Huckster Sienzant - Liar Extraordinaire!!! PROVEN WITH CITATION!

[Ben Holmes]

Original source:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489

Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:


>> RoboTimbo:
>> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
>> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.


Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
not to notice that.


> I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.


And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.

To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
we know it won't go well for you.


> He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> assassination.
>
> http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html


Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.

See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.


> He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.


Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.


> His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.


Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.

What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
felt was right?

Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
watch!


> Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> Oswald was the assassin.


Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:

HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.

This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."

Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.

And Huckster is lying about it.

But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
to go view this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y

This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:

"The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
against Oswald for the assassination of the President."

So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.

And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.


> Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.


This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.

And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...

In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
down at notes as he made his speech.

SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...

Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.


> However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> to attempt to make it appear erroneous.


Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
the entire rest of this post...

It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
Huckster never tells you.


> Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> argument to attempt to rebut it.


Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
point? What a shocker!

Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
the news conference by Wade.


> Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> out.”


Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
the President."

Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.

HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!

So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.

Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."


> Note Wade does not mention Oswald.


Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
of the President."

You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.


> He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> School Book Depository.


So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.

That dog won't hunt.

You're telling an outright whopper.

Wade stated very clearly what he was doing: "The purpose of this news
conference is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the
assassination of the President."

Mark Lane ADDRESSED what Wade said, and showed how it was a lie.

Just as I'm showing, AND PROVING, that you're lying about the facts
here.


> Lane can't argue that point as stated, so he doesn't even try.


YOU are the liar. Mark Lane did indeed address EXACTLY what Wade
tried to claim.

You want Mark Lane to simply ignore the fact that Wade ASSERTED THAT
HE WAS GIVING THE EVIDENCE FOR OSWALD'S GUILT. But he didn't... and
you label him a liar for doing this.

**YOU** are the liar. Proven.


> Instead, he pretends Wade said "First, there was a number of
> witnesses that saw Oswald with the gun on the sixth floor of the
> bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was
> looking out.”


This was PRECISELY the intent of Wade's response to the question. As
he stated, he was giving the evidence for OSWALD as the shooter...

Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED what Henry Wade said.

Amusingly, you're simply too dishonest to ever publicly admit it.


> Here's exactly how Mark Lane framed that straw argument:
>
>=== QUOTE ==
>Point One
>
> A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository.
>
> SINCE IT IS ALLEGED that Oswald fired through that window, that
> assertion is important. Wade was unequivocal, stating, “First, there
> was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the
> sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the
> window—where he was looking out.” Subsequently, it developed that the
> “number of witnesses” was in reality one witness, who was quoted as
> follows: “I can’t identify him, but if I see a man who looks like him,
> I’ll point him out.” (Newsweek—Dec. 9) Such “identification” is at
> best speculative and would not be permitted in that form at trial.
>== UNQUOTE ==
>
> That is a straw argument, and Lane is pretending to rebut Wade's
> point, but he is actually rebutting a point of his own creation.


No Huckster, *YOUR* claim is a lie... Wade was giving the evidence for
Oswald's guilt that he said he would - and Mark Lane answered him on
THAT BASIS.

You're pretending that Wade was merely discussing where the shots came
from... THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Wade was trying his best to indict Oswald - he was detailing what
evidence they had for Oswald's guilt - and Mark Lane DIRECTLY
ADDRESSED what Wade claimed.

So there are two liars here... Wade for trying to mislead people about
the true evidence, and *YOU* for trying to label Mark Lane a liar for
CORRECTLY pointing out the facts.


> That is dishonest.


And, as I'm demonstrating, it's *YOU* that is dishonest. Mark Lane's
"creation" is the simple truth - WADE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT EVIDENCE
EXISTED FOR THE GUILT OF OSWALD.

When you lie about this, you're simply a proven liar... nothing else.


> And Lane was doing it from his very first article on the
> assassination. Indeed, in his very first rebuttal point he ever made
> on the assassination.


Lane was doing what??? Telling the truth, and correctly rebutting
lies being told to convince the public that Oswald was guilty???

You've gone no-where, Huckster... other than to tell blatant lies and
use logical fallacies. You provably don't even understand the basic
facts you're discussing. The mythical "question" not asked - the
"ill-preparation" (as he's reading from prepared notes).

You clearly tried to invent a question never asked at the November
24th news conference, and tried to pretend that Wade was
"ill-prepared." The truth, as anyone can view for themselves with my
link to the news conference - is that you're lying.


> I was tempted to challenge the conspiracy theorist poster here to pick
> a page at random from Lane's Rush to Judgment, and we'll examine what
> Lane wrote and compare it to the evidence...


It's being daily posted in this forum - and you've run from a MAJORITY
of the posts. I've kept them short and to the point, so that they can
be easily rebutted if it were possible, yet you've remained silent.

So it's good that you didn't give in to your "temptation" - because
I'm posting Mark Lane quotes each week - and you're running away.


> but I decided to just cut
> to the chase and cite one inarguable lie by Lane


You claim it's inarguable - but I've just shown your first lie about
Mark Lane to be the lie that it is... and you've not made your
argument about Nolan Potter - so there's nothing to rebut.


> - where he took a
> statement by Nolan Potter that said he saw smoke rising above the
> trees in front of the Depository and that he saw a motorcycle
> policeman drive up the slope toward the Depository and show that Lane
> falsely characterized that statement in a footnote as pointing to
> smoke on the grassy knoll.


Make your case, Huckster - and I'll undoubtedly demolish it as easily
as I did your first example.


> There are plenty of other examples. Indeed the first witness he deals
> with in Rush To Judgment is another example of a lie by Mark Lane,
> where he makes his point only by ignoring all the evidence.
>
> But that's an example for another time.


Actually, it's another excellent example of the "poisoning of the
well" fallacy.


> Hank


How many PROVABLE logical fallacies did Huckster employ above?

How many OUTRIGHT LIES did Huckster use in his smear campaign?

Will Huckster ever admit that he didn't have the facts here?

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster read this... he suddenly dropped the "question" that wasn't
asked...

But he refuses to respond here - because I laid out the case for his
lies and logical fallacies too well.

Such a coward, Huckster Sienzant is!

[Hank Sienzant]

What Wade said: " "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw *the person with the gun* on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.”

What Lane attacked: "A number of witnesses saw *Oswald* at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

That's a straw man argument advanced by Lane, Ben. It doesn't get much simpler than Lane put words in Wade's mouth and attacked not what Wade claimed, but a different claim entirely.

Look up the definition of that particular logical fallacy if you don't believe me.

[Ben Holmes]

Is quoted above. You ran from answering this post, because it PROVES
YOU A LIAR... as well as being provably ignorant of the actual facts.

Why the cowardice, Huckster?

Until you ANSWER THIS POST - it's going to be posted daily.

[Hank Sienzant]

I answered it by pointing out what Wade said, and what Lane changed that into in his argument.
True to form, you deleted my response and called me names. We are very familiar with the way you work.

Deleting my responses from your posts is meaningless.
This is what you still have to deal with:

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You clowns have been arguing about THAT for 7 years? Whats' wrong with you? Are you a vaudeville act? It sure is a great way to turn people off the topic. Maybe Ben is Antoinette?

[Hank Sienzant]

> What Wade said: " "First, tWhat Wade said: " "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw *the person with the gun* on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.”

What Lane attacked: "A number of witnesses saw *Oswald* at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

That's a straw man argument advanced by Lane, Ben. It doesn't get much simpler than Lane put words in Wade's mouth and attacked not what Wade claimed, but a different claim entirely.

