Huckster Sienzant & John Burroughs - PROVEN COWARDS!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:43:05 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>In the last few paragraphs - Mark Lane started pointing out the issues
>with the outdoor photos of Oswald with a rifle. Continuing...
>
>"Life claimed that the photograph showed Oswald with the murder
>weapons; other publications declined to make this claim. Lyndal L.
>Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert, examined the picture and
>compared it with one taken of Commission Exhibit 139, the alleged
>assassination rifle. Asked if he could testify that the two weapons
>were the same, he replied that he could not. The two rifles appeared
>to have the same 'general configuration', Shaneyfelt observed — as do
>most rifles — but he 'did not find any really specific peculiarities
>on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of
>all other rifles of the same general configuration'.
>
>The Commission heard only one expert on the question — Shaneyfelt —
>and he refused to make an identification. Yet the Commission concluded
>that 'the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was
>found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building on November 22,
>1963'."
>
>Mark Lane is now showing yet more of the Warren Commission's dishonest
>handling of the evidence...
>
>Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.

Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.

We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...

As believers do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:07:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:43:05 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >In the last few paragraphs - Mark Lane started pointing out the issues
> >with the outdoor photos of Oswald with a rifle. Continuing...
> >
> >"Life claimed that the photograph showed Oswald with the murder
> >weapons; other publications declined to make this claim. Lyndal L.
> >Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert, examined the picture and
> >compared it with one taken of Commission Exhibit 139, the alleged
> >assassination rifle. Asked if he could testify that the two weapons
> >were the same, he replied that he could not. The two rifles appeared
> >to have the same 'general configuration', Shaneyfelt observed — as do
> >most rifles — but he 'did not find any really specific peculiarities
> >on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of
> >all other rifles of the same general configuration'.
> >
> >The Commission heard only one expert on the question — Shaneyfelt —
> >and he refused to make an identification. Yet the Commission concluded
> >that 'the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was
> >found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building on November 22,
> >1963'."
> >
> >Mark Lane is now showing yet more of the Warren Commission's dishonest
> >handling of the evidence...

What was dishonest about it?

Does the evidence show Oswald owned more than one Carcano, or only one?

Only one, bearing the serial number C2766.

The reasonable conclusion here, given the backyard photos were determined to be genuine, is Oswald is holding his own rifle, the same one bearing his fingerprints on the trigger guard and the same one found in the Depository and the same one shipped to his P.O. Box.

Further, the HSCA examined these backyard photos, likewise determined they were genuine, and determined it was the same Eaton, based on a significant random gouge in both the archive weapon and the weapon in the backyard photographs.

So the conclusion they reached was justified by the evid3nce known at the time and confirmed by a subsequent investigation.

> >
> >Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.
>
> Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
> couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.

You will delete my points and call me names. And repeat your claims. You won’t discuss the evidence. You will dismiss it or ignore it.

>
> We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
> of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
> it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...

What lie did Lane show? The WC conclusion was based on the totality of the evidence, not one piece of evidence.

>
> As believers do...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!!!

Conspiracy Believer Ben looks in the mirror and spells out his philosophy.

[Hank Sienzant]

> Further, the HSCA examined these backyard photos, likewise determined they were genuine, and determined it was the same Eaton [weapon - autocorrect error] based on a significant random gouge in both the archive weapon and the weapon in the backyard photographs.
>
> So the conclusion they reached was justified by the evidence known at the time and confirmed by a subsequent investigation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:45:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:07:29?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:43:05 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In the last few paragraphs - Mark Lane started pointing out the issues
>>>with the outdoor photos of Oswald with a rifle. Continuing...
>>>
>>>"Life claimed that the photograph showed Oswald with the murder
>>>weapons; other publications declined to make this claim. Lyndal L.
>>>Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert, examined the picture and
>>>compared it with one taken of Commission Exhibit 139, the alleged
>>>assassination rifle. Asked if he could testify that the two weapons
>>>were the same, he replied that he could not. The two rifles appeared
>>>to have the same 'general configuration', Shaneyfelt observed — as do
>>>most rifles — but he 'did not find any really specific peculiarities
>>>on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of
>>>all other rifles of the same general configuration'.
>>>
>>>The Commission heard only one expert on the question — Shaneyfelt —
>>>and he refused to make an identification. Yet the Commission concluded
>>>that 'the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was
>>>found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building on November 22,
>>>1963'."
>>>
>>>Mark Lane is now showing yet more of the Warren Commission's dishonest
>>>handling of the evidence...
>
>What was dishonest about it?

Cite the evidence used by the Commission.

If you cannot, and the only remaning evidence CONTRADICTS what the WCR
said, then they lied, didn't they?

As you're lying right now.

> Does the evidence show Oswald owned more than one Carcano, or only
> one?

