Why Can't Hank Simply Say Whether Or Not The Clip Is Visible In This Photoghraph?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz

Yes, it is the frame of a film, but that still is a photograph.

Maybe it's there. I don't know. But Hank has asserted that the clip can be seen in a photo of Lt. Day leaving the building https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/day_clip.gif. I see that. But, to me, it looks like it is not there when Day first examines the rifle https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz. Maybe it is, but I don't see it. Why can't Hank, who sees the clip when Day is walking out, say that he sees it when Day is examining the rifle? If it's there, tell me it's there. Maybe it is. I don't know.

[Gil Jesus]

You're right that you can't see it, but it still could be there.

In this video, notice that although the clip is in the rifle, it is not visible in the ejection port at the bottom of the weapon.

https://youtu.be/eD9PRba_wAk

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Well, that's all Hank had to do. Pity he's not as clever as you. Yes, at least from that angle, the clip cannot be seen until it falls out. And it falls out when the last cartridge is chambered, before it is fired. So, if it was working properly, then it should have fallen out by the window. But the gun is an old piece of crap, so maybe it stayed put...until Day carried it out of the building and then it peaked out a bit. That must be Hank's explanation, I imagine. Amazing such a shitty old gun in the hands of a mediocre marksman could accomplish what trained experts with the thing fixed up couldn't.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Shit happens, hence the shit-eating grin on your boy Oswald's face as he raised his clenched fists in the Commie solidarity salute while cuffed and under arrest. Look at that smirk. Here's a man proud of his work that day:


https://www.columbiamissourian.com/visuals/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-holds-up-his-manacled-hands/image_c5a86702-bb51-11e7-8585-abef03615d45.html

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Don't be silly. Oswald scored his hit from behind the picket fence.

[Chuck Schuyler]

He wasn't getting a soda when the shooting happened or something like that?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

No. I think he was JC Price's Running Man, the guy Price saw run from the picket fence to behind the TSBD. Plenty of time for Oswald to get up to the 2nd floor before Baker and Truly, and even before Vickie Adams came down.

[John Corbett]

These are the kind of conclusions one reaches when they substitute imagination for evidence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

This is the kind of grammar used by senile "conservative" morons.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> These are the kind of conclusions one reaches when they substitute imagination for evidence.

And you should know because you always use evidence, right ?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Your Team Oswald co-member Sky Throne believes Oswald fired a shot from the grassy knoll and hustled back inside the TSBD, unseen, in time for his Baker and Truly encounter. Why don't you "school" him?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'm not on any team, you Nutter Retard. How can somebody so stupid and ignorant as you presume to think he knows anything about the JFK assassination? You're only here because you're a lonely old asshole at the end of your empty and stupid life, the very flower of godless capitalism.

[John Corbett]

Everything I believe about the assassination is supported by real, hard evidence. Not the shit
you whip up because it sounds good to you. The kind of evidence that tells us Oswald was the
assassin is the same kind that is used to solve countless other murders. Ballistics matching
bullets and shells to the suspected murder weapon. A paper trail establishing the primary
suspect was the owner of the weapon. The suspects prints on the murder weapon and at the
scene of the crime. Fiber evidence linking the suspect's shirt to the weapon and the bag to the
weapon. Medical evidence that proves conclusively where the fatal shots were fired from. We
also have things that we don't normally have in a murder case. Photos of the primary suspect
with both murder weapons. A film record of one of the murders.

And what do you counter with. A litany excuses for dismissing all that damning evidence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just a run of the mill moron, and everybody knows it.

[Bud]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:59:56 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 4:05:44 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:44:39 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:22:46 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> > > > These are the kind of conclusions one reaches when they substitute imagination for evidence.
> >
> > > And you should know because you always use evidence, right ?
> > Your Team Oswald co-member Sky Throne believes Oswald fired a shot from the grassy knoll and hustled back inside the TSBD, unseen, in time for his Baker and Truly encounter. Why don't you "school" him?
> I'm not on any team, you Nutter Retard.

But you are in a group. There are two groups represented here, rational, reasonable people and retards. If you don`t know what group you are in look to the other members of your group for clues.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's only in your little pea of a brain that I am in a group. Your crude intellect requires you to group people together because you are too stupid to deal with individuals as individuals. You can only attack individuals as members of a group you hate. That's all a moron like you can muster.