Look up the definition of that particular logical fallacy if you don't believe me. on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.”

Let's approach this another way:

Is this statement true or false, Ben:
"There was a number of witnesses that a man with an upper floor of the Depository"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>I answered it....

No, you didn't.

As merely one example, you claimed there were no logical fallacies ...
tell us about the first two I pointed out. Defend your lying claims.

Cite for the mythical question...

But you won't... you can't. You'll do exactly what cowards do all the
time, you'll run.

And I'll simply keep reposting this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Your endpost whining is going to be continually deleted and ignored.

What you CANNOT do is respond to this original post.

You've been proven a liar, ignorant of the facts, and a prolific
poster of logical fallacies.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I don't expect these clowns to respond, but on the face of it the point seems to go to Hank, for what it's worth. But, then again, Lane couldn't just click on the video. This is the Daryl Click presser, too. Did Lane have a transcript? Maybe the transcript said, "Oswald." It did say "Daryl Click," too, apparently. And I think it's "Oak Cliff." It could just be a mistake.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Lane was probably using newspaper reports. Reporters will do things like that, put Oswald's name in stead of more words which are less specific. That's standard procedure. Or maybe the editors do it. It's probably just a mistaken source.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

At least for Daryl Click Lane was relying on the Dallas Times Herald:

"I read in the Dallas Times Herald, on November 25, 1963, the statement made by Mr. Wade, when asked what they had tying Oswald to the "crime of the century" and his response was, according to the Dallas Times Herald, "If I had to single out any one thing, it would be the fingerprints on the rifle, and the book cartons which he used to prop the weapon on."
On the same day the World Telegram and Sun reported "Federal authorities have concluded that no readable print was found on the murder weapon when it was flown to Washington for laboratory studies."
There were certain leaks that a fingerprint or a palm print was discovered on the bolt of the rifle. If that is so, it would be remarkable if it were a print belonging to anyone other than Captain Fritz of the Homicide Squad in Dallas, because according to the affidavit signed by Officer Weitzman, who discovered the weapon, and I am quoting now from the affidavit on file at that time on file with the district attorney's office, "The time the rifle was found was 1:22 p.m. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle, and ejected one live round from the Chamber. I then went back to the office after this."
Now, you know if you have worked with that rifle that the on most Italian carbines that bolt is not worked too easily. One really has to grab a hold of it and pull back. It would be unusual if a fingerprint belonging to someone other than the person who did that survived.
The first statement made by Mr. Wade in reference to the taxi driver who he alleged---he, Wade, alleged took Oswald generally from this scene, indicated that the driver's name was Daryl Click."

He probably relied on the newspapers for this other quote, too. That was probably the only source available to him.

[Hank Sienzant]

Thanks.

> But, then again, Lane couldn't just click on the video. This is the Daryl Click presser, too. Did Lane have a transcript?

Yes, he quoted Wade's words precisely, then rebutted a straw man argument instead.

> Maybe the transcript said, "Oswald."

No, it said "the person with the gun". Lane quoted that correctly, then created a straw man argument to knock around instead.

> It did say "Daryl Click," too, apparently. And I think it's "Oak Cliff." It could just be a mistake.

The Warren Report dealt with this:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html
== QUOTE ==
At least one imputed fabrication of fact, further embellished by repetition, never really occurred. Sinister connotations were evoked by the attribution to the district attorney of the statement that a taxicab driver named Darryl Click drove Oswald from downtown Dallas to the area of his roominghouse in Oak Cliff. It has been correctly ascertained that no such taxicab driver existed in Dallas. On the other hand, the district attorney, who was quoted in a newspaper transcript as making the statement, never made the statement nor did any one else. Audio tapes of the district attorney's press conference make clear that the person who transcribed the conference rendered a reference to the "Oak Cliff" area of Dallas as a person, "Darryl Click". This error in transcription is the sole source for the existence of a "Darryl Click" as a taxicab driver.
== UNQUOTE ==

"Darryl Click" appeared in the New York Times transcript. But the words uttered were "Oak Cliff".
Evidence established William Whaley was the cabbie who took Oswald past his roominghouse on the afternoon of 11/22/63. No cab driver named Darryl Click was ever located in Dallas.

[Hank Sienzant]

No. Lane quoted Wade correctly, but rebutted a straw man argument of his own creation instead of what Wade said.

See his point one here:
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html

== QUOTE ==
A number of witnesses saw *Oswald* at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

SINCE IT IS ALLEGED that Oswald fired through that window, that assertion is important. Wade was unequivocal, stating, “First, there was a number of witnesses that saw *the person with the gun* on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.” Subsequently, it developed that the “number of witnesses” was in reality one witness, who was quoted as follows: “I can’t identify him, but if I see a man who looks like him, I’ll point him out.” (Newsweek—Dec. 9) Such “identification” is at best speculative and would not be permitted in that form at trial.

[Hank Sienzant]

Photos of the fingerprints on the trigger guard were made by J.C.Day, and decades later, a fingerprint examiner for the HSCA (Vincent Scalise) examined those first generation prints and determined it was Oswald's prints on the trigger guard.
https://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

> The first statement made by Mr. Wade in reference to the taxi driver who he alleged---he, Wade, alleged took Oswald generally from this scene, indicated that the driver's name was Daryl Click."

No, he said Oak Cliff, and it was an error in transcription. No Darryl Click in Dallas was ever located.

>
> He probably relied on the newspapers for this other quote, too. That was probably the only source available to him.

Yes, undoubtedly. But he quoted Wade accurately, then rebutted a straw man argument instead.

[Ben Holmes]

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yes, that does seem dishonest.

[Ben Holmes]

> Lane quoted Wade correctly, but rebutted a straw man argument of
> his own creation instead of what Wade said.

What did Henry Wade *START* the news conference saying?

The answer to THAT factual question will prove that you're lying.

Mark Lane understood that.

You're a proven liar and coward. Keep running, I'll keep posting this
proof until you answer it.

[Ben Holmes]

Top post - five times now Huckster Sienzant has responded in this
thread, yet not a SINGLE TIME has he dealt with the actual topic.

He simply keeps repeating his proven lie.

Such an AMAZING example of cowardice and dishonesty!

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:46:56 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Photos of the fingerprints on the trigger guard ...

Isn't the topic. Here it is again:

[Mark Ulrik]

Here's a transcript of the press conference published in the WCR volumes:

============================================================
Commission Exhibit No. 2168

WBAP Audio reel 12 "A"
NBC-TV reels 23, 35
WFAA-TV reels PKT 27, 16
WPAA-TV reel PKF 1
KRLD-TV reel 17

Sunday P.M., November 24, 1963

PRESS CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT ATTORNEY HENRY WADE
DALLAS POLICE AND COURTS BUILDING

WADE. The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of the President. This evidence was gathered by — largely by — the Dallas police who did an excellent job on this with the help of some of the Federal agencies, and I am going through the evidence piece by piece for you. Number one, some of this you will already know, some of it you won't, I don't think. As all of you do know, first, there is — we have a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the Book Store Building. The window — detailing the window where he was looking out — inside the window the police found a row of books, cases, boxes hiding someone sitting in the window from people on the same floor looking in. On the window was some boxes where — in the little circle around the window by the book cases — some boxes where apparently the person was sitting, because he was seen from that particular window.

