Question For Greg Parker

[Hank Sienzant]

Two years ago, you wrote in a comment to the story cited in the link below:
“ 3. The weapons were ordered in the name of AJ Hidell. The only piece of evidence linking that name to Oswald as an alias was a fake Selective Srvice card in that name allegedly being carried by Oswald on the day, yet appearing in no photos taken of the material found on him and mentioned in none of the earliest reports by the arresting officers. There is in fact, no trace of this card existing until the following day. What made it an obvious fake was that it contained a passport photo of Oswald. Oswald would have known that these cards carried no such photo - as would most people. So as fake ID, it was totally and utterly useless. It;s ONLY utility was, as I said, linking Oswald to the use of the name as an alias - and thus to the weapons.”

Here’s the link:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/kennedy-assassination-sixth-floor-museum/

Do you stand behind the above remarks?

Thanks,
Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


I find it amusing that the coward who refuses to support his own
claims when refuted by solid and irrefutable evidence has the courage
to *ask* a question for someone else to answer.

It seems that Huckster doesn't follow rules he sets for others...

[Chuck Schuyler]

Poor Ben.

[Steven Galbraith]

The PO Boxes that Oswald rented, e.g,. New Orleans, Dallas, included the name Hidell among those authorized to receive packages/mail. The rental slips indicate this. Harry Holmes, the Dallas postal inspector, mentioned this to Oswald who denied knowing the name Hidell or authorizing the name.
And the coupons that Oswald used to order the rifle and revolver have Hidell as the name. Handwriting experts testified that the handwriting belonged to Oswald. Marina said she wrote the name et cetera et cetera.
As to the photo ID: I doubt that most people would know or care about whether a Selective Service card included a photo ID. That, of course, is just a guess,
But all of this will be dismissed as fake, staged, manufactured; the same tired dog-and-pony conspiracy explanations.

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster's cowardice has nothing to do with me... I merely point it
out.

As Huckster's cowardice doesn't affect me at all, why waste your
"pity" on someone who has no need of it?

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Be careful, Parker! This might be a trick question. I have it on a good source that Hank just got the latest chip implant from Langley.

[Steven Galbraith]

Even worse: they gave him my parking spot. The one right next to the front door. Now I have to walk half a mile to get to my office.
Maybe Philip Agee was right. They are bastards.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The PO Boxes that Oswald rented, e.g,. New Orleans, Dallas, included
>the name Hidell among those authorized to receive packages/mail.

This is, of course, a lie.

But Steven refuses to debate with knowledgeable critics, and no
believer would dare correct this lie on Steven's part.

Watch folks - as *NO-ONE* dares offer any citation that supports this
lie.

[Steven Galbraith]

Here's one of the post office box applications - in New Orleans - that Oswald filled out. Marina and Hidell are listed as authorized to receive mail.
Link: https://tinyurl.com/autmpd32

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Greg has high-tailed it like he has done every time he engaged me in debate on this site...


If you check the record Greg was defeated so badly each and every time we debated on this board that he was unable to answer...


He's done it again and did so when I asked him to answer some simple quotes by Harry Holmes that he had come up short on correctly interpreting...

[Bud]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> I find it amusing that the coward who refuses to support his own
> claims when refuted by solid and irrefutable evidence has the courage
> to *ask* a question for someone else to answer.

I find it amusing that you call on other people to support their claims when you don`t support your own.

> It seems that Huckster doesn't follow rules he sets for others...

Ironic.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Hey Hank, did you have a Selective Service Card after your 18th birthday?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

pretty shitty guess at that..... Now why would Oswald/Hidell have the only draft card issued in the United States of America to an 18 year old male that had an picture ID included on the face of the card? Are you making another moronic argument out of a counterfeit government document?

> But all of this will be dismissed as fake, staged, manufactured; the same tired dog-and-pony conspiracy explanations.

make your argument: why a counterfeit government document was used to aid and assist in the identification of a persons ID/Alias.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

get-a-grip, Einstein, the guy makes an appearence about twice a year here, if THAT.... and when he does its appreciated... and he certainly has your number. He does know case evidence and you know volume posting in a thread... take heart its all education.... Our friend from down under is on solid rock... you, all built on shifting in the breeze sand....

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>Here's one of the post office box applications - in New Orleans - that Oswald filled out. Marina and Hidell are listed as authorized to receive mail.
>Link: https://tinyurl.com/autmpd32

I labeled Steven a liar - and clearly he is. Notice that he's **NOT**
supported his claim.

You're a liar, Steven... I can understand your cowardice...

But you can't convince people with lies...

Not when there's knowledgeable critics in the same, uncensored forum.

Clearly, you're not used to your lies being pointed out.

[Steven Galbraith]

I'll try once but I know it's a hopeless cause.
Of course it was fake. Oswald faked/manufactured it to create a Hidell identification. Why would the government plant a fake selective service card in order to implicate Oswald? They would plant an authentic card not a phony one.
Once again: Oswald rented several PO boxes that included, in his handwriting, the name AJ Hidell as someone who was authorized to pick up mail. Marina testified that he ordered her to sign the AJ Hidell name on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee documents.
Oswald created the Hidell name. He faked the SS card. Because he was, in the words of Marina, a "sick man" who didn't know who he was or what he was doing.

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:23:07 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-7, Scrum Drum wrote:



> get-a-grip, Einstein, the guy makes an appearence about twice a year here, if THAT.... and when he does its appreciated... and he certainly has your number. He does know case evidence and you know volume posting in a thread... take heart its all education.... Our friend from down under is on solid rock... you, all built on shifting in the breeze sand....

You're an idiot and an asshole Healy...You're a perfect example of a self-entitled clique member who is protected from answering for his asinine trolling by favoring mods...


Your post that ignores the substantive content of every thing I have been posting and comes in in favor of one of the most notorious evidence hackers and lunatics is a prime example of the DiEugenio ass-kissing society, its membership, agenda, and methods...


If you were ever faced with credible moderation you would be properly dealt with and your ability to troll good research would be quickly curtailed...You assholes have hijacked the entire JFK internet so your reign of terror and referral to Greg Parker as a credible researcher continue unabated and unchecked by credible scrutiny...