[Bud]

If you wish to leave your assigned group, the solution is simple. Stop being a retard.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

How do you fit so much shit into you're little retarded brain? At least you have the distinction of being the Most Retarded Nutter Retard Of Them All. You have reached the pinnacle of your career. You sit alone at the mountain top, with the peak right up your ass.

[Hank Sienzant]

You are just upset at Gil for exposing your nonsense, and now you’re taking it out on John.I.

So we’re done with the clip nonsense and you won’t be asking about again?

And Ben will concede that clip issue with a ‘mea colpa’ and likewise never argue again that the clip wasn’t in the rifle?

One silly conspiracy argument dead and buried.

But let’s see how long it takes until a conspiracy theorist resurrects it.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just upset that Gil can explain something that you can't.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not at all. That is exactly what I was arguing in favor of, and he did establish my argument with a YouTube video.

So I therefore thank Gil for posting that and helping to bury one hoary conspiracy argument.

Let’s see how long it stays buried before some CT resurrects it (most likely Ben).

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just upset that Gil was able to explain what you were allegedly trying to explain, but could not articulate, being too occupied with being the obnoxious dick you always are.

[Hank Sienzant]

And there you go again, resorting to ad hominem because your argument fell apart once more (and irony of ironies, it was a fellow CT that helped expose it).

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Everybody knows you're an obnoxious dick, while at the same time criticizing the ad hominems of others. Now you're just throwing up a smokescreen to hide that fact that you're upset over Gil's superiority in explaining stuff. It's kind of cute, actually, or would be if you were 2 years old.

[John Corbett]

Your frustration is showing.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just upset that you're a fucking moron.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> it was a fellow CT that helped expose it

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.
Conspiracy theorists see conspiracies everywhere. I don't.
I consider myself a Warren Commission critic.

I don't believe Sky Throne ever said there was no clip in the rifle.
He was asking why the clip was not visible in the ejection port.

The video showed that it was possible for the clip to be in the rifle and at the same time not be visible in the port.
I posted it for Sky Throne's benefit, so he wouldn't be taken down some never ending rabbit hole.
I didn't post it to put him down.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:02:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > it was a fellow CT that helped expose it
> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.
> Conspiracy theorists see conspiracies everywhere. I don't.
> I consider myself a Warren Commission critic.
>

The Warren Commission found that Oswald alone killed JFK. If you disagree with that finding,
you have two other options. Some other lone assassin killed JFK or there was a conspiracy.
Which when do you believe?

> I don't believe Sky Throne ever said there was no clip in the rifle.
> He was asking why the clip was not visible in the ejection port.
>
> The video showed that it was possible for the clip to be in the rifle and at the same time not be visible in the port.
> I posted it for Sky Throne's benefit, so he wouldn't be taken down some never ending rabbit hole.
> I didn't post it to put him down.

Unintended consequence.

[Hank Sienzant]

All he can do, having admitted the six-decade CT clip argument is nonsense, is attack the messenger.

It’s either that, or start to re-examine some other six-decade old CT arguments and see if they are likewise nonsense… like whether Oswald’s weapon was as accurate as then-modern military weapons, and whether Oswald, who trained in the Marines shooting at targets 200 and 500 yards away, could make one of three shots fired a kill shot at 86 yards (the longest shot in the Commission’s scenario). Those are two issues he deflected to upon conceding the clip argument.

Never mind the argument that the evidence establishes Oswald did accomplish the shooting, so arguing he couldn’t because of his poor skills or an inadequate weapon is foolish. It’s akin to arguing that steel is heavier than water and sinks, so boats made of steel can’t float, and ignoring the evidence indicating they can.

The weapon fired bullets traveling at about 2200 feet per second, and they obeyed the same Newtonian laws as all other bullets, they travel in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. In this case, the two outside forces are air resistance and gravity. Air resistance slows the bullet and gravity pulls it toward the earth. What therefore absolutely prevented Oswald from using his rusty Marine skills, firing three shots, and making one kill shot? Nothing.