On this box that the defendant was sitting on, his palmprint was found and was identified as his. The three ejected shells were found right by the box. The shells were of an odd caliber of the type and later determined, the gun, that was found on the floor. The gun was hidden on this same floor behind some boxes, some book cases. It, as I think you know, has been identified as having been purchased last March by the, Oswald, from a mail-order house by a — through an — assumed name, named Hidell, mailed to a post-office box here in Dallas. On his person was a pocket book. In his pocket book was identification card with the same name and post-office box on it. Pictures were found of the defendant with this gun and a pistol on his — in his holster.

Immediately that morning — it was unusual, but that morning — a neighbor brought the, Oswald from Irving, Texas. He usually brought him on Monday morning, I think, but this day he went home one day early on Thursday night and came back to — with this fellow — and when he came back he had a package under his arm that he said was window curtains, I believe, or window shades. The wife had said he had the gun the night before; it was missing that morning after he left. He got out around 8 o'clock and went to the building behind some cars and vent to work.

A police officer, immediately after the assassination, ran in the building and saw this man in a corner and started to arrest him, but the manager of the building said that he was an employee and was all right. Every other employee was located but this defendant, of the company. A description and name of him went out by police to look for him.

The next we bear of him is on a bus, where he got on a bus at Lamar Street; told the bus driver the President had been shot. The President [he] told a lady who — all this was verified by statements — told a lady on the bus that the President had been shot. He said, how'd he know. He said that a man back there had told him. He went back to talk to him. The defendant said, "Yes, he's been shot," and laughed very loud.

Q. This was to a lady?

WADE. A lady. He then — the bus — he asked the bus driver to stop, got off at a stop, and caught a taxicab driver.

Q. Where?

WADE. In Oak Cliff — I don't have the exact place — and went to his home in Oak Cliff, changed his clothes hurriedly, and left. As he left, three witnesses saw a police officer, Officer Tippit, motion to him or say something to him. He walked up to the car, Officer Tippit stepped out of the car, and started around it. He shot him three times and killed him.

Q. Was this in front of the boarding house or near it?

WADE. No. It's not in front of the boarding house.

Q. How near is it?

WADE. I don't have the exact — it's more than a block. It's a block or two.

Q. Was he on foot when Tippit saw him?

WADE. Yes, be was on foot, and apparently headed to the Texas Theatre. He then walked across a vacant lot. Witnesses saw him eject the shells from the revolver and place — reload the gun. Someone saw him go in the Texas Theatre. A search was made of that later by a number of police officers. At the time, an officer of the Dallas police spotted him and asked him to come out. He struck at the officer, put the gun against his head, and snapped it, but did not — the bullet did not go off. We have the snapped bullet there. officers, officers subdued him at that time.

Q. Was that an attempted suicide, sir?

Q. Against hie head or the officer's?

WADE. Against the officer's head.

Q. Which officer?

Q. Do you know why the gun didn't go off?

WADE. McDonald was his name.

Q. Do you know his first name?

WADE. It snapped; it was a misfire. Then officers subdued him — some six officers subdued him there in the Theatre, and he was brought to the police station here.

Q. Mr. Wade, why didn't the gun fire?

WADE. It missed the firing pin on the pull, the shell didn't explode. It hit it, but it didn't explode. It didn't fire the shell.

Q. There was one officer who said that be pulled the trigger, but he managed to put his thumb in the — in the part before the firing pin. It didn't strike the bullet, or really explode it out.

WADE. I don't know that. I know he did snap the gun, is all I know about it.

Q. We can say that it was a misfire?

WADE. It didn't fire.

Q. What other evidence is there?

Q. Let's get the story again.

WADE. Let's see. The — his fingerprints were found on the gun. Have I said that?

Q. Which gun?

WADE. On the rifle.

Q. You didn't say that.

Q. What about the paraffin tests?

WADE. Yes, I've gone into that. The paraffin tests showed he had recently fired a gun. It was on both hands.

Q. On both hands?

WADE. Both hands.

Q. Recently fired a rifle?

Q. A gun?

WADE. A gun.

Q. The rifle fingerprints were his? Were Oswald's?

Q. Were there any fingerprints — ?

WADE. Yes, sir. Palmprints rather than fingerprints.

Q. Were there palmprints on the gun?

Q. Were there any fingerprints at the window?

WADE. Yes, on —

Q. On the rifle?

WADE. Yes, sir.

Q. Where are — on the gun?

WADE. Under, on part of the metal, under the gun.

Q. Did he still ever say anything about it? Admit anything at all?

WADE. He never did admit, admit any of the killings. Now I didn't — you ask me this — I didn't do any interrogation of him.

Q. I thought maybe you'd listed that as part of the evidence.

WADE. No, it is not listed here.

Q. Did he display any animosity towards the President? Any conversation with any officers?

WADE. He was bitter toward all of the officers that examined him, is what I've been told.

Q. Will you continue, sir, and we'll question you later.

Q. Let's finish this —

WADE. We, have, that’s about all.

Q. How about ballistics tests?

Q. Ballistics test, Mr. Wade?

WADE. Well, I've said this was the gun that —

Q. Killed the President?

WADE. Yes.

Q. Does the FBI report elaborate — ?

Q. Did the ballistics — ?

WADE. I won't go — I'm not at liberty to go into the FBI report.

Q. Did you say the gun was mailed to a post office box in Dallas in March?

WADE. March of this year.

Q. Was be living in Dallas then?

WADE. Yes. I presume he was, He got it here.

Q. I see.

Q. Previously he lived in New Orleans?

Q. He said he'd only been here two months, Mr. Wade —

WADE. He came to Fort Worth sometime in the fall of '62. And then moved here awhile and apparently went to New Orleans for a while and came back. Now when the period of that is, I'm not sure.

Q. Mr. Wade, what was the evidence that we were told was startling evidence that could not be told to the press Saturday morning? They said it came in Saturday morning and that it could not be revealed. It was —

WADE. I don't know. That wasn't me that said that, I don't think.

Q. Have you given us everything that — ?

WADE. I've given you everything that I —

Q. Do you know whether he's been recognized as a patron of Ruby's nightclub here?

WADE. I don't know that.

Q. Do you know of any connection between Mr. Ruby and — ?

WADE. I know of none.

Q. Are you investigating reports that he might have been slain because Ruby might have feared he would implicate him in something?

WADE. The police are making an investigation of that murder. I don't know anything about that.

Q. The investigation — ?

WADE. Although charges have been filed, it will be presented to the grand jury on Ruby immediately within the next week and it'll probably be tried around the middle of January.

Q. Has the District Attorney's office closed its investigation of the assassination of the President?

Q. When did you know that — ? Before sending the gun to Washington?

WADE. Before.

Q. Before sending the gun to Washington?

WADE. Yes.

Q. Do you think it was unusual for Jack Ruby to be in that crowd?

WADE. I don't pass on that. Unusual to be in that crowd?

Q. There are reports that he had planned to —

WADE. Well, I wasn't, I haven't been here since last night so I don't know anything about it — today's happenings.

Q. Mr. Wade, how do you feel about not being able to try Oswald as the killer of President Kennedy?

WADE. Well, we will try Ruby and ask the death penalty on him, about the same time.

Q. Well, how about — ?

WADE. I don't want to go into why's or wherefore's
on anything.

Q. Has your office closed its investigation into the death of President Kennedy?

WADE. No, sir. The investigation will continue on that with the basis, towards, and we have no concrete evidence that anyone assisted him in this. But the investigation I'm sure will go on with reference to any possible accomplice or — that assisted him in it.

Q. Do you have any suspicion now that there were?

WADE. I have no concrete evidence nor suspicions at present.

Q. Would you be willing to say in view of all the evidence that it is now beyond a reasonable doubt at all that Oswald was the killer of President Kennedy?