Greg gets away with not answering for my very credible and valid coverage of Holmes' statement because of nebbish suck-ups like yourself...You and your idiotic trolling have no problem with membership at DPF and the Education Forum simply because you carry the DiEugenio ass-kissing card and that gets you automatic approval...

[Scrum Drum]

Hidell was probably formulated in order to adapt Lee in to the operation in case Harvey was caught or some other permutation of the Oswald Project...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:58:05 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:50:19 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:19:00 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:32:04 AM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > Two years ago, you wrote in a comment to the story cited in the link below:
> > > > > “ 3. The weapons were ordered in the name of AJ Hidell. The only piece of evidence linking that name to Oswald as an alias was a fake Selective Srvice card in that name allegedly being carried by Oswald on the day, yet appearing in no photos taken of the material found on him and mentioned in none of the earliest reports by the arresting officers. There is in fact, no trace of this card existing until the following day. What made it an obvious fake was that it contained a passport photo of Oswald. Oswald would have known that these cards carried no such photo - as would most people. So as fake ID, it was totally and utterly useless. It;s ONLY utility was, as I said, linking Oswald to the use of the name as an alias - and thus to the weapons.”
> > > > >
> > > > > Here’s the link:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/kennedy-assassination-sixth-floor-museum/
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you stand behind the above remarks?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Hank
> > > > The PO Boxes that Oswald rented, e.g,. New Orleans, Dallas, included the name Hidell among those authorized to receive packages/mail. The rental slips indicate this. Harry Holmes, the Dallas postal inspector, mentioned this to Oswald who denied knowing the name Hidell or authorizing the name.
> > > > And the coupons that Oswald used to order the rifle and revolver have Hidell as the name. Handwriting experts testified that the handwriting belonged to Oswald. Marina said she wrote the name et cetera et cetera.
> > > > As to the photo ID: I doubt that most people would know or care about whether a Selective Service card included a photo ID. That, of course, is just a guess,
> > > pretty shitty guess at that..... Now why would Oswald/Hidell have the only draft card issued in the United States of America to an 18 year old male that had an picture ID included on the face of the card? Are you making another moronic argument out of a counterfeit government document?
> > > > But all of this will be dismissed as fake, staged, manufactured; the same tired dog-and-pony conspiracy explanations.
> > > make your argument: why a counterfeit government document was used to aid and assist in the identification of a persons ID/Alias.
> > I'll try once but I know it's a hopeless cause.
> > Of course it was fake. Oswald faked/manufactured it to create a Hidell identification. Why would the government plant a fake selective service card in order to implicate Oswald? They would plant an authentic card not a phony one.

And they would order it in Oswald’s name! The whole argument from Parker makes no sense if it’s an attempt to frame Oswald.

> > Once again: Oswald rented several PO boxes that included, in his handwriting, the name AJ Hidell as someone who was authorized to pick up mail. Marina testified that he ordered her to sign the AJ Hidell name on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee documents.

Oswald ordered the pistol in the same fake name:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

Some of the flyers for the FPCC that Oswald distributed were stamped with HIDELL:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0242b.htm

> > Oswald created the Hidell name. He faked the SS card. Because he was, in the words of Marina, a "sick man" who didn't know who he was or what he was doing.
> Hidell was probably formulated in order to adapt Lee in to the operation in case Harvey was caught or some other permutation of the Oswald Project...

Why didn’t they just start with triplets or quadruplets or quintuplets to ensure in 1939 when these kids were born they had sufficient backups to kill Kennedy in 1963?

Better yet, what was the need in 1939 for “identical doubles” since JFK was just 21 at the time these “identical doubles” were conceived?

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 2:23:07 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 10:45:31 AM UTC-7, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Here is Barry Ernest's examination of the Lunch Room Encounter...He pretty much concludes it was real because of personal exposure to its telling in 1968 from the original witnesses...

In 1999 Ernest heard Lt Day recount that he ran in to Truly after going back to the Depository at 3pm on the 22nd and Truly told him he had run in to Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...Jim D is dishonest because he and Parker never admit that Day's hearing of Truly & Baker stopping Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room before Baker wrote his affidavit is proof of the 2nd floor location that Oswald admitted to Fritz...

In this article Ernest recounts speaking to Philidelphia reporter Adrian Lee who spoke to Mrs Truly on the morning of the 23rd...Mrs Truly told reporter Lee that Roy had come home at 7pm the night of the assassination and told her of stopping Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...

Not being an evidence hoaxer like Greg, Ernest uses common sense to surmise the Lunch Room Encounter had to be real because it simply wasn't plausible that they concocted it within 2 hours of the assassination...How did they get to Oswald when he was on the run and coach him to say that?...Ernest goes on to cite Campbell's witnessing of Oswald in the Utility closet under the front stairs as speculation that Oswald really was on the steps during the shots, however he fails to understand that the person in that Utility Closet was Lee in the white T-shirt and he ducked in there to avoid being seen near Harvey in the long-sleeves:



https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/

[healyd...@gmail.com]

of course I'm an asshole, Asshole!... you have a serious diabolical need for attention, kinda like that recently past president of yours... carry on toothless!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

tell me why I should give a fuck about you and/or this topic... your EGO is bent outta' shape.... deal with it!

>
> https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/the-lunchroom-encounter/

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:30:56 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:57:30 PM UTC-7, Scrum Drum wrote:

The idiotic troll Healy is OK with moderator Gordon...


I am not and Gordon rode my back on every post and every speck (pretending to be credibly moderating instead of carrying out a British bully personal grudge as moderator)......

[Steven Galbraith]

And they did this supposed framing *before* Oswald's co-workers had been interviewed. That is before they had any idea as to where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. How did they know he was in the building at the time of the shooting? That he wasn't outside with co-workers?
They had no idea at this stage where Oswald was at the time of the shooting.
I think Mr. Parker has been watching "In the Heat of the Night" too many times. He thinks Wade and Fritz framed Oswald like he had killed a gas attendant. This was the president.

[Ben Holmes]

And of course, Steven has read this - he understands that he's a
blatant liar, and has simply run away.

No-one has attempted to defend his lie, and certainly no believer will
ever admit that Steven's a liar.

They all think if they ignore the truth, no-one will notice.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

well, you've finally outdone yourself, you now have ownership of the second tinniest dick award on ACJ. Cut an inch and a quarter off of your dick and you'd have a scab on your ass. Wahooooo!

