The Lies of the Warren Report

Gil Jesus

unread,

Mar 4, 2023, 7:54:35 AM3/4/23

to

#1. ON FIBERS FOUND ON THE BUTT PLATE OF THE RIFLE COMING FROM OSWALD'S SHIRT:

The Report concluded:
"The Commission was able to conclude......that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt". ( Report, pg. 125 )

But the evidence said:
MR STROMBAUGH. We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )

#2.ON COMPARING THE FIBERS FOUND IN THE "PAPER GUNSACK" WITH THE FIBERS IN THE BLANKET FROM THE PAINE GARAGE:

The Report concluded:
"The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers found in the blanket....the green cotton fibers from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket...." ( pg. 591 )

But the evidence said:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )

#3. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:

The Report concluded:
"Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )

But the evidence said:
Mr. NICOL. .....I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. ( 3 H 513 )

#4. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:

The Report concluded:
The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle into the Depsoitory Building concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )

But the evidence said:
Mr. CADIGAN. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle. ( 4 H 97 )

#5. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BULLET THAT HIT GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S WRIST:

The Report concluded:
The nature of the wounds suffered by....Governor Connally....establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine. ( pg. 18 )

But the evidence said:
Dr. GREGORY. The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound...on...the back of the hand...it passed from the dorsal or back side to the volar.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say volar, what do you mean by that ?
Dr. GREGORY. The palm side. ( 4 H 118-119 )

#6. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:

The Report concluded:
"Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )

But the evidence said:
Mr. BELIN. Did you see from where the gun came ?
Mr. BREWER. No. ( 7 H 6 )

# 7 ON WHETHER TIPPIT AND OSWALD EVER SAW EACH OTHER

The Report concluded:
Investigation has revealed no evidence that Oswald and Tippit ....had ever seen each other.... ( WCR 651 )

But the evidence said:
"...Officer J.D. Tippit was in the restaurant... and "shot a glance at Oswald." ( CE 3001 / 26 H 516 )

You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 5, 2023, 7:35:24 AM3/5/23

to

On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 7:54:35 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> #1. ON FIBERS FOUND ON THE BUTT PLATE OF THE RIFLE COMING FROM OSWALD'S SHIRT:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "The Commission was able to conclude......that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt". ( Report, pg. 125 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> MR STROMBAUGH. We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts." ( 4 H 88 )
>

A. It's Stombaugh.
B. You're cherry-picking. Stombaugh went on to say:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.

"Another identical shirt". What are the odds that a conspirator (or even one of those multitude of "Oswald doubles" had an identical shirt? Were conspirators following the Oswald's around and purchasing the same article of clothing Lee or Marina purchased? What about Christmas gifts? If Oswald got that particular shirt as a gift from his brother Robert, were conspirators following all of Lee's relatives around in case they bought him a gift shirt?

Given how absurd the alternative is, I think it's reasonable to conclude, as the Commission did, "...that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt".

Don't you agree?

>
> #2.ON COMPARING THE FIBERS FOUND IN THE "PAPER GUNSACK" WITH THE FIBERS IN THE BLANKET FROM THE PAINE GARAGE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers found in the blanket....the green cotton fibers from the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket...." ( pg. 591 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers in the bag to form an opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )
>

Well, you spelled his name correct, but it's still a quote out of context.
Stombaugh said the fibers matched those in the blanket, which is what the Commission said above.
But asked if he could these fibers came from this particular blanket, he said:
== quote ==
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibers in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come. from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woolen fibers, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibers.
Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors, and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and 3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woolen fibers.
So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
== unquote ==

>
> #3. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. NICOL. .....I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. ( 3 H 513 )
>

Again with the quote out of context! Nicol said *exactly* what the Commission said he said.
== quote ==
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible. Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, we had testimony from a Mr. Frazier yesterday of the FBI Firearms Section, and he testified that the FBI does not make probable identifications, but merely positive or negative identifications.
Mr. NICOL. I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going over board in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do.
== unquote ==

>
> #4. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:
>
> The Report concluded:
> The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle into the Depsoitory Building concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. CADIGAN. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle. ( 4 H 97 )

What part of the "preponderance of the evidence" confused you?

Oswald's rifle - normally stored in the Paine garage - was found in the Depository after the assassination. Oswald was seen transporting a long bag to the Depository the morning of the assassination. A bag was found in the Depository that was determined to bear Oswald's palmprint. Oswald lied in custody about having a long bag that he put on the back seat of Frazier's car. Oswald told Frazier he was making a special trip on Thursday to the Paine's residence to pick up curtain rods. Oswald denied telling Frazier this.