WADE. I would say that without any doubt he's the killer — the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I — there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.

Q. That case is closed in your mind?

WADE. As far as Oswald is concerned, yes.

Q. Mr. Wade, will we be able to have copies of the photographs showing Oswald — ?

WADE. If you have them, you'll have to get them from the Dallas Police.

Q. What do you think was the motive of Ruby?

WADE. I don't know. I haven't talked with him.

Q. Mr. Wade, what do you feel is the strongest evidence on that list?

WADE. Well, it's like any case based on a series of circumstances. They all have to fit together. You put a man in the window with a gun. People cannot positively identify him from the ground. He fits their general description. You have his fingerprints there. You have the shells there. You have his gun that he purchased —

Q. What do you think was Oswald's motive?

WADE. Don't — can't answer that.

Q. Did you find any fluctuation in Oswald's bank account or his finances?

WADE. I know of nothing, know nothing about that.

Q. Mr. Wade, his palmprint, was it found on both the gun and the boxes?

WADE. Yes, sir.

Q. On both of them?

WADE. Both of them.

Q. The rifle and the box — ?

Q. Mr. Wade, was — ?

WADE. They were found by the Dallas police.

Q. How do you explain — ?

WADE. They were co-workers that left him there around 12 o'clock to go to eat lunch. I didn't mention that witnesses put him on the fourth floor at 12 o'clock and shortly thereafter.

Q. Fourth floor?

WADE. I mean the sixth floor.

Q. Where the box is?

WADE. Where the box is.

Q. What did you say the ballistics — I missed the part about the ballistics test.

WADE. This was the gun. The bullet from this gun killed the President.

Q. Was this from the FBI, sir?

WADE. I can't go into anything from the FBI. I'm not at liberty to.

Q. — the story that Oswald and Ruby were previously acquainted?

WADE. I think I beard it on radio, or something, but I don't know anything about it.

Q. Will we have a chance to talk to Ruby?

WADE. I have not talked with — no, sir, I have not talked with either one of them.

Q. But will we get a chance to talk to him, or something?

WADE. I don't know anything about that. This was entirely about going over the evidence that I thought some of you would want.

Q, Did you know Ruby before?

WADE. No, sir. Saw him in this very same room Friday night when we had the defendant up here.

Q. Were you at the steak party for the Texas Bar Association in the Adolphus Hotel? Were you there?

WADE. No, sir, I wasn't there. As a matter of fact, some of, oh, excuse me. If some of you will recall, he asked a question from out here in the audience or answered a question. He was standing right back here and I didn't know who he was. I thought he was a member of the press. And he told me as we walked out of here that he was a nightclub operator.

Q. What question did he ask?

WADE. What?

Q. What question did he ask?

WADE. I don't remember, but he —

Q. He answered one question.

WADE. Maybe it was an answer, but he said something. I don't —

Q. You remember it was Friday night when I asked you to do an interview with me on the phone, You had another call and Ruby was hanging around in the background. You were on the phone, and I said, and then you had to go away and I asked Ruby, because he seemed to me like a detective, he seamed to be all over this place — I said could you see if you could get him on the phone and he — he went around and he got you and brought you to my telephone.

WADE. It might have been where he told me who he was — I didn't know who he was either, when he, I think someone here answered that question in that he answered a question, Somebody asked something and he answered it back there. I don't know what it was. I think it was some question about a street or an address or a name, or something.

Q. He looked to be like your good friend, I don't know.

Q. Do you feel that list is complete? Anything is withheld by Government agencies, Federal Bureau of — ?

WADE. This ie all that I know of.

Q. That's all you know?

WADE. Yes.

Q. In arguing this case, what would you use as a theory as to his motive?

WADE. Well, of course, that has to develop. You have to develop that from all of the evidence and I can't go into motive. It depends on what you get in evidence. If you get everything that's been written in the papers in evidence, you could put a pretty good motive there, but I don't — a lot of that I don't think would be admissible.

Q. What can you tell us — ?

WADE. And you gotta base your motive on what you have before the jury.

Q. What can you tell us so far about your investigation of Jack Ruby?

WADE. I haven't had anything to do with it. I was, I haven't, no, I know nothing about it.

Q. Will you be involved?

WADE. I will try him, prosecute him.

Q. Is the Justice Department heading up that investigation?

WADE. As far as I know the Dallas police is.

Q. How would you evaluate the work of the Dallas police in investigating the death of the President?

WADE. I think the Dallas police did an excellent job on this and before midnight on when he was killed had the man in custody and had sufficient evidence what I think to convict him.

Q. Mr. Wade, could you identify the gun positively as the one that was purchased — and the gun which — ?

WADE. It can be positively identified.

Q. — a serial number?

WADE. Serial number.

Q. — by serial number?

WADE. Serial numbers — and both that and on the scope too.

Q. Oh, he bought the scope off?

WADE. No, the scope was on the gun but, of course, a different person makes it, a different company makes the scope.

Q. When he bought the gun, did he buy the gun with the scope? A unit?

WADE. The scope was on it when he purchased it.

Q. Do you know what kind of gun it was?

WADE. I don't have the exact — it was a foreign made gun of 6—6.5 millimeters, and I understand is a used gun of Italian make, probably.

Q. You say that — ?

WADE. It was mounted as I understand it when it came.

Q. Do you see that the easy availability of guns such as this requires new and more stringent laws?

WADE. That is an old question that's been off — it's obvious if you didn’t have any guns you probably wouldn't have any murderers with guns, but it's nearly impossible to keep a person who wants to kill from finding a gun somewhere.

Q. Do you know Oswald's activities nine or ten days ago?

WADE. I never heard of him until he was arrested and brought in here,

Q. Mr. Wade, the State Department put out some information in Washington that related the importance of telling this evidence to the American people to a situation that's developing in Russia, as a Russian Marxist mentioned in relation to Oswald's background. Can you tell us anything in your evidence that relates to Marxist background?

WADE. No, sir, I can't, There's some things found on him like newspapers and things — didn't necessarily connect him with the organization, like the Communist Daily Worker, or something. I don't think you can necessarily say he was — the fact he read it doesn't necessarily mean that he's, you couldn't prove that he belonged to it. I've read quite a bit about this subject. I know what you're talking, about, but I've read interviews from reporters from over in Russia all on this subject but apparently they know quite a bit more about it than I do.

Q. Was there material found here?

WADE. There's no material that said he belonged to any group other than this Fair Play for Cuba, that I know of —

Q. Nothing found in his room — ?

WADE. There's lots of material dealing with that movement thing.

Q. Henry, were you ever able to ascertain whether he went to Washington and took part in the House Un-American Activities Committee riot?

WADE. I know nothing about that. I don't think he told anybody he was and I don't know of any, not to my knowledge. I assume someone has been trying to check that but I don't know anything on that subject.

Q. Did Ruby do that? Were you answering about Ruby or Oswald?

WADE. This was about Oswald, wasn't it? I don't know of anything on either one of them upstairs, for that matter. I believe that's about it.

Q. Thank you, Henry.

Q. Mr. Wade, I'd like to ask you one more question. Why did you call us tonight and why did you go over this evidence?

WADE. Well, there's a lot of reasons. Probably the main one — I received a call from Paris, France, and Stockholm, Sweden, and nearly every foreign country asking me about this evidence and I thought from those newsmen in those countries —

Q. Did Robert Kennedy or anyone from his office — ?

WADE. I have heard nothing from any of the — from Washington or any of the officials in this country on this matter. But I decided, that I heard, I've had, a number of newsmen cali we from all over the world wanting to know why and it wasn't, and I thought in my own mind — decided that it’s a good idea. So, —

Q. Are you aware that the Justice Department before you made this announcement and before you came into the building tonight had said that new evidence, the evidence would all be released and given to newsmen —

WADE. No, sir, I'm not familiar with that other than as I walked out of the door one of the — one of your men — I think, called me and told me that there was something on that — that they were considering that, but I was already up and was coming out to see you. It had nothing to do with me getting this ready.

Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that if Oswald was tried that you would have, have him convicted by a jury? With the evidence you have.

WADE. I don't think there's any doubt in my mind that we would have convicted him, but, of course, you never know what. We've had lots of people we thought that somebody might hang the jury or something, but there's no question in my —

Q. As for as you are concerned, the evidence you gave us, you could have convicted him?

WADE. I've sent people to the electric chair on less.

Q. This was more than enough then?

WADE. Yes.

Q. Will you seek the death penalty for Ruby?

WADE. Yes.

Q. Even if he pleads guilty?

WADE. Yea.

Q. Is it an automatic death penalty?

Q. Does the FBI have additional evidence?

WADE. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not — I don't know what they have.

Q. Sir, do you know when you'll present the Ruby case to the grand jury?

WADE. Within a week, I said. I might say on this that, you asked about the penalty on this. This latter case was an assassination of a man under arrest, handcuffed. That to me is a very aggravated case and warrants the death penalty.

Q. Are you investigating the possibility — ?

WADE. A second assassination doesn't help a first one.

Q. Do you have a signed statement from Mr. Ruby?

WADE. I haven't seen it, but I think they have.

Q. Are you investigating the possibility that Ruby might have killed Oswald because he feared Oswald might implicate him in same plot?

WADE. I'm not investigating anything. I'll try whatever, I'll try the case.

Q. Concerning the Oswald evidence, Mr. Wade, is there any one single portion of that that you consider most important?

WADE. Well, the gun being his and the gun that killed him and hie fingerprints on it and his fingerprints by the window make out a pretty good case. His flight also is important. It is like one of these things — you can't just go and say this one thing will convict him. On any case based on circumstantial evidence it has to — all the circumstances have to point to the guilt and exclude every other reasonable hypotheses which we, I think, all of them will.

Q. The combination of those fills the bill?

WADE. Yes, sir.

Q. Will he be before the J.P. tomorrow?

WADE. I think he's already been before the J.P., hasn't he? I think he was taken before the J.P. The J.P, was here today, I know. He called me. If they have an examining trial in which they may convict, that I don't know when that will be or whether it has been set yet.

Q. When will you be prepared to go before the grand jury?

WADE. Well, we're prepared to go now and — but it will probably be Wednesday before we can, I mean. We'd sort of set up to have the other one Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday and so we will run this one in its place.

Reporters. Thank you very much, Mr. Wade.
============================================================

[Ben Holmes]

Top post - Huckster has REPEATEDLY run away from this post - showing,
of course, that he DOES NOT have the evidence on his side, and cannot
debate this case with anyone who's knowledgeable on the evidence.

This post also shows his AMAZING dishonesty - since I've proven beyond
all doubt that several of his assertions were based on mistaken
information - yet Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to retract those
statements, or acknowledge that he was caught in false statements.

That fact proves he's a liar.

What more need be said?

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:46:56 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Actually, though, in context it doesn't really look dishonest. I've quoted the Mark Lane bit below. His paragraph title is his own, Mark Lane's. He's not saying that Wade said that. That's Lane's interpretation of what Wade said in it's context. Strictly speaking, it's not correct, but I don't know that it's deceptive, since he does actually quote Wade. It is interpretative. And there were other witnesses who saw somebody in the 6th floor window, but perhaps Lane was not aware of that when he wrote his first piece. There's a little bit of a slur on Wade implied, maybe, but this is not the kind of thing that warrants perennial argument. This is a nothing burger.

[Mark Ulrik]

It seems to me that Lane is clearly being dishonest here. During the Q&A portion of the press conference, Wade made it clear that the witnesses were unable to identify Oswald as the gunman. Rather, it was the sightings of this gunman that led investigators to the sixth floor window and the physical evidence pointing to Oswald.

============================================================

WADE. The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of the President. This evidence was gathered by — largely by — the Dallas police who did an excellent job on this with the help of some of the Federal agencies, and I am going through the evidence piece by piece for you. Number one, some of this you will already know, some of it you won't, I don't think. As all of you do know, first, there is — we have a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the Book Store Building. The window — detailing the window where he was looking out — inside the window the police found a row of books, cases, boxes hiding someone sitting in the window from people on the same floor looking in. On the window was some boxes where — in the little circle around the window by the book cases — some boxes where apparently the person was sitting, because he was seen from that particular window.

On this box that the defendant was sitting on, his palmprint was found and was identified as his. The three ejected shells were found right by the box. The shells were of an odd caliber of the type and later determined, the gun, that was found on the floor. The gun was hidden on this same floor behind some boxes, some book cases. It, as I think you know, has been identified as having been purchased last March by the, Oswald, from a mail-order house by a — through an — assumed name, named Hidell, mailed to a post-office box here in Dallas. On his person was a pocket book. In his pocket book was identification card with the same name and post-office box on it. Pictures were found of the defendant with this gun and a pistol on his — in his holster.

[...]

Q. Mr. Wade, what do you feel is the strongest evidence on that list?

WADE. Well, it's like any case based on a series of circumstances. They all have to fit together. You put a man in the window with a gun. People cannot positively identify him from the ground. He fits their general description. You have his fingerprints there. You have the shells there. You have his gun that he purchased —

============================================================

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yeah, but Wade and Lane agree. The witness could not identify Oswald. So the point being harped upon is rather inconsequential. And part of the point, as Lane apparently thought, was that Wade said that there were "witnesses," when Lane seems to think that became just one witness. I don't know where that comes from, but if Lane thought that plural witnesses had become just one, then he might have felt the wording of his Point 1 to be justified. He may think that he has rebutted the point of there being more than one witness. There were more than one, but he might not have known that when he wrote the piece. It's easy to see how Lane could have interpreted Wade the way he did if his information as to the witnesses was incomplete. To condemn Lane as "dishonest" over this is gratuitous. This is next to nothing, or perhaps even nothing.

[Mark Ulrik]

OK, petty and deceitful. Is that better?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Lane probably thought that Wade was being deceitful. Knowing what I know about the case, Wade does not seem to have been deceitful in that press conference. But with what Lane knew on December 13, or whatever it was, might have made Wade seem deceitful. In that light, Lane was not being petty or deceitful. He was just making a case for his pretend defendant.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 10:46:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Original source:
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>
> Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:
>
>
> >> RoboTimbo:
> >> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
> >> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.
>
>
> Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
> not to notice that.
>

bebs needs to distinguish between an (informed) opinion given to someone who has obviously arrived at the *same* conclusions about a subject and a begged premise in the sense of debate. Such subtleties are probably far beyond Holmes.

>
> > I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> > meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> > on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.
>

Same as above. A concept far above Holmes ability or willingness to comprehend.

>
> And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
> completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.
>

Why does Hank need to *cite* for a speculation? A speculation is just that, a speculation. It's not a 100% "provable" fact. However, it can be arrived at by an honest *overview* of Lane's style and practices. Those *have* been cited before to bebsy himself. He just didn't *like* it. ...Also, asking why he would "cite" for a basic assertion (Lane's dishonesty) that the other party *already* agrees with is just bizarre.