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 5:12:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:31:02 -0700, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
> ><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Here's one of the post office box applications - in New Orleans - that Oswald filled out. Marina and Hidell are listed as authorized to receive mail.
> >>Link: https://tinyurl.com/autmpd32
> >
> >
> >I labeled Steven a liar - and clearly he is. Notice that he's **NOT**
> >supported his claim.
> >
> >You're a liar, Steven... I can understand your cowardice...
> >
> >But you can't convince people with lies...
> >
> >Not when there's knowledgeable critics in the same, uncensored forum.
> >
> >Clearly, you're not used to your lies being pointed out.

> And of course, Steven has read this - he understands that he's a
> blatant liar,

Ad hominem attack.

>and has simply run away.

Logical fallacy called argument from silence.

>
> No-one has attempted to defend his lie,

Begging the question, non sequitur, shifting the burden.

and certainly no believer will
> ever admit that Steven's a liar.

Ad hominem attack, non sequitur.

>
> They all think if they ignore the truth, no-one will notice.

The truth that on 11/22/63 something else happened, somehow?

You really need to up your game before the men around here take you seriously, Ben. Your shrill outbursts are the rantings of an hysterical hobbyist who is seeing his pastime destroyed. The only arrow in your quiver is the logical fallacies you fire indiscriminately at your critics.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 15:33:51 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 5:12:45 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Nov 2021 11:31:02 -0700, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's one of the post office box applications - in New Orleans - that Oswald filled out. Marina and Hidell are listed as authorized to receive mail.
>>>>Link: https://tinyurl.com/autmpd32
>>>
>>>
>>>I labeled Steven a liar - and clearly he is. Notice that he's **NOT**
>>>supported his claim.
>>>
>>>You're a liar, Steven... I can understand your cowardice...
>>>
>>>But you can't convince people with lies...
>>>
>>>Not when there's knowledgeable critics in the same, uncensored forum.
>>>
>>>Clearly, you're not used to your lies being pointed out.
>
>> And of course, Steven has read this - he understands that he's a
>> blatant liar,
>
>Ad hominem attack.

You have no idea what I can prove Steven lied about... do you?

>>and has simply run away.
>
>Logical fallacy called argument from silence.

It's Steven's responsibility to cite for his claims about the
evidence.

Show yourself a moron and deny that.

>> No-one has attempted to defend his lie,
>
>Begging the question, non sequitur, shifting the burden.

Do you seriously think it's the responsibility of critics to defend
Steven's lies?

>> and certainly no believer will
>> ever admit that Steven's a liar.
>
>Ad hominem attack, non sequitur.

And Chuckles proves me right...

>> They all think if they ignore the truth, no-one will notice.
>

>The truth ...

You don't *know* the truth.

As simple proof of this... reply here and state what Steven said that
he's not yet (nor will ever) cite for.

But you don't know.

And *YOU* will prove that to the world in your next response.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

careful another 1/32nd od an inch and you qualify pants down for a run at the award... go lightly or Brian here will be your nemisis.... lmfao!

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 6:33:48 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 1:38:19 PM UTC-7, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:30:56 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:57:30 PM UTC-7, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > The idiotic troll Healy is OK with moderator Gordon...
> >
> >
> > I am not and Gordon rode my back on every post and every speck (pretending to be credibly moderating instead of carrying out a British bully personal grudge as moderator)...

> well, you've finally outdone yourself, you now have ownership of the second tinniest dick award on ACJ. Cut an inch and a quarter off of your dick and you'd have a scab on your ass. Wahooooo!

Confirmed troll who is helping Parker avoid answering the evidence for two stops...


You are not a serious researcher Healy...You are a website nebbish...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

We own fools like you Btian, why? You never, ever see the light of day -- you're terrified of your fellow man... just like most nutter's

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I find it amusing that the coward who refuses to support his own
>> claims when refuted by solid and irrefutable evidence has the courage
>> to *ask* a question for someone else to answer.
>

> I find it amusing ...


Who cares what liar & coward think?

[Bud]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 7:47:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I find it amusing that the coward who refuses to support his own
> >> claims when refuted by solid and irrefutable evidence has the courage
> >> to *ask* a question for someone else to answer.
> >
> > I find it amusing ...
>
>
> Who cares what liar & coward think?

You do apparently, you keep giving people your worthless opinions.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

hey, you're off the streets, numb-nuts....

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...

[John Burroughs]

As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:

1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.

2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.

3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.

4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?

5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade. Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.

Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.

Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>
> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>

That’s Ben’s pet name for me - Hank Sienzant.

> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.
>
> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.

LFD - That’s Ben’s shorthand for logical fallacy deleted… he uses it whenever he doesn’t have a decent response to a point made or evidence cited.

>
> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?

Ben’s been posting these every year or two for more than a decade. They are like I Love Lucy episodes in perpetual reruns.

>
> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.

The only problem with that is Oswald couldn’t be in two places at once, and the evidence indicates he was on the sixth floor with a weapon at the time the photo was taken.

> Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.

But Scrum Drum is “obviously” right.

>
> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
>
> Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!

Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

easy Puppy.... take the bible for instance -- the Vaticsn became a whorehouse and those damn Catholics assembled the bible... just because fools like yourself can barely remember their name doesn't mean they don't lie like hell. Like you Hankster, just like you..... which of course has been displayed here.... on a regular basis.... you're welcome and do keep coming back...

I'm off for a few days, keep an eye on the place, Hankster and no lying....

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 12:11:23 AM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 8:00:21 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> > > As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
> > >
> > > 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
> > >
> > That’s Ben’s pet name for me - Hank Sienzant.
> > > 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.
> > >
> > > 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.
> > LFD - That’s Ben’s shorthand for logical fallacy deleted… he uses it whenever he doesn’t have a decent response to a point made or evidence cited.
> > >
> > > 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
> > Ben’s been posting these every year or two for more than a decade. They are like I Love Lucy episodes in perpetual reruns.
> > >
> > > 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.
> > The only problem with that is Oswald couldn’t be in two places at once, and the evidence indicates he was on the sixth floor with a weapon at the time the photo was taken.
> > > Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
> > But Scrum Drum is “obviously” right.
> > >
> > > Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
> > >
> > > Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
> > Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
> easy Puppy....