This falls under the category of begging the question...


>The reasonable conclusion here...


Would be HONESTY.

The WCR lacked it... and clearly you do too.

You cannot cite any evidence that said what the WCR stated.

Speculation isn't evidence.

>>>Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.
>>
>> Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
>> couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.
>
> You will delete my points and call me names. And repeat your claims.
> You won’t discuss the evidence. You will dismiss it or ignore it.

You have PROVABLY been running from this post. What does it take,
Huckster?

Even now, you're simply lying.

>> We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
>> of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
>> it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...
>
> What lie did Lane show? The WC conclusion was based on the totality
> of the evidence, not one piece of evidence.

Begging the question again, aren't you? YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR,
Huckster Sienzant... your mother would be proud.

>> As believers do...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!!!

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:47:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:07:29?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:43:05 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In the last few paragraphs - Mark Lane started pointing out the issues
>>>with the outdoor photos of Oswald with a rifle. Continuing...
>>>
>>>"Life claimed that the photograph showed Oswald with the murder
>>>weapons; other publications declined to make this claim. Lyndal L.
>>>Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert, examined the picture and
>>>compared it with one taken of Commission Exhibit 139, the alleged
>>>assassination rifle. Asked if he could testify that the two weapons
>>>were the same, he replied that he could not. The two rifles appeared
>>>to have the same 'general configuration', Shaneyfelt observed — as do
>>>most rifles — but he 'did not find any really specific peculiarities
>>>on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of
>>>all other rifles of the same general configuration'.
>>>
>>>The Commission heard only one expert on the question — Shaneyfelt —
>>>and he refused to make an identification. Yet the Commission concluded
>>>that 'the rifle shown in these pictures is the same rifle which was
>>>found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building on November 22,
>>>1963'."
>>>
>>>Mark Lane is now showing yet more of the Warren Commission's dishonest
>>>handling of the evidence...
>
>What was dishonest about it?

Cite the evidence used by the Commission.

If you cannot, and the only remaning evidence CONTRADICTS what the WCR
said, then they lied, didn't they?

As you're lying right now.

> Does the evidence show Oswald owned more than one Carcano, or only
> one?

This falls under the category of begging the question...


>The reasonable conclusion here...


Would be HONESTY.

The WCR lacked it... and clearly you do too.

You cannot cite any evidence that said what the WCR stated.

Speculation isn't evidence.

>>>Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.
>>
>> Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
>> couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.
>
> You will delete my points and call me names. And repeat your claims.
> You won’t discuss the evidence. You will dismiss it or ignore it.

You have PROVABLY been running from this post. What does it take,
Huckster?

Even now, you're simply lying.

>> We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
>> of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
>> it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...
>
> What lie did Lane show? The WC conclusion was based on the totality
> of the evidence, not one piece of evidence.

Begging the question again, aren't you? YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR,
Huckster Sienzant... your mother would be proud.

>> As believers do...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!!!

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, Ben.

Your job is to support your claims. It's not my job to disprove your claims.

We'll await your evidence, your argument, and your reasonable conclusion.

>
> If you cannot, and the only remaning evidence CONTRADICTS what the WCR
> said, then they lied, didn't they?

Attempt to shift the burden of proof.

>
> As you're lying right now.

Ad hominem and poisoning the well.

> > Does the evidence show Oswald owned more than one Carcano, or only
> > one?
> This falls under the category of begging the question...

No, it's a pertinent question. You don't understand the Begging the Question LOGICAL FALLACY. It has nothing to do with asking a question.

If Oswald owned only one weapon, then the weapon in the photo - barring other evidence - is the rifle in question. Show us that other evidence.

>
>
> >The reasonable conclusion here...
>
>
> Would be HONESTY.

A pity then that you have to delete my response. How honest is *that*?

Here, let's put it back so we can see you ignore it once more: "The reasonable conclusion here, given the backyard photos were determined to be genuine, is Oswald is holding his own rifle, the same one bearing his fingerprints on the trigger guard and the same one found in the Depository and the same one shipped to his P.O. Box.

Further, the HSCA examined these backyard photos, likewise determined they were genuine, and determined it was the same weapon based on a significant random gouge in both the archive weapon and the weapon in the backyard photographs.

So the conclusion they reached was justified by the evidence known at the time and confirmed by a subsequent investigation."

You had no response to that.

>
> The WCR lacked it... and clearly you do too.

Unsupported claim and ad hominem.

>
> You cannot cite any evidence that said what the WCR stated.
>
> Speculation isn't evidence.

What part of the HSCA confirmed it was the same weapon did you fail to understand?