> To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
> we know it won't go well for you.
>

I think it went quite well. Read Lane against the actual evidence lurkers and I think many of you will agree.

>
> > He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> > assassination.
> >
> > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
>
>
> Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
> proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
> by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
> congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
> his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.
>

All assertions by bebsy. He now must show *credibly* how the link does not provide indications of deceit by Lane.

> See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
> that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.
>
>
> > He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.
>
>
> Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.
>

Does bebsy know of another early published attempt in the USA? Also, stating that as a *fact* hardly constitutes either a fallacy of logic nor poisoning of the well.

>
> > His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> > after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> > appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> > Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> > later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.
>
>
> Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
> Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
> Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.
>

This is a fantasy of Holmes own creation. Does Hank assert that Lane's flaws or error lay merely in his "speed"? But in *context* of the DA (presumably) being aware of *more* specifics of the evidence against Oswald than Lane at this point, it's hard to see how credible such an early, strident defense of Oswald could be.

> What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
> well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
> felt was right?
>

See above.

> Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
> watch!
>

Yawn.

>
> > Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> > Oswald was the assassin.
>
>
> Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:
>
> HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
> GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.
>
> This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
> framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."
>
> Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
> this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
> of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.
>
> And Huckster is lying about it.
>

Not seen the lie yet. Do you think Wade had *not* been asked *already* by the press to detail the evidence they had? Really?

> But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
> to go view this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y
>
> This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
> are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:
>
> "The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
> against Oswald for the assassination of the President."
>
> So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
> PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.
>

I'll re-read again, but how does the statement in *any* way show itself at odds with what is linked?

"His defense appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63."

Moreover, does a *thinking* human on the planet think that Wade's news conferences was *not* per the request of the press for just the very kind of information he begins to outline? Please.

> And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
> reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.
>

Holmes here starts to fight an unwitting battle with himself. Above he stress how *very* much rushed Wade was to get this info out, while at the same time trying to claim he was, nevertheless, *thoroughly* prepared. So which is it bebsy?

>
> > Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> > himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.
>
>
> This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
> outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.
>

LOL! No. The press conference--complete with patently *erroneous* claims such as Oswald supposedly laughing when the question came up of the POTUS being assassinated---shows *exactly* a rushed, "approximate", and insufficiently vetted as to rumor vs. fact Press Conference.

> And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
> news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
> being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...
>

See above.

> In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
> down at notes as he made his speech.
>

Notes do not equal a careful time to *properly* vet the evidence beforehand. Else he would not have claimed things like sinister laughter that has no where been a feature of the "official" case thereafter. Moreover, bebsy took his time to hammer out this post. His lack of proper vetting of information he is presenting in writing is still apparent.

> SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...
>

Well there is right here folks. :-)

> Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.
>

Yeah. I would refuse when I hadn't lied also.

>
> > However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> > to attempt to make it appear erroneous.
>
>
> Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
> the entire rest of this post...
>
> It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
> Huckster never tells you.
>

See prior notes about *who* and what manner of *question* Hank was responding to. Why preach at length any more than necessary to the choir?

>
> > Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> > first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> > argument to attempt to rebut it.
>
>
> Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
> point? What a shocker!
>

Was Hank's point to criticize the *order* of Lane's rebuttal or was it *really* to criticize the *way* he went about it? If you can walk and breath oxygen at the same time I am sure you understand the *correct* point.

> Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
> that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
> the news conference by Wade.
>
>
> > Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> > saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> > building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> > out.”
>
>
> Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
> firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
> again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
> to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
> the President."
>
> Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
> but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.
>
> HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>

Yes. And when you add his comments about a gunman observed, an apparent SN found, and *Oswald's* palmprint being found on one of the boxes where the gunman would have *logically* rested his hand while sitting on one of the boxes Wade mentioned, it becomes rather obvious what was the intent. To outline evidence that clearly ties "the suspect" (Oswald) to the "gunman" that had been observed. However, it does *not* directly state Oswald. It simply notes the facts on the ground indicate that the *physical* evidence found supported the window observations of a gunman there, and that further physical evidence supported that gunman was likely the suspect, Oswald.

> So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
> OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.
>

So is a broken clock at least once or twice a day depending on if it is set to 12 or 24 hours.

> Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
> quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."
>

Yawn.

>
> > Note Wade does not mention Oswald.
>

Did Hank say Wade *never* mentioned Oswald, or was his point that the statement he made that Lane attacks was:

"First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out.”

Whereas Lane starts off Point One of his defense under a heading that *implies* Wade had directly said this:

"A number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

That's frankly a *lie* IMO. Wade never said that "..a number of witnesses saw Oswald..." What he said is that "...a number of witnesses saw the person with the gun." That is flat out true, other than that he appears to have tied in the statements of people who only said they saw a gun, with Brennan who (as I understand it) alone claimed to have actually clearly seen the man with the gun. Then, and only then, does Wade indirectly tie in Oswald by the *additional* facts such as the palmprint found in a rather "interesting" location in the apparent SN.

>
> Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
> is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
> of the President."
>
> You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
> ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
> in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.
>

See above.

>
> > He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> > Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> > numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> > School Book Depository.
>
>
> So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
> though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
> addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.
>
> That dog won't hunt.
>

Nor does this silly point by bebs.

> You're telling an outright whopper.
>

No. Bebsy simply cannot grasp the deceptive intent of Lane here. By setting off the statement that several witnesses had reported seeing a gunman as if Wade had actually asserted they reported seeing Oswald, he then proceeds to show how they could *not* have seen Oswald.

But Wade NEVER said "several witnesses claimed to see Oswald". So it's simply a Straw Man to *pretend* he claimed that they did say they could all ID Oswald. Use your brain and think, unlike bebsy and this will become clear.

I am not going to deal with the rest of the drivel It's clear here what's going on. Holmes cannot think, or if he can, he cannot *honestly* admit what he's seeing. Instead he wants to live in a fantasy world where he is bwave and Mark Lane is a "fearless" truth teller.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:46:57 PM UTC, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Original source:
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>
> Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:
>
>
> >> RoboTimbo:
> >> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?
> >> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-reader.
>
>
> Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
> not to notice that.
>
>

> > I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> > meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> > on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.
>
>

> And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
> completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.
>

> To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
> we know it won't go well for you.
>
>

> > He started in on the lies within less than a month of the
> > assassination.
> >
> > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
>
>
> Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
> proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
> by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
> congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
> his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.
>

> See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
> that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.
>
>
> > He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.
>
>
> Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.
>
>

> > His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> > after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> > appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> > Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> > later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.
>
>
> Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
> Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
> Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.
>

> What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
> well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
> felt was right?
>

> Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain his words...
> watch!
>
>

> > Henry Wade was asked what evidence had been gathered to establish
> > Oswald was the assassin.
>
>
> Let's stop right there, and repeat that sentence:
>
> HENRY WADE WAS ASKED WHAT EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
> GATHERED TO ESTABLISH THAT OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN.
>
> This *ONE* statement completely obliterates Huckster's attempted
> framing of Mark Lane with a "lie."
>
> Since Mark Lane was smart enough to actually address the issue. Keep
> this in mind as you read Huckster's attempted character assassination
> of Mark Lane... WADE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION.
>
> And Huckster is lying about it.
>

> But more importantly, Huckster has the facts wrong. I invite everyone
> to go view this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r43IefWoO_Y
>
> This is the November 24th news conference that Mark Lane and Huckster
> are talking about. Henry Wade begins by saying:
>
> "The purpose of this news conference is to detail some of the evidence
> against Oswald for the assassination of the President."
>
> So - no question was asked as Huckster claims, and the topic is
> PRECISELY what Mark Lane said it was.
>