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> take the bible for instance -- the Vaticsn became a whorehouse and those damn Catholics assembled the bible...

Red Herring logical fallacy.

> just because fools like yourself can barely remember their name doesn't mean they don't lie like hell.

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> Like you Hankster, just like you.....

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> which of course has been displayed here.... on a regular basis.... you're welcome and do keep coming back...

Begged Question logical fallacy.

>
> I'm off for a few days, keep an eye on the place, Hankster and no lying....

Begged question and ad hominem logical fallacies.

[Bud]

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>
> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.

Hank. Ben Holmes is responsible for almost all the nastiness around here, it would be fairly civil if he didn`t ratchet up the nastiness.

> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Everything about this case is a dead horse issue.

> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.

LFD, "logical fallacy deleted". Used by Ben Holmes to dodge points he has no answer to.

> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?

Asking "what else" assumes Lane had anything. The conspiracy hobby has been running on fumes since it`s inception, it never had anything, and that explains why it went nowhere.

> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.

With other people, none of whom said he was with them.

>Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.

Parker is a conspiracy hobbyist who plays silly games with the evidence in this case. This is shown by the fact that anyone who is required to be "in on it" for his ideas to be valid was.

> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.

There is only one case.

> Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!

<snicker> Here? This is a playpen for adolescent thinkers. My inner child enjoys the exercise, but nothing of consequence occurs here.

[Steven Galbraith]

Oswald said that he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Something he told Fritz and the interrogators (yes, according to their accounts). I would think that Oswald would have been screaming to the news media that "I was on the steps during the shooting!! Ask my co-workers!!". But he never did.
And as you added, none of Oswald's co-workers mentioned seeing him on the steps. Particularly Wes Frazier who was right behind "Prayerwoman" and who testified that he never saw Oswald after breaking for lunch. But Oswald is standing right in front of him during the parade/assassination?
As to Mr. Parker; I think he's watched too many episodes of the "In the Heat of the Night." Or watched the movie too many times. He's got Fritz as a racist Southern sheriff and Wade as a corrupt Southern prosecutor framing all sorts of people. This was the murder of the president; not the murder of a gas station attendant. All while all sorts of people just watched them do it.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:





>
> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade. Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
>

5 years ago when I proved Prayer Man was Stanton by means of a height comparison with Frazier the dishonest research community knew they looked bad because a person they generally mocked turned around and handed then their asses with the best analysis of Prayer Man that undoubtedly proved it was Sarah Stanton...At that time those dishonest clique members scurried to the collective excuse that they needed a better image to decide...It was obvious that they were running to that obvious excuse because they desperately needed something to shield themselves from directly answering my evidence like "stets" does here...

I have long proven Prayer Man is Stanton...If you look at stets' excuse making-based input he grants himself the right to ignore every single one of my points of evidence...This would not be allowed if the JFK internet were credibly moderated...The reason Prayer Man has only been officially admitted to be Stanton by Debra Conway and Vinny Palamara is because the JFK internet is really just a group of friends who have promoted other friends to moderator positions and they enforce each other's dominance with cowardly banning and bullying...What the Prayer Man people do is organize this clique and send a so-called "lurker" in who is just a shill who probably comes from Parker's website in order to establish the false appearance of agreement...These trolls give themselves away by the fact they skip your evidence and go right to an ROKC name-calling level of input...

stets is a liar and I have shown multiple examples of evidence that he ignores...Smarter more honest people would realize stets indirectly shows the validity of that evidence by being publicly unable to answer it...For instance stets calls for a clearer image but then when you refer him to the clear Altgens image he ignores it...Ask stets to give a direct answer to the fact the Prayer Man people have been intentionally mis-quoting Frazier when he pointed to his left to show the location of Stanton...For 5 years now I have been asking the Prayer Man people to answer where Stanton is in Altgens if you say she is to Frazier's left?...Altgens is very clear, yet we can see Stanton is not to Frazier's left as the Prayer Man people are falsely saying...Even better Wiegman was taken at the same time as Altgens from a 90 degree angle to Altgens and you can see the obstructed parts of Altgens are visible in Wiegman and Stanton is not there...For 5 years I have been posting what I just wrote here and for 5 years it has been answered with deafening silence...Sorry stets but the definition of "evidence" is that which your opponents cannot answer...I have PROVEN Stanton is not to Frazier's left at the exact same time that Lovelady said Stanton was "Next to me over to the far right of the entranceway"...The Hughes film clearly shows Lovelady over to the far right of the entranceway exactly where he said he was...Prayer Man is directly behind Lovelady which means Prayer Man is "next to" Lovelady...Hughes is at the exact time reference Lovelady gave when the limousine was passing the Depository...These people call for a clearer image but when you produce one like the Altgens frame they ignore it...Kamp is a nut so knowing he was beaten with this he lied and picked a random woman 3 steps down and claimed it was Stanton...The rest of the research community stayed quiet and let him get away with that...Lies are OK with them...It's just the good evidence that they refuse to accept and have a dirty British moderator banning anyone who refutes them...

stets also ignores that Buell Frazier made more than clear in several interviews and statements that Sarah turned towards him to tell him what Gloria Calvery had shouted...We can see Prayer Man facing forward towards the motorcade in Wiegman...40 seconds later in Darnell Prayer Man has pivoted towards Frazier and is facing him...If we view the 4 second Darnell clip Prayer Man and Frazier are the only two people who don't move and are locked on each other...Frazier said after Calvery got to the steps and Stanton told me "I think she said the president has been shot" that he and Sarah "Stared at each other in shock for the longest time"...Prayer Man staring at Frazier for the full 4 seconds of the Darnell clip is the exact time that Frazier described he and Sarah staring at each other so therefore Prayer Man is Stanton...Greg Parker is so used to getting away with anything he posts on his censorship-protected forum that he said Prayer Man had his arms folded and was leaning against the wall...Simple photo analysis will show that Prayer Man is standing and facing Frazier and is not leaning against the wall...Parker used this lie to avoid admitting that Prayer Man is obviously way too fat to be Oswald and had broad women's hips...Photogrammetry will show that Prayer Man's forearm and hand are also way too fat to be Oswald's...Any look at Stanton's obesity in her family photo will prove that the obese features seen on Stanton in that photo are seen on Prayer Man in Darnell...

