Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 27

[Gil Jesus]

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

QUESTION # 27: How many witnesses described the shooting as having happened that way ?

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:48:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> The Warren Commission concluded that three shots were fired, all from the Texas School Book Depository. It further concluded that one shot
> hit both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, one shot missed the limousine completely and one shot hit President Kennedy in the head.

Not what they said.

NEXT!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 4:48:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

None. But why would you expect them to? The entire shooting sequence happened in nine seconds or less, and involved two shooting victims in a moving car traveling over ten miles an hour. I remind you that some witnesses thought only two shots were fired, others named three, four, five or more. The witnesses were all over the map on not only the number of shots, but the timing and spacing of the shots as well as the source of the shots.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Some witnesses even thought that the car stopped. Those wacky humans!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 02:01:38 -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 Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:12:23 -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?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:12:23 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> You've claimed…

Ben attempts to change the subject to something he pretends I said because he apparently can’t discuss this topic knowledgeably.

He’s reduced to trolling.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yep. Some thought there was one shot, others heard two, others heard three (the vast majority), still others said they heard four or more. They also disagreed on the spacing of the shots, some of those who thought there were three shots thought the first two were bunched, others said the last two were closer together. And some witnesses thought the shooter was in the TSBD, others named other sources, including the overpass in front of the President.

Yeah, witnesses are unreliable, which is why any investigation — including this one — is guided by the hard evidence. Not the witnesses you like.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

To Nutters, witnesses are unreliable until they confirm wacky Nutter Theories.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben attempts ...

Ben doesn't "attempt" - Ben successfully proves your cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Gil?

[Hank Sienzant]

No, not what I said. Nor is it true. All witnesses are unreliable. We only know which witnesses were correct in certain claims concerning the assassination proper because the hard evidence confirms their claims. That’s the proper way to assess eyewitnesses. Conspiracy addicts turns this upside down. They first find specious reasons to discard the hard evidence (see anything written by Gil, among others) and then selectively quote from the witnesses to support a theory they decided upon earlier.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:49:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>No, not what I said.

Here's what you said:

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?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Is it true?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:43:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Huckster?