But CTs argue Oswald couldn’t do this, no way, no how, not with his war-surplus weapon and not with his rusty skill set. That’s another nonsense argument. We saw SkyThrone trot out those two arguments above once the clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben was demolished. And he apparently is going to attempt to ride those dead horses.

Either that, or call me more names. What recourse does he have?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:22:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> But CTs argue Oswald couldn’t do this, no way, no how, not with his war-surplus weapon and not with his rusty skill set. That’s another nonsense argument. We saw SkyThrone trot out those two arguments above once the clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben was demolished. And he apparently is going to attempt to ride those dead horses.

Ben didn't post a "clip argument".
He posted that the Warren Commission lied when it published a citation that didn't exist.
And it did do that several times in its Report.
Try to keep up, Hank.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:22:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > But CTs argue Oswald couldn’t do this, no way, no how, not with his war-surplus weapon and not with his rusty skill set. That’s another nonsense argument. We saw SkyThrone trot out those two arguments above once the clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben was demolished. And he apparently is going to attempt to ride those dead horses.
> Ben didn't post a "clip argument".
> He posted that the Warren Commission lied when it published a citation that didn't exist.

Hank addressed that. Try to keep up, Gil.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:17:04 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >
> The Warren Commission found that Oswald alone killed JFK. If you disagree with that finding,
> you have two other options. Some other lone assassin killed JFK or there was a conspiracy.
> Which when do you believe?

Oh Boy another comment from the King of our resident mental-midgets.
This time he has a question, and one I've already answered quite a few times.

Maybe I should type it slower, so it can penetrate his cement head.

MY-RESEARCH-IS-ON-THE-EVIDENCE-IN-THE-CASE-AGAINST-OSWALD.

Maybe you don't understand English. In that case, here it is:

In Spanish:
Mi investigación es sobre las pruebas en el caso contra Oswald.

In French:
mes recherches portent sur les preuves dans l'affaire contre Oswald

In German:
Meine Recherchen beziehen sich auf die Beweise im Fall gegen Oswald

In Russian:
мое исследование посвящено доказательствам по делу против Освальда

In Portuguese:
minha pesquisa é sobre as evidências do caso contra Oswald

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're just upset that Gil is smarter than you, waaaaaay smarter.

[Gil Jesus]

Then why is he making false statements, about a "clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben" being "demolished" ?
Ben made no such argument about the clip's presence.
Just another lie, attibuting something to someone that you KNOW is false.

Talking about keeping up, have you found that 41 inch gunsack yet ?
<snicker>

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:41:19 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> You're just upset that Gil is smarter than you, waaaaaay smarter.

Thank you but you're giving me way too much credit.
Its not hard being smarter than those with an IQ in the single digits.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:02:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > it was a fellow CT that helped expose it
> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.

The pot denies he’s black. Even the tea kettle can see otherwise.

> Conspiracy theorists see conspiracies everywhere. I don't.
> I consider myself a Warren Commission critic.

By their deeds shall you know them.
Your argument recently was the bullets were CIA ammo. You weren’t arguing for a conspiracy there?
If not, what exactly were you arguing for?

>
> I don't believe Sky Throne ever said there was no clip in the rifle.

Of course not. CTs rarely lay out an argument and attempt to support it with evidence. They snipe around the edges, playing “just asking questions”. We are both adult enough to recognize that.
Sky Throne did exactly that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/RGLu7IqwAQAJ

> He was asking why the clip was not visible in the ejection port.

As a means to suggest it wasn’t in the weapon during the shooting, therefore Oswald couldn’t accomplish what the Commission said he did. We both know where that argument was heading, trodding the same well-worn path.

>
> The video showed that it was possible for the clip to be in the rifle and at the same time not be visible in the port.

Which was exactly my point, and what I was telling Sky Throne he needed to establish the converse of for his argument to go anywhere… he needed to show it would be visible. He never did.

> I posted it for Sky Throne's benefit, so he wouldn't be taken down some never ending rabbit hole.

A rabbit hole of CT’s creation… as Ben pointed out in his original thread…
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/T02VahYBAQAJ
…Sylvia Meagher was arguing for the supposed clip mystery six decades ago. It took that long to get ONE conspiracy theorist to concede the argument. How long do you think it will be for the other CTs to fall in line?

> I didn't post it to put him down.