It is simply a lie to say I've shown no evidence...

The JFK research community has discredited itself by refusing to recognize it and using banning and ignoring to avoid it...(and trolling in stets' case)

stets is calling for a better image but the Prayer Man people are doing their best to avoid getting one because they know what it will show...Jim D had a golden opportunity to get Stone's producer Rob Wilson to obtain the Prayer Man scan from NBC but he decided to lie and avoid it...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debateis over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal

Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are. You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.

I been watching you lone nut trolls audition for writing gigs on this particular forum for nearly 25 years. Ya haven't got it -- not for even SNAPCHAT. Historians that have been cognizant for the past 30 years will laugh you damn fool's right into the street...

You've been outgamed, by someone who blunted your foolishness and KNOWS case evidence, in particular the medical evidence (from my perspective at least). There's been thousands of lurkers haunt these boards over the years, enjoy one that leans in your direction. Heavens knows they are few and far in-between...

Only 300 more Mark Lane posts to go in this cycle -- try answer a few, take a walk on the wildside....

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
<stets...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>
> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>
> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.

Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
offered me the same courtesy.

But play with my real name just a single time, and you are forever
locked into whatever I want to call you.

I've made this crystal clear on a number of occasions. Huckster was
one of the very few posters here for the LOOOONGEST time who was
courteous, and received my courtesy in return... until finally even he
slipped.

Holding just one side to courtesy is silly, and hopefully you're not
doing that. Time will tell...

> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack
> there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Ah! So *YOU* don't mind people lying about the evidence... that puts
you firmly in the believer category.

Critics are only interested in the truth, where-ever it may lead. Your
lack of interest in outright lies about the evidence show that you're
a believer at heart... no matter what else you may claim.

> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a
> cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally
> respond.

It's LFD... "Logical Fallacy Deleted."

I generally try to be open, and indicate where I've deleted content. I
feel that this is the courteous thing to do. But most believer here
have gotten to the point where litterally EVERTHING in response to a
post is a logical fallacy... hence the abbreviation.

Again, you seem to have no problem with Huckster, Chuckles, and others
whining about logical fallacies, then proceeding to use them virtually
non-stop.

> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did
> groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire
> encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?

The facts. The evidence.

That's all I need.

They haven't changed much in over 50 years... we've just learned more,
is all.

But facts PUBLICLY KNOWN that very first day on 11/22/63 still haven't
been explained by believers... so you're going to keep facing those
facts & evidence.

And why do you ask what someone else has? Aren't you capable of
stating what you believe happened, and supporting it with citation to
the evidence?

In this forum, only critics have done that (with one or two rare
exceptions - none of whom currently post)

So the question - right back at ya... is what do *YOU* got?

> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is
> available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the
> presidential parade. Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual
> real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker
> shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.

Paying any attention to trolls, and you'll have to "get tired." I
personally have no interest in speculation. I deal with solid
evidence and facts. You can argue until you're blue that a fuzzy
photo shows this person, or that person, but what you CANNOT argue
with is that the FBI stated contradictory "facts" about the origin of
the paper in the "papersack" (as merely one example)

Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.

Facts like those.

Speculation is a game best played by trolls.

> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess
> The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or
> education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.

This is a SOLID red flag that you're lying. But that's okay... more
believers who cannot defend their faith are always welcome.

Who knows, perhaps someday someone can stump me with evidence that
supports their side and cannot be refuted...

>Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!

Sadly, you won't see it here... believers are all, to a single person,
liars and cowards. At least, in this forum.

While it's possible to be an honest believer in the WCR, it's not
possible to be an honest AND KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the WCR.

Your level of knowledge is yet to be determined, but to my trained
eye, you're a liar.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> > The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>>
>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>
>That’s Ben’s pet name for me - Hank Sienzant.

Tell the truth, Huckster, you had problems with my real name.

And paid the price.

>> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Notice that Huckster can't even comment here... he's TERRIFIED of
stating what he knows to be the truth... that a fellow believer is
lying.

>> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.
>
> LFD - That’s Ben’s shorthand for logical fallacy deleted… he uses it
> whenever he doesn’t have a decent response to a point made or evidence
> cited.

LOL!!! I use it for logical fallacies. Indeed, I've pointed out
ABSOLUTELY EGREGIOUS examples, and not a single time has Huckster
admitted it.

You don't make responses, decent or otherwise, to logical fallacies,
you just delete 'em and move on.

>> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
>
> Ben’s been posting these every year or two for more than a decade.
> They are like I Love Lucy episodes in perpetual reruns.

Of course, what Huckster CANNOT admit, is that these points made by
Mark Lane are still relevant, and still unrefuted.

>> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.
>
> The only problem with that is Oswald couldn’t be in two places at
> once, and the evidence indicates he was on the sixth floor with a
> weapon at the time the photo was taken.

A statement that Huckster cannot support with irrefutable evidence &
citations. Hence, merely a belief on his part... and thus, a "begging
the question" logical fallacy.

>> Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
>
>But Scrum Drum is “obviously” right.
>
>>
>> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
>
>Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?

You're lying again, Huckster. Indeed, the MORE we cite, the less you
answer.

Such as the post you've been running from ever since I proved, BY
CITATION, that you've simply lied.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 04:56:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>>> Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
>> easy Puppy....
>
>Ad hominem logical fallacy.

It was... and in *response* to a logical fallacy. Watch folks, as
Huckster is unable to defend his lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 10:53:18 -0800 (PST), "healyd...@gmail.com"
<healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about
> as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debate is
> over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't
> close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal
>
> Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people
> can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are.
> You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a
> knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.

I consider just a few believers to be my equal in knowledge of the
evidence in this case, and in this forum, only Huckster makes the
list. (Although McAdams did in the past, and was just as provably a
liar and coward)

(But I don't hold a candle to Mark Lane in depth of knowledge on this
case.)

But sadly, when Huckster shows his ignorance, he does so in a dramatic
fashion... such as the post he cited from another forum.

I'm sure he regrets pointing out that post... as I certainly would
never have seen it if Huckster didn't cite it here.

I'd never seen him post such hogwash in this forum, and took great
delight in demolishing his kook nonsense, statement by statement, with
citation to the relevant evidence.