The preponderance of the evidence is Oswald transported the rifle to the Depository. I know of no one else who the evidence indicates had the knowledge where Oswald's rifle was normally stored, and had access to the Depository's sixth floor as well. Who besides Oswald could have brought the weapon into the Depository? List their names and the evidence for that here:

>
>
> #5. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BULLET THAT HIT GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S WRIST:
>
> The Report concluded:
> The nature of the wounds suffered by....Governor Connally....establish that the bullets were fired from above and behind the Presidential limousine. ( pg. 18 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Dr. GREGORY. The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound...on...the back of the hand...it passed from the dorsal or back side to the volar.
> Mr. SPECTER. When you say volar, what do you mean by that ?
> Dr. GREGORY. The palm side. ( 4 H 118-119 )

Again, quote out of context!

Connally suffered a wound in his back that was higher than his exit wound in the chest.

Doctor Gregory affirmed all the wounds could be caused by one bullet fired above and behind the Governor:
== quote ==
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Gregory, could all of the wounds which were inflicted on the Governor, that is. those described by Dr. Shaw. and those which you have described during your testimony, have been inflicted from one missile if that missile were a 6.5 millimeter bullet fired from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a distance of approximately 160 to 250 feet, if you assumed a trajectory with an angle of decline approximately 45 degrees?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe that the three wounds could have occurred from a single missile under these specifications.
== unquote ==

Dr. Shaw said the same thing:
== quote ==
Mr. DULLES - You have indicated a certain angle of declination on this chart here which the Chief Justice has.
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you know enough about the angle of declination of the bullet that hit the President to Judge at all whether these two angles of declination are consistent?
Dr. SHAW - We know that the angle of declination was a downward one from back to front so that I think this is consistent with the angle of declination of the wound that the Governor sustained.
== unquote ==

The Commission's conclusion is correct. The wounds the Governor sustained were from a bullet or bullets fired above and behind the limo.

>
>
>
> #6. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:
>
> The Report concluded:
> "Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see from where the gun came ?
> Mr. BREWER. No. ( 7 H 6 )

Brewer went on to say:
== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun."
And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him,
== unquote ==

He saw the gun in Oswald's hand, he heard an officer yell "He's got a gun!", and he saw the officers taking the gun from Oswald.

You think there's an argument there that Oswald didn't pull a gun in the theatre. I don't see any room for that argument.

>
>
> # 7 ON WHETHER TIPPIT AND OSWALD EVER SAW EACH OTHER
>
> The Report concluded:
> Investigation has revealed no evidence that Oswald and Tippit ....had ever seen each other.... ( WCR 651 )
>
> But the evidence said:
> "...Officer J.D. Tippit was in the restaurant... and "shot a glance at Oswald." ( CE 3001 / 26 H 516 )

What part of "each other" confused you? Did Oswald see Tippit?

Wasn't Oswald normally at work over a mile away at the time of the supposed incident (10AM)?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0276b.htm

Isn't it true that often "witnesses" come forward to claim they saw someone that couldn't have been where they are claimed to be?
(For example, all the sightings of Elvis Presley after his death).

Did you consider this 'sighting" in that vein, or are you assuming it is legitimate?

>
>
> You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

I'll go by what the evidence says and the Commission concluded, and ignore your attempt to spin both.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 6, 2023, 9:57:53 AM3/6/23

to

But **HUCKSTER SIENZANT** claims that he turned into a believer
*BECAUSE* he read the evidence.

Amusingly, he can't find a *SINGLE* lie told by the WCR - despite
numerous examples being given by Gil and myself.

One can only presume that believers are liars... they know that the
evidence supports what critics say.

Bud

unread,

Mar 6, 2023, 1:15:10 PM3/6/23

to

If that were true you`d be making a case rather than bitching about the WC.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 6, 2023, 2:59:09 PM3/6/23

to

Excellent point.

Another point is Ben did not even *try* to rehabilitate any of the claims made by Gil. He just issued another two logical fallacies

1. Ad Hominem (“believers are liars”) and

2. Begging the Question (“they know that the evidence supports what critics say”).

Ben won’t argue the evidence. Ever.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 6, 2023, 3:18:24 PM3/6/23

to

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:57:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Begged question. You have yet to establish the evidence doesn’t support the conclusions of the Commission.

> But **HUCKSTER SIENZANT** claims that he turned into a believer
> *BECAUSE* he read the evidence.