Nobody suggested you did. But by bringing that up, you’re suggesting that was the end result.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:43:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:32:31 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:27:08 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:22:03 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > But CTs argue Oswald couldn’t do this, no way, no how, not with his war-surplus weapon and not with his rusty skill set. That’s another nonsense argument. We saw SkyThrone trot out those two arguments above once the clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben was demolished. And he apparently is going to attempt to ride those dead horses.
> > > Ben didn't post a "clip argument".
> > > He posted that the Warren Commission lied when it published a citation that didn't exist.
> > Hank addressed that. Try to keep up, Gil.
> > > And it did do that several times in its Report.
> > > Try to keep up, Hank.
> Then why is he making false statements, about a "clip argument recently re-introduced by Ben" being "demolished" ?
> Ben made no such argument about the clip's presence.

Uh, no.

Ben said this:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/T02VahYBAQAJ
“There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.”

Do you want me to quote Meagher’s arguments about the clip so you understand exactly what Ben was arguing for?

> Just another lie, attibuting something to someone that you KNOW is false.

What did Ben say above, Gil?

>
> Talking about keeping up, have you found that 41 inch gunsack yet ?
> <snicker>

Change of Subject Logical Fallacy.

[Hank Sienzant]

And Gil likewise resorts to ad hominem.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:50:26 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > I don't believe Sky Throne ever said there was no clip in the rifle.
> Of course not. CTs rarely lay out an argument and attempt to support it with evidence. They snipe around the edges, playing “just asking questions”. We are both adult enough to recognize that.

You're just upset because you're a paranoid case without a conspiracy theory!

[Steven Galbraith]

He's stated here before that the Birchers in Dallas killed JFK, that they were allowed to do so by the militarists in Washington in order to prevent JFK from ending their Cold War policies. People like Earl Warren (!!?) and others knew ahead of time that this was going to happen. Some of them, like members of the Secret Service, changed their protection procedures to make it happen. He later stated that "the Russians got it right" in their *investigation* (using that word loosely) that concluded the CIA was behind the assassination. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans were behind the murder.
So, after making three different claims about who was behind the assassination he says here that "I am not a conspiracy theorist."

[John Corbett]

What's the point of researching the evidence if you aren't going to follow it to a logical
conclusion? Is researching the evidence just a hobby for you like stamp collecting with no
real purpose?

[John Corbett]

Well at least that's good to know.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:46:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:41:19?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>> You're just upset that Gil is smarter than you, waaaaaay smarter.
>> Thank you but you're giving me way too much credit.
>> Its not hard being smarter than those with an IQ in the single digits.
>
>And Gil likewise resorts to ad hominem.

Tell us a lie, Huckster, and complain that you never use logical
fallacies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 14:17:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:44:39?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:22:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> These are the kind of conclusions one reaches when they substitute imagination for evidence.

>> And you should know because you always use evidence, right ?
>
>Everything I believe about the assassination is supported by real, hard evidence.

No it isn't.

You continually REFUSE to cite this alleged "real, hard evidence."

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 10:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:25:03?PM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 12:49:43?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:19:44?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>> https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is the frame of a film, but that still is a photograph.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's there. I don't know. But Hank has asserted that the clip can be seen in a photo of Lt. Day leaving the building https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/day_clip.gif. I see that. But, to me, it looks like it is not there when Day first examines the rifle https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz. Maybe it is, but I don't see it. Why can't Hank, who sees the clip when Day is walking out, say that he sees it when Day is examining the rifle? If it's there, tell me it's there. Maybe it is. I don't know.
>>> You're right that you can't see it, but it still could be there.
>>>
>>> In this video, notice that although the clip is in the rifle, it is not visible in the ejection port at the bottom of the weapon.
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/eD9PRba_wAk
>
>> Well, that's all Hank had to do. Pity he's not as clever as you. Yes, at least from that angle, the clip cannot be seen until it falls out. And it falls out when the last cartridge is chambered, before it is fired. So, if it was working properly, then it should have fallen out by the window. But the gun is an old piece of crap, so maybe it stayed put...until Day carried it out of the building and then it peaked out a bit. That must be Hank's explanation, I imagine. Amazing such a shitty old gun in the hands of a mediocre marksman could accomplish what trained experts with the thing fixed up couldn't.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:17:02 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:02:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> it was a fellow CT that helped expose it
>> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.
>> Conspiracy theorists see conspiracies everywhere. I don't.
>> I consider myself a Warren Commission critic.
>>

>The Warren Commission found that Oswald alone killed JFK...