My refutation of his silliness is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE... and
Hucktster has simply refused to reply AT ALL to my demolishing of each
and every one of his lies in that post.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

This is a perfect demonstration of Huckster Sienzant's cowardice &
dishonesty.

I look forward to seeing him post such nonsense in the future.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

hands down you are putting on a class, and the WCR believers KNOW it... and don't like it, at ALL!

It's been a sight to behold -- and a few of those old-time lurkers are still out there and check-in from time to time.......

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> >
> > As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
> > observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
> > The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
> >
> > 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
> > sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
> > off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
> offered me the same courtesy.

I'm calling BS on that. You took a post where I responded to someone else, and made an allusion to that conspiracy theorist's "phenomenal" detective ability, and called him Holmes. You then pretended I didn't even know who I was responding to, and when I explained I meant it as "Sherlock Holmes", and not a reference to you. you then pretended I was calling you Sherlock, instead of Ben, and started calling me Huckster.

You couldn't bait me into calling you anything but your real name, so you used a pretext to start calling me by other than my real name.

>
> But play with my real name just a single time, and you are forever
> locked into whatever I want to call you.

Except that's untrue.

>
> I've made this crystal clear on a number of occasions. Huckster was
> one of the very few posters here for the LOOOONGEST time who was
> courteous, and received my courtesy in return... until finally even he
> slipped.

Nope, you simply called me a liar and a coward for the LOOOONGEST time and I never responded in kind. Then you got tired of waiting for me to call you names, you simply used a pretext to start calling me Huckster.

>
> Holding just one side to courtesy is silly, and hopefully you're not
> doing that. Time will tell...

The only side that's been courteous here is my side.

> > 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack
> > there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.
> Ah! So *YOU* don't mind people lying about the evidence... that puts
> you firmly in the believer category.

Ben's calling you a Warren Commission believer, since you had the temerity to disagree with one of his points.

>
> Critics are only interested in the truth, where-ever it may lead. Your
> lack of interest in outright lies about the evidence show that you're
> a believer at heart... no matter what else you may claim.
> > 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a
> > cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally
> > respond.
> It's LFD... "Logical Fallacy Deleted."

Left for Dead, as in you have no response and your point is DOA.

>
> I generally try to be open, and indicate where I've deleted content. I
> feel that this is the courteous thing to do. But most believer here
> have gotten to the point where litterally EVERTHING in response to a
> post is a logical fallacy... hence the abbreviation.

Except of course, that's simply more BS. I write long, documented responses, quoting the evidence, citing links to the evidence, and pointing out not only that you or Lane (or both) ignored contrary evidence, you or Lane (or both) took quotes out of context or are ignoring reasonable conclusions. I also go to the trouble of pointing out your logical fallacies. You delete almost everything I write and respond with LFD, which of course is wholly inadequate.

You don't respond with anything better because you can't respond with anything better.

>
> Again, you seem to have no problem with Huckster, Chuckles, and others
> whining about logical fallacies, then proceeding to use them virtually
> non-stop.

Hilarious. You have yet to point out, name, and argue for one logical fallacy on my part. I find numerous ad homimems, attempts to shift the burden of proof, and begged questions in your posts, and point out each one.

> > 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did
> > groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire
> > encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
> The facts. The evidence.

You have no facts, no evidence. Neither did Mark Lane or any other conspiracy advocate. Look at my responses to your Mark Lane series. In nearly every case, you simply deleted my points and either changed the subject or simply called me names.

>
> That's all I need.
>
> They haven't changed much in over 50 years... we've just learned more,
> is all.
>
> But facts PUBLICLY KNOWN that very first day on 11/22/63 still haven't
> been explained by believers... so you're going to keep facing those
> facts & evidence.

If you disagree with Ben even once, you're a believer!

>
> And why do you ask what someone else has? Aren't you capable of
> stating what you believe happened, and supporting it with citation to
> the evidence?

Aren't you?

>
> In this forum, only critics have done that (with one or two rare
> exceptions - none of whom currently post)

Hilarious. Ben wants me to regurgitate the Warren Commission report and their conclusions (except for the parts I disagree with, which in some cases I've already pointed out to him).

>
> So the question - right back at ya... is what do *YOU* got?

CTs got nothing. Ben, he's on your side.

> > 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is
> > available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the
> > presidential parade. Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual
> > real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker
> > shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
> Paying any attention to trolls, and you'll have to "get tired." I
> personally have no interest in speculation. I deal with solid
> evidence and facts.

Could have fooled me. All you ever cite is excerpts from Lane's RTJ, and you seldom even try to defend those when I point out the issues. You simply declare the contrary evidence "Out of Bounds" because Lane didn't mention it, so you pretend I can't mention it either. Or you simply delete and LFD everything.

> You can argue until you're blue that a fuzzy
> photo shows this person, or that person, but what you CANNOT argue
> with is that the FBI stated contradictory "facts" about the origin of
> the paper in the "papersack" (as merely one example)

One is signed, one is not. One is the WC volumes of evidence, one is not. One is legitimate, one is not.
Guess which one I'm going with?

>
> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
> bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.
>
> Facts like those.
>
> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.


> > Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess
> > The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or
> > education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
> This is a SOLID red flag that you're lying. But that's okay... more
> believers who cannot defend their faith are always welcome.

Ben's painted you into a corner, you either have to declare outright allegiance to everything Ben says, or be forever branded a WC "believer", even if, like me, you reached your conclusions independent of the Warren Commission conclusions, and even disagree with their conclusions in some instances.

>
> Who knows, perhaps someday someone can stump me with evidence that
> supports their side and cannot be refuted...

Something that you'll accept, you mean. Since you don't accept anything that disagrees with your beliefs, of course those conditions with never be met. But that doesn't mean reasonable people cannot agree. It means you're unreasonable.

> >Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
> Sadly, you won't see it here... believers are all, to a single person,
> liars and cowards. At least, in this forum.

And there's the ad hominem and begged question. No logic or evidence can penetrate Ben's force field.

>
> While it's possible to be an honest believer in the WCR, it's not
> possible to be an honest AND KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the WCR.

More begged questions and ad hominem.