> And Wade can't be "ill-prepared" - since it's quite clear that he's
> reading from notes compiled in anticipation of this news conference.
>
>

> > Wade was ill-prepared for that question, as he hadn't familiarized
> > himself sufficiently to correctly summarize it all.
>
>
> This is more naked opinion being offered to defend Wade from the
> outright lie he told. The liar *here* is Huckster.
>

> And Huckster's opinion cannot change the facts. This was a planned
> news conference where Henry Wade got up and spoke - no question was
> being answered, so there was no fumbling due to being ill prepared...
>

> In fact, it's quite clear from the video that Henry Wade was looking
> down at notes as he made his speech.
>

> SO HUCKSTER'S A PROVEN LIAR - there was no "ill-prepared" in sight...
>

> Watch folks, as Huckster refuses to admit that he lied.
>
>

> > However, some of it was accurate, and Lane had to mis-characterize it
> > to attempt to make it appear erroneous.
>
>
> Keep this statement in mind... it's *NEVER* going to be supported in
> the entire rest of this post...
>
> It's simply impossible to know what the "some of it" was - because
> Huckster never tells you.
>
>

> > Indeed, his very first point in his rebuttal deals with Henry Wade's
> > first point, and Lane has to use the logical fallacy of a straw
> > argument to attempt to rebut it.
>
>
> Wow! Mark Lane actually *FIRST* dealt with Henry Wade's *FIRST*
> point? What a shocker!
>

> Of course, you're telling a blatant and UNSUPPORTED lie in claiming
> that it was a logical fallacy - as anyone can see who actually views
> the news conference by Wade.
>
>
> > Here's what Wade said: "First, there was a number of witnesses that
> > saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore
> > building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking
> > out.”
>
>
> Huckster is pretending here that Wade is trying to document a shooter
> firing from the TSBD. But that wasn't what he said. Let's repeat it
> again for anyone that forgot: "The purpose of this news conference is
> to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination of
> the President."
>
> Huckster doesn't know the facts, and pretends a question was asked,
> but the topic is CLEARLY what evidence there is for Oswald's guilt.
>
> HENRY WADE MAKES THAT CRYSTAL CLEAR!
>

> So why are you lying, Huckster? Wade was giving the evidence for
> OSWALD'S guilt. You clearly don't know this. Mark Lane is correct.
>

> Mark Lane DIRECTLY ADDRESSED that topic. And you're desperately and
> quite dishonestly changing that into a logical fallacy and a "lie."
>
>

> > Note Wade does not mention Oswald.
>
>

> Yes he does. He begins by saying: "The purpose of this news conference
> is to detail some of the evidence against Oswald for the assassination
> of the President."
>
> You're lying, Huckster, first in your pretense that Wade was
> ill-prepared and got flustered answering a question, then you're lying
> in your claim that Mark Lane didn't DIRECTLY ADDRESS WHAT WADE SAID.
>
>

> > He is making the point that numerous witnesses saw a gunman in the
> > Texas School Book Depository. And that statement is absolutely true --
> > numerous witnesses did see a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas
> > School Book Depository.
>
>
> So your claim here is that Henry Wade DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION (Even
> though there wasn't one), then you indict Mark Lane for his "lie" of
> addressing Henry Wade's evasion of that (non-existent) question.
>
> That dog won't hunt.
>

> You're telling an outright whopper.
>

If Hank Sienzant has spent his life making these sort of petty attacks on Mark Lane, then there must not be much to criticize about Lane. This really is a ridiculous and silly criticism of Lane. Hank is just carping about irrelevancies while the murderers grow old and die. That's how Hank has spent his life, protecting the murderers of John Kennedy.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hilarious. You're missing the point, big time. These aren't petty attacks on Mark Lane.

Mark Lane took an honest and defensible claim of Henry Wade's -- that there were a number of witnesses that saw a man with a gun on the sixth floor of the Depository - and changed it into an attack of a straw man argument of his own creation... that there was a number of witnesses that identified Oswald as the gunman on the sixth floor.

Wade never said that.

And this is not atypical of Lane. This is typical of how Lane dealt with the evidence.

I pointed out here how Lane mistreated the first witness he dealt with in Rush to Judgment:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/mxq0Hv41AAAJ

His first point on the case is a straw man. The first witness he discusses in Rush to Judgment is a falsehood. Are you starting to see a pattern here?

What I wrote there, and what Ben never did confront was this:

Still waiting for you to deal with how the evidence supports Mark Lane's assertions when compared to what I actually posted Ben. If you can't validate Lane's first witness and his assertions about that witness, there's not a lot of sense going on to his second, third, or fourth witness, et. al., is there?

To date, all you've done is call the evidence I posted "logical fallacies" and snipped it in almost every (if not every) response. You know that's inadequate. Confront the evidence. Tell us why Mark Lane didn't tell the truth about what transpired concerning Julia Ann Mercer.

Here's my post contrasting what Lane said with the actual evidence once more:

===== QUOTE =====
Here's what Lane wrote:
"Miss Mercer signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office on November 22, describing the incident in detail, and it was published in the volumes of evidence by the Warren Commission. Yet the Commission did not call her as a witness. Neither was she questioned by a Commission investigator, nor did any reference to the event appear in the Commission Report, not even her name. The Commission did not try to identify the three police officers so as to question them or to locate the truck which Miss Mercer had described.

The so-called gun case may have been empty, but a man carrying the case toward the bushes above the President's route was possibly observed and yet unchallenged by the Dallas police. Great security precautions had been taken to protect the President in hostile Dallas; here was an apparent violation. If the case was empty, it was still negligent of the Commission not to investigate.

And perhaps the case was not empty."

Contrary to Lane's claim, the Mercer claim was investigated.

All three of the men from the truck were observed and investigated at the time by the Dallas police. Their presence did not go unchallenged. Mark Lane is not telling his readers the truth. He never intended to. His book was written to make him money, not expose a conspiracy that didn't exist. All he did was muddy the water and lie throughout his book. The Julia Ann Mercer incident is the first one he discusses in his first chapter of RUSH TO JUDGMENT. His actions here reveal a concerted effort to create an impression of a failure to properly investigate an incident but he lies throughout in discussing this incident.

First off, the truck was gone by 11:10, which, if this was an assassin, meant he arrived 80 minutes before the assassination with a rifle and had to somehow remain concealed for all that time. See the police log here which states the truck which was stuck on Elm was gone:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=868
See the right-hand side of the page, which states the truck was moved by 11:09. This is directly from the police log, which Lane should be familiar with, and should reference. He conceals this information from his readers.

And officer Joe Murphy dispels the notion that anyone remained behind with a weapon in this FBI interview:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=323

"...All three of the men [from the stopped truck] left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.
"Murphy noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade.
"... Murphy further stated ... these men were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street ... and it would have been impossible for them to have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy."

So what exactly is the problem with the stalled truck? Nobody stayed behind. The police were on the scene, checked out the stalled truck, and took action to get the truck off the route before the assassination.

Mark Lane paints an entirely different, and disingenuous scene utilizing Mercer's statement.
(1) He pretends it wasn't investigated (it was),
(2) He pretends Mercer wasn't interviewed by any Commission investigator (she was interviewed by the FBI and the Commission supplied with a summary of that interview - the FBI acted as one investigatory staff arm of the Warren Commission as the Warren Commission admitted*),
(3) He pretends someone with a gun case remained behind (they didn't) and
(4) He pretends the police on the scene did nothing (that too is untrue - they took an active part in checking out the truck and ensuring it was long gone before the motorcade arrived).