And the HSCA disputed that finding.

Amusingly, you believe one, but not the other...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:02:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > it was a fellow CT that helped expose it
>> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.
>
>The pot denies he’s black. Even the tea kettle can see otherwise.

Lie, Huckster, and claim you aren't using ad hominem...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 07:32:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:38:52?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:17:04?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>
>>> The Warren Commission found that Oswald alone killed JFK. If you disagree with that finding,
>>> you have two other options. Some other lone assassin killed JFK or there was a conspiracy.
>>> Which when do you believe?
>> Oh Boy another comment from the King of our resident mental-midgets.
>> This time he has a question, and one I've already answered quite a few times.
>>
>> Maybe I should type it slower, so it can penetrate his cement head.
>>
>> MY-RESEARCH-IS-ON-THE-EVIDENCE-IN-THE-CASE-AGAINST-OSWALD.
>>
>> Maybe you don't understand English. In that case, here it is:
>>
>> In Spanish:
>> Mi investigación es sobre las pruebas en el caso contra Oswald.
>>
>> In French:
>> mes recherches portent sur les preuves dans l'affaire contre Oswald
>>
>> In German:
>> Meine Recherchen beziehen sich auf die Beweise im Fall gegen Oswald
>>
>> In Russian:

>> ??? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? ?? ???? ?????? ????????

>>
>> In Portuguese:
>> minha pesquisa é sobre as evidências do caso contra Oswald
>
>What's the point of researching the evidence if you aren't going to follow it to a logical
>conclusion? Is researching the evidence just a hobby for you like stamp collecting with no
>real purpose?

Clearly, you believe that the evidence is something to run from, deny,
and lie about.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:05:43 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:44:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 2:22:46?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> > These are the kind of conclusions one reaches when they substitute imagination for evidence.
>
>> And you should know because you always use evidence, right ?
>

>Your Team Oswald co-member Sky Throne believes Oswald fired a shot from the grassy knoll and hustled back inside the TSBD, unseen, in time for his Baker and Truly encounter. Why don't you "school" him?

This *is* what you have to believe in order to account for the
evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 14:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>And Ben will concede ...

You still haven't conceded that the WCR used two fake cites to support
their "clip." You've not conceded that the one photo *YOU* cited is
hardly definitive, and in fact, doesn't make sense. What's holding
the "clip" in place in that photo???

No, I feel no need to "concede" anything - as you've not proven a
thing - other than finding *one* citation that the WC could have used.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:32:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>All he can do, having admitted the six-decade CT clip argument is nonsense, is attack the messenger.

Au contraire... you've not addressed the topic at all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Ben said this:
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/T02VahYBAQAJ
>“There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
>take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
>the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.”

Indeed. And like the coward you are, you've not addressed this at
all.

But let's get back to the original topic.

CAN YOU PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WC CLAMED TWO INDEPENDENT
CITATIONS/SOURCES FOR THEIR CLAIM ABOUT THE CLIP?

You still haven't, you know.

That means that you're a dishonest coward.

You need to address what I point out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 06:39:45 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So, after making three different claims about who was behind the assassination he says here that "I am not a conspiracy theorist."

Says the coward who refuses to post a scenario and cite the evidence
supporting it.

[Steven Galbraith]

In his defense (this is pro bono work), I guess it's true that he doesn't have "a" conspiracy theory. He has *three* theories not one (at least). He's a conspiracies theorist.

[John Corbett]

I'm glad he's working pro bono because he would have a hard time collecting a fee.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In his defense (this is pro bono work), I guess it's true that he doesn't have "a" conspiracy theory. He has *three* theories not one (at least). He's a conspiracies theorist.