>
> Your level of knowledge is yet to be determined, but to my trained
> eye, you're a liar.

You had to know Ben was spooling up for this. I saw it coming with your first post.

>
> Feel free to prove me wrong.

And there's the shift of the burden of proof. Ben doesn't have to prove his pronouncements correct, that's a given (to him, of course). Everyone else has to prove Ben wrong.

Welcome to the "Believers"!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:53:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
>> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>>>
>>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
>>> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
>>> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>>>
>>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
>>> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
>>> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
>> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
>> offered me the same courtesy.
>
> I'm calling BS on that.

Then all you need to do is produce the first post of mine that called
you "Huckster" - and demonstrate that you didn't, just previously,
call me something other than my real name.

That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
a lie if it were true.

Just to help you out, here it is:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ

Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'

So the BS is on you, Huckster...

Care to try again with someone else??? Chuckles maybe? Johnny McAss
perhaps? Chickenshit?

It would be easy to prove me a liar... Why not give it a try?

>> But play with my real name just a single time, and you are forever
>> locked into whatever I want to call you.
>>

>> I've made this crystal clear on a number of occasions. Huckster was
>> one of the very few posters here for the LOOOONGEST time who was
>> courteous, and received my courtesy in return... until finally even he
>> slipped.
>

>Nope, you simply called me a liar and a coward...


The topic, moron, is the correct use of someone's name... not the
correct use of the English language.

When you lie, you're a liar. When you run away, you're a coward.

Those are simple concepts. You object to them because you frequently
lie, and frequently run away.

>> Holding just one side to courtesy is silly, and hopefully you're not
>> doing that. Time will tell...
>
>The only side that's been courteous here is my side.

That you can say such a silly thing shows just how dishonest you are.

>>> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack
>>> there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.
>>
>> Ah! So *YOU* don't mind people lying about the evidence... that puts
>> you firmly in the believer category.
>
> Ben's calling you a Warren Commission believer, since you had the
> temerity to disagree with one of his points.

No, I'm calling the poster a WCR believer for the obvious reasons.

There's many people whom I disagree with, yet wouldn't be silly enough
to call a WCR believer.

The fact that *YOU* are defending this guy is just another bit of
evidence in support... **YOU** know he's on your side.

>> Critics are only interested in the truth, where-ever it may lead. Your
>> lack of interest in outright lies about the evidence show that you're
>> a believer at heart... no matter what else you may claim.
>>
>>> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a
>>> cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally
>>> respond.
>>
>> It's LFD... "Logical Fallacy Deleted."
>>

>> I generally try to be open, and indicate where I've deleted content. I
>> feel that this is the courteous thing to do. But most believer here
>> have gotten to the point where litterally EVERTHING in response to a
>> post is a logical fallacy... hence the abbreviation.
>>

>> Again, you seem to have no problem with Huckster, Chuckles, and others
>> whining about logical fallacies, then proceeding to use them virtually
>> non-stop.
>>

>>> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did
>>> groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire
>>> encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
>>
>> The facts. The evidence.
>
>You have no facts, no evidence.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

>> That's all I need.
>>
>> They haven't changed much in over 50 years... we've just learned more,
>> is all.
>>
>> But facts PUBLICLY KNOWN that very first day on 11/22/63 still haven't
>> been explained by believers... so you're going to keep facing those
>> facts & evidence.
>>

>> And why do you ask what someone else has? Aren't you capable of
>> stating what you believe happened, and supporting it with citation to
>> the evidence?
>>

>> In this forum, only critics have done that (with one or two rare
>> exceptions - none of whom currently post)
>>

>> So the question - right back at ya... is what do *YOU* got?
>>

>>> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is
>>> available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the
>>> presidential parade. Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual
>>> real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker
>>> shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
>>
>> Paying any attention to trolls, and you'll have to "get tired." I
>> personally have no interest in speculation. I deal with solid
>> evidence and facts.
>>

>> You can argue until you're blue that a fuzzy
>> photo shows this person, or that person, but what you CANNOT argue
>> with is that the FBI stated contradictory "facts" about the origin of
>> the paper in the "papersack" (as merely one example)
>>

>> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
>> bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.
>>
>> Facts like those.
>>
>> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.
>>
>>> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess
>>> The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or
>>> education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
>>
>> This is a SOLID red flag that you're lying. But that's okay... more
>> believers who cannot defend their faith are always welcome.
>>

>> Who knows, perhaps someday someone can stump me with evidence that
>> supports their side and cannot be refuted...
>

>>>Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
>>
>> Sadly, you won't see it here... believers are all, to a single person,
>> liars and cowards. At least, in this forum.
>>

>> While it's possible to be an honest believer in the WCR, it's not
>> possible to be an honest AND KNOWLEDGEABLE believer in the WCR.
>

>> Your level of knowledge is yet to be determined, but to my trained
>> eye, you're a liar.
>

>> Feel free to prove me wrong.

Too many logical fallacies to count... I just deleted 'em.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, Ben. I point out the logical fallacy, and even name it. On occasion I will provide a link to the logical fallacy where further details on the logical fallacy are explained. YOU, on the other hand, don't make responses to many points containing documented and well-reasoned arguments. You simply delete them (or slice them down to nearly nothing) and issue an LFD in response.

> >> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
> >
> > Ben’s been posting these every year or two for more than a decade.
> > They are like I Love Lucy episodes in perpetual reruns.
> Of course, what Huckster CANNOT admit, is that these points made by
> Mark Lane are still relevant, and still unrefuted.

Except of course, you've already seen numerous Lane posts refuted with contrary evidence and reasoned arguments, including the one Ben labelled Lane #1.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/s3i4LXc8AAAJ

Right here, for example, where I reference Ben's snippage and failure to respond, and (check the next post by Ben) he simply deletes it all again!

> >> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.
> >
> > The only problem with that is Oswald couldn’t be in two places at
> > once, and the evidence indicates he was on the sixth floor with a
> > weapon at the time the photo was taken.
> A statement that Huckster cannot support with irrefutable evidence &
> citations. Hence, merely a belief on his part... and thus, a "begging
> the question" logical fallacy.

"Irrefutable" of course with Ben being the only person to properly decide what's "irrefutable" or not. With "Irrefutable" being a standard not used in any courtroom in this country or anywhere else. The typical courtroom standard for a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the typical courtroom standard for a civil case is "the preponderance of the evidence". "Irrefutable" is Ben's pretend standard only.