Yes, the evidence establishes the critics aren’t being truthful in their books… they set themselves up as experts and ignore the expert testimony, they take claims out of context, they throw out the hard evidence on the flimsiest of pretexts, they imagine fanciful happenings to explain simple eyewitness discrepancies (Oswald doubles, altered films, altered testimony, altered autopsy x-rays and photos, altered backyard photos, altered Presidential body). And this isn’t even mentioning all the evidence they suggest was swapped after the fact (the rifle found on the sixth floor, the shells found there, the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland, the shells recovered from the Tippit murder location, etc., ad infinitum).

>
> Amusingly, he can't find a *SINGLE* lie told by the WCR - despite
> numerous examples being given by Gil and myself.

Gil has claimed lies, but I’ve shown the actual evidence above and established Gil was taking his quotes out of context.

>
> One can only presume that believers are liars... they know that the
> evidence supports what critics say.

Two more unsupported assertions by Ben. You will note that if I was lying about the evidence, Ben would presumably be happy to rub my nose in it, but he is silent where his post cries out for a rebuttal to my supposed “lies”.

Show us the evidence that exposes my supposed “lies”, Ben. Gil hasn’t done it. Will you?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 7, 2023, 9:59:10 AM3/7/23

to

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 11:59:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Excellent point.

Nah... it was a lie.

You cannot cite ANYPLACE online where you've posted your scenario, and
cited the evidence for it.

> Another point is Ben did not even *try* to rehabilitate any of the
> claims made by Gil. He just issued another two logical fallacies

ARE YOU STUPID, HUCKSTER?

You've just now laid out the theory that critics need to support each
other's posts.

So **YOU** now need to support Chickenshit's post concerning the
location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head.

Do so - or PROVE YOUR IMMENSE HYPOCRISY.

>Ben won’t argue the evidence. Ever.

You're lying again, Huckster.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 7, 2023, 10:00:37 AM3/7/23

to

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 12:18:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

"Establish" to whom?

And what would you accept as "establishing?"

>> But **HUCKSTER SIENZANT** claims that he turned into a believer
>> *BECAUSE* he read the evidence.
>

> Yes, the evidence establishes the critics aren’t being truthful...

You're provably lying again, Huckster. The EVIDENCE establishes that
the WCR simply lied about much of it. I've given numerous examples
that you've run from.

Most recently, you ran for WEEKS from a Mark Lane post, and I had to
post yoiur cowardice REPEATEDLY before you finally responded.

This is evidence establishing YOU as a coward.

>> Amusingly, he can't find a *SINGLE* lie told by the WCR - despite
>> numerous examples being given by Gil and myself.
>
> Gil has claimed lies, but I’ve shown the actual evidence above and
> established Gil was taking his quotes out of context.

Shall we put it to a poll?

Asking a liar to acknowledge the truth is an exercise in futility.

>> One can only presume that believers are liars... they know that the
>> evidence supports what critics say.
>
>Two more unsupported assertions by Ben.

Already supported many times.

> Show us the evidence that exposes my supposed “lies”, Ben. Gil
> hasn’t done it. Will you?

Sure. The Autopsy Report. Do you need a cite to it?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 8, 2023, 9:06:03 AM3/8/23

to

On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:15:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

We've made our case, you refuse to.

Cowards run...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 9, 2023, 12:11:24 PM3/9/23

to

Gil, Ben?

No response to the evidence I cited pointing out how Gil was fooled by CT talking points, while the evidence establishes something else entirely?

Gil did a drive-by posting, and Ben ignored the points entirely. Yet Gil proclaims these lies of the Warren Commission, and Ben just calls me names.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 9, 2023, 12:37:25 PM3/9/23

to

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:11:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Gil, Ben?
>

>No response to the evidence I cited...

Huckster?

No response to the evidence I cited?

Better get busy... People are going to notice your cowardice...

Bud

unread,

Mar 9, 2023, 1:19:41 PM3/9/23

to

You are simply lying.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 10, 2023, 11:09:50 AM3/10/23

to

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 12:37:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:11:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Gil, Ben?
> >
> >No response to the evidence I cited...
>
> Huckster?
>
> No response to the evidence I cited?

What evidence did you cite in this thread?

Post the evidence you cited in this thread here, or the link to the evidence you cited in this thread.

You claimed it was provided “numerous times”, but that’s a unproven claim, not evidence.

>
> Better get busy... People are going to notice your cowardice...

Here’s the link to the evidence I cited in this thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/lvQtl0S1grM/m/pgeHve91AwAJ

You avoided discussing it, and in fact, took exception when I asked you to support Gil’s claims above. You essentially called me stupid, advanced a straw man argument, and then suggested I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t jump through the hoops you held up:
— quote —

ARE YOU STUPID, HUCKSTER?