> >>>Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.
> >>
> >> Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
> >> couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.
> >
> > You will delete my points and call me names. And repeat your claims.
> > You won’t discuss the evidence. You will dismiss it or ignore it.
> You have PROVABLY been running from this post. What does it take,
> Huckster?
>
> Even now, you're simply lying.

No, you're deleting my points and calling me names. And repeating your claims.
You're not discussing the evidence, you're dismissing it or ignoring it.

The only one posting the evidence is me:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm

See "Point 4. Conclusions".
The rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photos is the C2766 rifle in the archives.
The HSCA confirmed the WC conclusion you and Lane want to dismiss.

> >> We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
> >> of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
> >> it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...
> >
> > What lie did Lane show? The WC conclusion was based on the totality
> > of the evidence, not one piece of evidence.
> Begging the question again, aren't you? YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR,
> Huckster Sienzant... your mother would be proud.

More ad hominem. More ignoring the evidence. The C2766 rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and was traced to Oswald by paperwork establishing it was shipped to his PO box. The original money order was examined, and determined to be in his handwriting. His fingerprints were later established to be on the trigger guard. These are just *some* of the indicators establishing that the rifle possessed by Oswald in the backyard photos is the same one found in the Depository, especially given that there is *no evidence* Oswald owned another rifle.

> >> As believers do...
> >>
> >> EVERY
> >>
> >> SINGLE
> >>
> >> TIME!!!
> Logical fallacy deleted.

I pointed out you must have been looking in the mirror when you made that claim. If that's a logical fallacy, so is claiming I ran. I'm not running. I'm here, pointing out Lane's criticism is unwarranted, as the totality of the evidence - and the HSCA photographic expert opinion - confirms the Commission conclusion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 15:54:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Then you've answered your own question.

Coward... aren't you?

>> If you cannot, and the only remaning evidence CONTRADICTS what the WCR
>> said, then they lied, didn't they?
>
>Attempt to shift the burden of proof.

It's your burden. *YOU* are the one defending the WCR.

>> As you're lying right now.
>
>Ad hominem and poisoning the well.

Lie again, coward, and claim you're able to point to the evidence the
WCR legitimately used to make their statement.

But you can't.

>>> Does the evidence show Oswald owned more than one Carcano, or only
>>> one?
>> This falls under the category of begging the question...
>
>No, it's a pertinent question.

No, it's begging the question.

> You don't understand the Begging the Question LOGICAL FALLACY. It has
>nothing to do with asking a question.

Molesting your own mother, I see... Nowhere can you find any
assertion by me that would suipport your blatant lie.

And everytime a believer pretends I said something, I'll be happy to
refer to the emails you sent me describing your molestation of your
own mother.

> If Oswald owned only one weapon, then the weapon in the photo -
> barring other evidence - is the rifle in question. Show us that other
> evidence.

There you go again, begging the question.

>>>The reasonable conclusion here...
>>
>>
>> Would be HONESTY.
>>

>> The WCR lacked it... and clearly you do too.
>
>Unsupported claim and ad hominem.

Supported above. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite the evidence that the
WCR used to make their assertion.

>> You cannot cite any evidence that said what the WCR stated.
>>
>> Speculation isn't evidence.
>
>What part of the HSCA confirmed it was the same weapon did you fail to understand?

How can they? On what EVIDENCE did they rely?

You've already shown that the WCR didn't have the evidence... you
refuse to cite it.

You'll do the same here, and refuse to cite any evidence that the HSCA
could have used.

>>>>>Watch folks, as Huckster Sienzant runs away ... again.
>>>>
>>>> Remember folks, I predicted it in advance... and Huckster simply
>>>> couldn't face the spanking he just got at the hands of Mark Lane.
>>>
>>> You will delete my points and call me names. And repeat your claims.
>>> You won’t discuss the evidence. You will dismiss it or ignore it.
>> You have PROVABLY been running from this post. What does it take,
>> Huckster?
>>
>> Even now, you're simply lying.
>

>No...


Yes.

Your consistent refusal to support the WCR's claim with a citation to
the evidence proves it.

>>>> We see clearly that Mark Lane points out an ABSOLUTE LIE on the part
>>>> of the WC, and Huckster couldn't acknowledge it, defend it, or explain
>>>> it... so he simply showed the world his yellow back as he ran...
>>>
>>> What lie did Lane show? The WC conclusion was based on the totality
>>> of the evidence, not one piece of evidence.
>> Begging the question again, aren't you? YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR,
>> Huckster Sienzant... your mother would be proud.

Word salad deleted.

Cite the evidence upon which the WCR based their claim.

Speculation is not evidence...

>>>> As believers do...
>>>>
>>>> EVERY
>>>>
>>>> SINGLE
>>>>
>>>> TIME!!!
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>

>I pointed out...

How many posts did I post making fun of you for refusing to address
this post before you finally responded?