In short, Lane accuses the Warren Commission of perfidy but it is his perfidy that is exposed by the evidence.
== QUOTE ==
"When you have no evidence... and have no logical argument... you announce that fact with ad hominem. You lose!" -- Ben Holmes
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7PlRAXggAiY/m/V55rB-qiAAAJ
===== UNQUOTE =====

We're still awaiting your first attempt to confront the evidence in the case, and your attempt to defend Lane when confronted with that evidence.

Delete it again. Anyone reading this understands that what Lane wrote is in serious conflict with the evidence. This is why you treat the above as if it's radioactive and delete it every time I post it.

That's what I posted previously. There are numerous examples of Lane invoking logical fallacies in his writings or making outright false assertions about the evidence.

Hank

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Your criticism of what Lane said is trite, and depends upon semantics and your particular conclusions about the incident. I will not bore myself by answering your silly argument point by point. But, how could Murphy vouch for what happened during the time that he was taking one of the men to to the construction site to fetch another truck? He was not there, and the police who were there while he was gone were not questioned. Were they standing with the truck, or were they up on the next overpass? Probably the latter, since that is where they were assigned. But, we'll never know because nobody asked them. If they were up on the next overpass, the man with the gun case could easily have walked up the hill without them seeing him because the billboard would have hidden him from their view. Perhaps all three men did leave with the truck, or maybe it was not the same three. Murphy came back by himself and then went up to his station on the overpass. The man whom he had given a ride on his motorcycle came back with another truck, and for all we know he might have had another man, too, and the guy carrying the gun case might not have left with them.

Many people thought that the shots came from the overpass. Chief Curry's reaction to the shooting was to send his men up to the overpass. Sheriff Decker's reaction was to send his men into the railroad yard, which the overpass is a part of. A witness saw a man bring a gun case up to the overpass. The Warren Commission staff did not question anybody about this matter. That's all true. It was not properly investigated. You have no argument against Lane on this point. You are just carping.

[John Corbett]

They didn't find a gunman on the overpass or the railroad yard. They found a gun on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The one used to blow JFK's brains out. The gunman got away. For a little over an hour.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The Chevette Capitalist always whips out his false dichotomy when he wants to impress the girls.

[John Corbett]

I'm sure the girls are really impressed when you tell them your theory that JBC shot JFK with a poison dart.

"Get away from me, creep".

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Works like a charm every time! I'm all yours, babes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg

[Hank Sienzant]

" IF they were up on the next overpass"?
" PERHAPS all three men did leave"?
" MAYBE it was not the same three"?
" he MIGHT have had another man"?

Your speculations in the absence of evidence are not evidence. But I get it. Evidence is not your bag.

"The Warren Commission staff did not question anybody about this matter."

Thanks. That's true, but that's not the whole truth. Like Lane, you try to ignore the investigation that was done by the FBI.

The incident was investigated, Joe Murphy (whom Conspiracy Theorists are all too happy to quote without question in another context) was located and he was questioned. I remind you that the FBI was an adjunct arm of the Warren Commission investigatory staff - the Commissioners decided early on to utilize the FBI instead of hiring an entire staff of investigators. You, like Lane, try to slice this so thin it's non-existent.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=323

So on the flip side let's assume her account is accurate. That means you also have to assume the men in the truck are part of the conspiracy, you have to assume Joe Murphy is part of it, you have to assume the police officers that remained behind are part of it, and you have to assume the Dallas Sheriff's Office personnel and the FBI agents who took her statements on 11/22/63 and the next day are part of it. All are the result of her later claims that her original statements are forgeries.

You have a witness who thought she saw something that no one else saw. 57 years later, you're still trying to turn it into something. Just like Lane tried. You failed. He failed.

[Hank Sienzant]

There were about a dozen railroad workers on the overpass. Any shooter on the overpass would have been clearly seen by them. Decker saw no gunman and never said he did.

You're trying to force the evidence where it doesn't want to go. Lane tried to do the same thing. The difference is of course there's about maybe a half-dozen people reading your arguments. Lane had a NY Times best seller, and many more people to deceive.

Hank

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 5:37:56 PM UTC, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 9:01:41 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 12:32:35 PM UTC, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:41:01 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:46:57 PM UTC, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Original source:

> > > > > http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forumshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg /https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489

> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing deleted, all logical fallacies left in place and pointed out:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> RoboTimbo:
> > > > > >> Hank, what was his motivation for being such a liar?

> > > > > >> I can only conjecture; as I'm not a mind-readhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg er.

> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice that we start off with a logical fallacy, and Huckster pretends
> > > > > not to notice that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe he was ahead of the curve and saw this assassination as his
> > > > > > meal ticket. And it has proven to be, as he's written like ten books
> > > > > > on the JFK and MLK assassinations now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And Huckster replies with a logical fallacy... poisoning the well...
> > > > > completely uncited speculation of Mark Lane's motivations.
> > > > >
> > > > > To paraphrase Huckster himself: When you start with logical fallacies
> > > > > we know it won't go well for you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > He started in on the lies within less than a month of the

> > > > > > assassination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg

> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Again with a logical fallacy. No "lie" has been demonstrated or
> > > > > proven in any way whatsoever... merely another poisoning of the well
> > > > > by the logic master, Huckster Sienzant. While Huckster can be
> > > > > congratulated for supplying his sources, the mistake he made is that
> > > > > his uncited sources prove *HIM* a liar, not Mark Lane.
> > > > >
> > > > > See below for the actual news conference cite - where anyone can see
> > > > > that Huckster clearly never bothered to look it up.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > He was the first person to publish any attempted defense of Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Another poisoning of the well, as well as a begged logical fallacy.

> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg

> > > > >
> > > > > > His initial piece appeared in the National Guardian less than a month
> > > > > > after the assassination and can be seen at the link above. His defense
> > > > > > appeared as a rebuttal to the points made by Dallas District Attorney
> > > > > > Henry Wade in a press conference on the evening of 11/24/63. This was
> > > > > > later on the same day that Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby.
> > > > >

> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg

> > > > > Henry Wade's assertions of Oswald's guilt was VASTLY quicker than Mark
> > > > > Lane's publishing of the rebuttal - if "speed" is any indicator, then
> > > > > Henry Wade is who you should be attacking, not Mark Lane.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is your point (other than another attempted poisoning of the
> > > > > well) to reference the speed with which a defense attorney did what he
> > > > > felt was right?
> > > > >

> > > > > Huckster will ignore this point - and refuse to explain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSaMZW1BHg his words...

You have an FBI who couldn't find out who was driving the truck even though they knew where it had come from. Joe Murphy could bring them right to where he let the guy off. Did the FBI even go there? Who knows? But, that's good enough for you because you are a murderer and you protect the murderers because it's good for your bank account for the murderers to keep murdering.

As for your criticism of Mark Lane, you fail as you always do. The Warren Commission did not investigate the matter. The FBI pretended to, just as you pretend to know what you are talking about, because the both of you are in the murder business. Mark Lane was correct and you are full of shit, as you always are.

Why would Curry and Decker send their men to somewhere where they thought the shots did not come from? Because you're a fucking moron, that's why.

[Ben Holmes]

End post whining deleted.

You *NEED* to address the subject in this post, coward... nothing less
will do.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 10:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Here's a repost ... run and hide, coward... run and hide!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Here's a repost ... run and hide, coward... run and hide!!!