You've just now laid out the theory that critics need to support each
other's posts.

So **YOU** now need to support Chickenshit's post concerning the
location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head.

Do so - or PROVE YOUR IMMENSE HYPOCRISY.

— unquote —

Finally, you pointed me to the autopsy report when I asked for evidence:
— quote —

> Show us the evidence that exposes my supposed “lies”, Ben. Gil
> hasn’t done it. Will you?
Sure. The Autopsy Report. Do you need a cite to it?

—unquote —

But the topics under discussion in this thread are listed below. These were all brought up by Gil.
Please advise how the evidence in the autopsy report would resolve any of these:

#1. ON FIBERS FOUND ON THE BUTT PLATE OF THE RIFLE COMING FROM OSWALD'S SHIRT:

#2.ON COMPARING THE FIBERS FOUND IN THE "PAPER GUNSACK" WITH THE FIBERS IN THE BLANKET FROM THE PAINE GARAGE:

#3. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:

#4. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:

#5. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE BULLET THAT HIT GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S WRIST:

#6. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:

# 7. ON WHETHER TIPPIT AND OSWALD EVER SAW EACH OTHER

Total sum of evidence you provided in this thread: Zero (0).
You referenced the autopsy report, but didn’t explain how that evidence supports Gil’s assertions.

Charles Schuyler

unread,

Mar 10, 2023, 2:52:04 PM3/10/23

to

On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:59:10 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 11:59:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Excellent point.
>
>
> Nah... it was a lie.

In your opinion. Always toss that in. Hank commenting that Bud made an excellent point is simply Hank's opinion, not a lie, shorty.

>
> You cannot cite ANYPLACE online where you've posted your scenario, and
> cited the evidence for it.

Explained to you countless times, but Hank doesn't have a fancy theory involving multiple Oswalds, kidnapped POTUS corpses, forged film and photos, mysterious deaths, LBJ as the assassination ringleader, etc. You make these claims, you need to carry the burden of proof. Hank agrees with the historical case that Oswald acted alone, and--as far as can be humanly determined--had no help carrying out his act, and thus Hank isn't required to lay out the evidence again. You are just shifting the burden. Get busy producing something we can compare to the Oswald Alone, no known help case.

> > Another point is Ben did not even *try* to rehabilitate any of the
> > claims made by Gil. He just issued another two logical fallacies

> ARE YOU STUPID, HUCKSTER?

What a miserable little man you are, Ben. Hank responds to you with no invective or logical fallacies and is unfailingly polite to you and all you do is call him (and others) names. No wonder you're regarded as just a joke. You'll never admit being wrong (except by your lack of bringing up the Lady in Yellow Pants in the Z film, where I take it you've surrendered on that one), you show no grace, no class, no humility, no awareness that Team Oswald is on the hook for making a POSITIVE case for the huge, complex conspiracy they allege, and on and on.

>
> You've just now laid out the theory that critics need to support each
> other's posts.
>
> So **YOU** now need to support Chickenshit's post concerning the
> location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head.
>
> Do so - or PROVE YOUR IMMENSE HYPOCRISY.

> >Ben won’t argue the evidence. Ever.

> You're lying again, Huckster.

He's been right so far. You refuse to lay out a case and refuse to support the wacky theories you push. It's been like this since you first dropped in here and started calling people names twenty years ago. Wherever men discuss the JFK assassination, Ben will flee the field of battle. Every. Single. Time.

John Corbett

unread,

Mar 12, 2023, 8:54:22 PM3/12/23

to

These clowns never change. The words probability and probative just aren't in their
vocabulary. Every piece of evidence must be 100% conclusive to have any value. If
that standard were applied to every criminal case, nobody would ever be convicted
of anything. The reality is that for just about every piece of evidence, the probable
answer points to Oswald and no one else. No one piece of evidence is conclusive by
itself but when you look at the body of evidence as a whole, there can be no doubt that
Oswald was the assassin. The question they never ask is, "What are the odds that all the
evidence points to Oswald if he was in fact innocent?". The possibility of such a thing
is so remote it is not even worth considering.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 10:08:30 AM3/13/23

to

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 08:09:48 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 12:37:25?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:11:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gil, Ben?
>>>
>>>No response to the evidence I cited...
>>
>> Huckster?
>>
>> No response to the evidence I cited?
>
>What evidence did you cite in this thread?

Run Huckster ... RUN!!!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 10:08:33 AM3/13/23

to

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:52:03 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:59:10?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 11:59:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Excellent point.
>>
>>
>> Nah... it was a lie.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You cannot cite ANYPLACE online where you've posted your scenario, and
>> cited the evidence for it.
>

>Explained to you...