For somone terrified of stating the scenario he believes, this is
quite ironic indeed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 11:19:44 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz
>
> Yes, it is the frame of a film, but that still is a photograph.
>
> Maybe it's there. I don't know. But Hank has asserted that the clip can be seen in a photo of Lt. Day leaving the building https://www.jfk-assassination.net/images/day_clip.gif. I see that. But, to me, it looks like it is not there when Day first examines the rifle https://postimg.cc/ZB3YG9jz. Maybe it is, but I don't see it. Why can't Hank, who sees the clip when Day is walking out, say that he sees it when Day is examining the rifle? If it's there, tell me it's there. Maybe it is. I don't know.

I think the clip probably is in the gun when Lt. Day handles it. https://postimg.cc/8Jdq7r3L Fortunately, Hank is such an obnoxious prick that I don't owe him any apology. But thanks to Gil and other photography I've been looking at, I'm fairly confident that the clip is in there.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben resorts to ad hominem - a logical fallacy - instead of discussing the rifle clip.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben changes the subject rather than discuss the rifle clip.

[Hank Sienzant]

Weigh in on the clip evidence, why don't you?

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben deletes the points made rather than discuss the clip.

[Hank Sienzant]

You don't think Gil's a conspiracy theorist? I do.

There are two sides in this debate. The Lone Nutters and the Loons (to resurrect terminology from the early 1990s on Prodigy). The Loons are now called conspiracy theorists. Gil certainly appears to be on that side, as he is constantly posting about how Oswald could not have done it.

[Hank Sienzant]

Cite that evidence. We both know you won't, of course.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:56:47 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >And Ben will concede ...
>
> You still haven't conceded that the WCR used two fake cites to support
> their "clip." You've not conceded that the one photo *YOU* cited is
> hardly definitive, and in fact, doesn't make sense. What's holding
> the "clip" in place in that photo???
>
> No, I feel no need to "concede" anything -

Yeah, that's exactly what I said:
"You are just upset at Gil for exposing your nonsense, and now you’re taking it out on John. So we’re done with the clip nonsense and you won’t be asking about again? And Ben will concede that clip issue with a ‘mea colpa’ [culpa] and likewise never argue again that the clip wasn’t in the rifle? One silly conspiracy argument dead and buried. But let’s see how long it takes until a conspiracy theorist resurrects it."

You're denying it was dead and buried. The clip arguments never were legitimate and never made a lick of sense. 60 years later, they still don't.

> as you've not proven a
> thing - other than finding *one* citation that the WC could have used.

Ben has to delete and ignore the points made.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:57:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Ben said this:
> >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/T02VahYBAQAJ
> >“There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
> >take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
> >the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.”
> Indeed. And like the coward you are, you've not addressed this at
> all.

False. I pointed out the photographs showing Day with the rifle, showing the clip. Photos that Meagher and other critics should have been aware of yet failed to mention in their arguments that there's no first-day evidence for the clip.

>
> But let's get back to the original topic.
>
> CAN YOU PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WC CLAMED TWO INDEPENDENT
> CITATIONS/SOURCES FOR THEIR CLAIM ABOUT THE CLIP?

And one is supported, but two pages off. I haven't bothered with the other one.

>
> You still haven't, you know.
>
> That means that you're a dishonest coward.

No, that means you resort to ad hominem because I pointed out you are criticizing a frigging typo.

>
> You need to address what I point out.

Already did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:08:59 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:57:02?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Ben said this:
>> >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/4-nD2oIxfg8/m/T02VahYBAQAJ
>> >“There are many more problems with this alleged clip - but it would
>> >take a separate post to detail. See Silvia Meagher's Accessories After
>> >the Fact for one discussion of the problems of evidence for this clip.”
>> Indeed. And like the coward you are, you've not addressed this at
>> all.
>
>False.

Looks like you're lying again. You've shown no indication that you
are even aware of what Silvia Meagher was pointing out.

Can you tell us the synopsis of what she reported in that part of the
book?

Do you even have a clue?

>> But let's get back to the original topic.
>>
>> CAN YOU PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE WC CLAMED TWO INDEPENDENT
>> CITATIONS/SOURCES FOR THEIR CLAIM ABOUT THE CLIP?

Logical fallacy deleted.

Clearly, you aren't honest enough to address the question I raised.

>> You still haven't, you know.
>>
>> That means that you're a dishonest coward.
>

>No...


Yes.

