]

I known the difference between evidence and speculation. And a reasonable conclusion and a crackpot theory.

As I wrote previously:
— quote —
So how is that a problem? Isn’t that the same time of death the Warren Commission determined the shooting occurred? Didn’t they determine Tippit died instantly when shot? How is a 1:15 time of death a problem? Right now, you are arguing the Warren Commission and the Methodist Hospital agree on the time of death of officer Tippit, and both put it at approximately 1:15.

Once more, can you start at the top, cite your sources, lay out your argument, and make a case for whatever you think the problem is?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#description
— unquote —

This applies to both your silly argument about Tippit being shot dead at1:15 (and then changing it to being pronounced dead) and the newest one, with Tippit not being shot dead near the corner of Tenth and Patton.

Since you never lay out your argument fully, nor cite the evidence for it fully here, it’s not easy to understand exactly what you are arguing for, nor refute it, because it is vague and nebulous, perhaps deliberately so.

So do what I challenged you to, tell us your theory, expound on the evidence, tell us how you eliminated other reasonable theories, and tell us how your theory makes more sense than anything else,

This you will not do, because your theory cannot survive simple challenges, and you know this to be true.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You don't know shit from shine, but you think you are an expert. There's a word for that, but you'd accuse me of name-calling.

[Hank Sienzant]

Can you get anything right?
It’s “You don't know shit from shinola”.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/shinola#:~:text=Of%20a%20person%2C%20a%20face,1200.

Quote: “Shinola (n.)
brand of shoe polish, by 1904, from shine in the "shoeshine" sense + commercial suffix -ola. The company that made it dates to 1877 and seems to have ceased production c. 1960, but by then the word was proverbial for what you don't know something isn't.”

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I wasn't talking about your shoe polish. I was simply employing the phrase that I once heard Jack say. I think he was talking about Austie, but I don't remember the full context. Whether or not Jack was "wrong," cannot now be known as he is no longer able to speak in his own defense. Austie may have been shining his shoes with shit, or maybe he wasn't. He also is no longer available for questioning. All that remains is, "He doesn't know shit from shine." Given the lack of evidence to convict, I will consider Jack to be not guilty of error in this matter until documents are released prove otherwise. So, you still don't know shit from shine, but at least you are not quoting Spiro Agnew. Though, I'll bet you have read all of his speeches at least twice.

[Hank Sienzant]

We can also glean, that like Ben in this same thread, Sky Throne doesn’t want to discuss the assassination or any related events. He merely wants to dictate his beliefs, and when challenged to support those beliefs, invents people like “Jack” and “Austie” having an conversation;. Nothing documented, which in support of conspiracy theorist’s beliefs, is apparently A-OK in his book. CTs like. Sky Throne apparently need only a theory, no facts, to conclude a conspiracy. Whereas for CTs, no amount of evidence will establish to their satisfaction Oswald, acting alone, shot JFK as a political act of rebellion against society. Asked to defend his beliefs concerning the assassination, he avoids.doing anything close to that.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:48:31 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:43:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 7:11:48 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >
> > > The only really timestamped event is when the shooting was called in by civilians at the scene. This was at 1:16 or later (1:16 is the time given earlier). People came immediately out, so for the early times to be correct, they would have have stood around looking at Tippit on the ground for 6-10 minutes before thinking about using the radio. This is an incredibly long time to stand there doing nothing.
> > Dear dumbass:
> >
> > People watch crimes being committed and instead of calling police, they video them on their phones, hoping to cash in.
> > In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed, raped and murdered in NYC in an attack that spanned 30 minutes.
> >
> > The NYT reported that 38 witnesses either saw or heard the attack and never called police.
> > It caused an uproar.
> >
> > Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were not given a high priority; the incident occurred four years before New York City implemented
> > the 911 emergency call system. One witness said his father called the police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up
> > and was staggering around". A few minutes after the final attack, another witness, Karl Ross, called friends for advice on what to do before calling the police.
> The NY Times in 2004 admitted its reporting in this case was flawed.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
>
> == quote ==
> In September 2007, American Psychologist published an examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. The three authors concluded that the story was more parable than fact, largely because of inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident….
>
> More recent investigations have questioned the original version of events.[58][24][67] A 2004 article in The New York Times by Jim Rasenberger, published on the 40th anniversary of Genovese's murder, raised numerous questions about claims in the original Times article. A 2007 study (confirmed in 2014[24]) found many of the purported facts about the murder to be unfounded, stating there was "no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive".[7] After Moseley's death in March 2016, the Times called their second story "flawed", stating:[8]
>
> “While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old[fn 1] woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.”
>
> Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that the attacks took place in different locations, no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Investigation by police and prosecutors showed that approximately a dozen individuals had heard or seen portions of the attack, though none saw or was aware of the entire incident.[68] Only one witness, Joseph Fink, was aware Genovese was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide had taken place; some thought what they saw or heard was a domestic quarrel, a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar when Moseley first approached Genovese.[7] After the initial attack punctured her lungs, leading to her eventual death from asphyxiation, it is unlikely that Genovese was able to scream at any volume.[69]
>
> …On October 12, 2016, the Times appended an Editor's Note to the online version of its 1964 article, stating that, "Later reporting by The Times and others has called into question significant elements of this account."[5]
> == unquote ==
>
> Even your example cited here is erroneous. I doubt this will cause you to reflect on whether or not what you believe is true whatsoever, however.


Gil, hello!

You still here?

Care to defend your citation or will you punt?


> >
> > Unarmed witnesses' hesitation to call police until they are sure the gunman is long gone is nothing out of the ordinary.

What about those witnesses inside their homes? The police radio wasn’t the only form of communication available to those witnesses.