Cite just *one* of them.

>>> Another point is Ben did not even *try* to rehabilitate any of the
>>> claims made by Gil. He just issued another two logical fallacies
>
>> ARE YOU STUPID, HUCKSTER?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You've just now laid out the theory that critics need to support each
>> other's posts.
>>
>> So **YOU** now need to support Chickenshit's post concerning the
>> location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> Do so - or PROVE YOUR IMMENSE HYPOCRISY.
>>
>>>Ben won’t argue the evidence. Ever.
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>
>He's been right so far.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 10:08:38 AM3/13/23

to

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:18:24?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Believer's never change. Botttom posting, not addressing a *SINGLE*
statement, and running like the cowards they are.

Believers are incapable of debate without using logical fallacies.

John Corbett

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 2:40:02 PM3/13/23

to

Says Benny in a bottom post in which he didn't address a single statement.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 3:03:28 PM3/13/23

to

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:40:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Says the coward in a bottom post in which he didn't address a single
statment.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 3:07:21 PM3/13/23

to

On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:35:24 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Haven’t seen one attempted rebuttal of the evidence cited or the points made.

I wonder why that is. Ben, Gil, Sky, any idea?

Please let me know. I’d be happy to correct any errors.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 3:09:37 PM3/13/23

to

Still waiting for Ben to address the points made and the evidence cited.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 3:31:53 PM3/13/23

to

I don't read all your shit, so don't hang by your balls waiting.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 4:00:17 PM3/13/23

to

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:07:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 7:35:24?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Haven't seen you quote the Autopsy Report.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 13, 2023, 4:01:24 PM3/13/23

to

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:09:50?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Still wating for Huckstr to quote the Autopsy Report.

John Corbett

unread,

Mar 14, 2023, 7:30:17 PM3/14/23

to

You're the one who accused me of doing something you have just done.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 15, 2023, 10:06:18 AM3/15/23

to

No need for me to address the evidence I accept.

There *IS* a need for you to do so...

Run coward...

RUN!!!

John Corbett

unread,

Mar 15, 2023, 10:12:51 AM3/15/23

to

IOW, Benny Yellowpanties feels no need to apply critical thinking to the evidence he presents.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 15, 2023, 11:27:56 AM3/15/23

to

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 07:12:50 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:06:18?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:30:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Says the coward in a bottom post in which he didn't address a single
>>>> statment.
>>>
>>>You're the one who accused me of doing something you have just done.
>>
>> No need for me to address the evidence I accept.
>>
>> There *IS* a need for you to do so...
>>
>> Run coward...
>>
>> RUN!!!

Logical fallacy deleted.

When all you have are logical fallacies, you've lost.

Your hobby isn't fun when you keep getting spanked...

Notice folks, that not a *SINGLE* believer has addressed this evidence
that Gil posts...

They can't.

Bud

unread,

Mar 15, 2023, 11:33:58 AM3/15/23

to

With his eyes clenched shut and his fingers in his ears Ben goes "La, la, la, I can`t hear you" just as you would expect a child to do.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:07 PM4/7/23

to

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:19:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>>> If that were true you`d be making a case rather than bitching about the WC.
>>
>> We've made our case, you refuse to.
>
> You are simply lying.

Making empty claims that haven't been supported means that you're
lying... this is according to Chickenshit.

So he's claiming HIMSELF to be a liar.

No cite to any scenario... and CERTAINLY no cite to a scenario
supported by citations to the evidence.

Chickenshit's both a liar AND a coward.

>> Cowards run...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!

Did I predict it or what?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:10 PM4/7/23

to

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:33:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> "La, la, la, I can`t hear you"...

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Apr 15, 2023, 3:19:29 PM4/15/23

to

Attempt to change the subject logical fallacy.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Apr 15, 2023, 3:24:38 PM4/15/23

to

Another attempt to change the subject logical fallacy.
Also known as a red herring:
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/red-herring-fallacy/

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 17, 2023, 9:55:55 AM4/17/23

to

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Lie, and tell everyone that you didn't change the topic to what you
had NOT seen.

You can run, coward, but I'm only going to point it out.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 17, 2023, 9:55:58 AM4/17/23

to

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:24:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>> Still wating for Huckster to quote the Autopsy Report.

>
>Another attempt to change the subject logical fallacy.
>Also known as a red herring:
>https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/red-herring-fallacy/

You wish to whine about what you think you haven't seen yet?

Then complain when I do the EXACT SAME THING?

Your hypocrisy is showing, Huckster...