You can run, Huckster - but you can't hide the fact that you refuse to
address WHAT I POST right here...

>> You need to address what I point out.
>
>Already did.

You're lying again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:55:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:46:15?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:41:19?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
>>>>> You're just upset that Gil is smarter than you, waaaaaay smarter.
>>>> Thank you but you're giving me way too much credit.
>>>> Its not hard being smarter than those with an IQ in the single digits.
>>>
>>>And Gil likewise resorts to ad hominem.
>>
>> Tell us a lie, Huckster, and complain that you never use logical
>> fallacies...
>

>Ben ...

Ben has nothing whatsoever to do with *YOUR* use of logical fallacies.

Run away again, coward...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:56:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:02:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:28:53?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>> it was a fellow CT that helped expose it
>>>> I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Hank.
>>>
>>>The pot denies he’s black. Even the tea kettle can see otherwise.
>> Lie, Huckster, and claim you aren't using ad hominem...

Logical fallacy deleted.

Huckster is TERRIFIED of answering my question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:04:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 10:56:47?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And Ben will concede ...
>>
>> You still haven't conceded that the WCR used two fake cites to support
>> their "clip." You've not conceded that the one photo *YOU* cited is
>> hardly definitive, and in fact, doesn't make sense. What's holding
>> the "clip" in place in that photo???
>>
>> No, I feel no need to "concede" anything -

I deleted your agreement with me...

>> as you've not proven a
>> thing - other than finding *one* citation that the WC could have used.

And, I might point out, unable to produce the document on which it was
allegedly based.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Chickenshit has no right to any answers of mine when he can't answer
*MY* questions.

So tell us coward, why can't **YOU** help Chickenshit out, and answer
the question?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Here's a good synopsis:
https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

But we both know that you're a LIAR to try to imply that there's no
evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter. Indeed, mere SECONDS after the
shots were fired, Curry was directing officers to the Grassy Knoll (or
more precisely, in that direction... the railroad yard)

You know this.

YOU KNOW THIS!!! Yet here you are, implicitly denying it.

Here's a few specific cites: Boone XIX, 507; VII, 105-9
Weitzman IV, 161
Craig XIX, 524
Elkins XIX, 540

I can give many more, but 4 are enough to prove you a liar. Watch
folks, as Huckster refuses to retract his now proven lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Sure... Just as soon as you publicly acknowledge that I'm perfectly
correct to point out that Corbutt refuses to cite "real, hard
evidence."... and always has refused to do so whenever I've asked him
to.

Trying to change the topic isn't going to go anywhere...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben deletes ...

Sure. Happy to.

What was holding the clip out in the photo you cited?

[Bud]

Ben: "Whhhaaaa, Hank won`t respond to me!"

Also Ben: "I am happy to delete what Hank writes."

> What was holding the clip out in the photo you cited?

Asked and answered, troll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 14:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

Never-ending nonsense.

I am glad however that you finally admitted there is a clip visible in the rifle that was photographed as J.C. Day walked the weapon found in the Depository back to the Crime Lab. But of course, like good acts everywhere, answers are never enough. Now Ben raises the meaningless issue of what's holding it in place, as if that is pertinent to resolving the issue of whether there is a conspiracy of not.

Elsewhere, CTs will and have complained about the condition of the rifle, stressing how it was a WWII weapon, how it was over two decades old, how it apparently needed to be well-oiled to function, how there was a rusty firing pin, how the scope was misaligned, and how there was supposedly rust in the barrel. But of course for a dedicated CT like Ben, none of that comes close to answering why the clip didn't fall out after the last shell was ejected as the mechanism was designed to work.

I guess Ben is forever doomed to curse the darkness and wallow in these mysteries he is unable to solve rather than light a single candle.

Light a candle, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You and Holmes have been doing Never Ending Nonsense for years, like it's sex.

[Hank Sienzant]

I post evidence and a reasoned argument in support of my conclusions. I attempt to have a civil discussion with all comers.

Ben does none of that.

I don't call people liars or cowards, and I don't delete my opponent’s words to avoid responding to them. I don't make up childish names for my opponents.

Ben does all the above, and more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>I post evidence and a reasoned argument in support of my conclusions. I attempt to have a civil discussion with all comers.

Except when you don't.