I'm not going to bother to cite for these, Ben can pretend he doesn't know where the evidence for each claim can be found if he wishes. He can ask for the citations to the witness and expert opinion, I'll be happy to provide it.

Let's look at the evidence that indicates Oswald was in the window "beyond a reasonable doubt".
1. Numerous witnesses described seeing a person fitting Oswald's description in the window.
2. The rifle found in the building was a Mannlicher-Carcano bearing the serial number C2766.
3. Paperwork from Klein's established that particular rifle was shipped to Oswald's PO box.
4. A money order in his handwriting established he ordered that model rifle from Kleins.
5. Photographs establish he possessed that rifle.
6. Shells at the window where numerous witnesses put a man matching Oswald's description indicate Oswald's rifle was used in the assassination and the shells were fired from the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
7. Two large fragments found in the limo on the evening of the assassination indicate Oswald's rifle was used in the assassination and the fragments were fired (as a bullet which broke apart upon hitting something hard) from the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
8. A nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland shortly after the victims arrived indicate Oswald's rifle was used in the assassination and this nearly whole bullet was fired from the C2766 rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
9. Oswald's fresh fingerprints were photographed on the rifle's trigger guard, and his fresh palmprint was found on a box in the sniper's nest window -- the palmprint oriented in such a way that it could have been deposited as he sat on the box looking at the sniper's nest window.
10. One person claimed to be able to positively identify Oswald as the shooter.
11. No strangers were seen in the building by any employee, save one elderly man who asked to used the restroom and left before the shooting.
12. The evidence indicates Oswald transported the weapon to the building that morning wrapped in a homemade paper bag. Two witnesses saw him with this long paper bag, although both estimated the bag as shorter than its actual measured length when found.
13. The bag bore Oswald's print on it.
14. The rifle Marina knew Oswald possessed was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage shortly after the assassination.
15. There are a limited number of people that knew these three things below.
a) Oswald owned a rifle
b) Oswald kept it in the Paine garage
c) Oswald worked in the Depository
The evidence indicates there is only one known person in the entire world that knew all three and had access to the Paine garage AND the Depository on the morning of the assassination. Lee Harvey Oswald.

The evidence wraps a nice little web around Lee Harvey Oswald and puts him in that window at 12:30pm on 11/22/63 firing his weapon at the President.

> >> Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
> >
> >But Scrum Drum is “obviously” right.
> >
> >>
> >> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
> >>
> >> Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
> >
> >Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
> You're lying again, Huckster. Indeed, the MORE we cite, the less you
> answer.

You've been citing an entire series of Lane's claims and I've been rebutting every one posted over the past month or so. Your rebuttals (such as they are) consist of changing the subject, calling me names, and pretending all my points are logical fallacies.

[Hank Sienzant]

I've been posting and discussing the assassination since the early 1990's, starting with Prodigy, as I recall, moving on to AOL's message boards, and numerous others. CTs mostly post their opinion and their interpretation of the evidence (you need look only at most of the CT posters here -- Don Willis, Scrum Drum, Airline Guy, Greg Parker, and you [whether citing Lane or not]).

You recall any of them simply citing the evidence without trying to tell us what it "really" means?

Very seldom if ever do they post the actual opinion of any expert witness or any eyewitness -- that's because the evidence doesn't support their theory.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:44:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 04:56:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
>>>> easy Puppy....
>>>
>>>Ad hominem logical fallacy.
>> It was... and in *response* to a logical fallacy. Watch folks, as
>> Huckster is unable to defend his lie.

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:37:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 9:33:39 PM UTC-4, stets...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> > On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>>>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive. The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>>>
>>>That’s Ben’s pet name for me - Hank Sienzant.
>>
>> Tell the truth, Huckster, you had problems with my real name.
>>
>> And paid the price.
>>
>>>> 2. Tired beyond belief reading about the throat dissection or lack there of. Talk about beating a dead horse.
>>
>> Notice that Huckster can't even comment here... he's TERRIFIED of
>> stating what he knows to be the truth... that a fellow believer is
>> lying.

And even when his cowardice is pointed out, Huckster remains silent.
He *MUST*... he cannot be caught publicly labeling another believer a
liar.

Indeed, he even refuses to state that Chickenshit is "mistaken."

This shows the inherent dishonesty of all believers... and they
apparently don't realize it.

>>>> 3. DLF and other variations What the hell is that? talk about a cop out. Very evasive and shows a lack of ability to rationally respond.
>>>
>>> LFD - That’s Ben’s shorthand for logical fallacy deleted… he uses it
>>> whenever he doesn’t have a decent response to a point made or evidence
>>> cited.
>>
>> LOL!!! I use it for logical fallacies. Indeed, I've pointed out
>> ABSOLUTELY EGREGIOUS examples, and not a single time has Huckster
>> admitted it.
>>
>> You don't make responses, decent or otherwise, to logical fallacies,
>> you just delete 'em and move on.
>
>No, Ben.

Yes Huckster.

>>>> 4. Whole threads devoted to a Mark Lane observation. Lane did groundbreaking research but he is hardly the final word or the entire encapsulation of an issue. What else you got?
>>>
>>> Ben’s been posting these every year or two for more than a decade.
>>> They are like I Love Lucy episodes in perpetual reruns.
>>
>> Of course, what Huckster CANNOT admit, is that these points made by
>> Mark Lane are still relevant, and still unrefuted.
>

>Except of course...


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

You were saying???

>>>> 5. Tired beyond belief about Prayerwoman. Until a better image is available, Oswald is the most logical person out front watching the presidential parade.
>>>
>>> The only problem with that is Oswald couldn’t be in two places at
>>> once, and the evidence indicates he was on the sixth floor with a
>>> weapon at the time the photo was taken.
>>
>> A statement that Huckster cannot support with irrefutable evidence &
>> citations. Hence, merely a belief on his part... and thus, a "begging
>> the question" logical fallacy.
>
>"Irrefutable"

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Yep.

It's a PROVEN FACT that neither you, nor any other believer has
addressed the topic posted in that citation.

>>>> Tired of Scrum Drum never showing any actual real "evidence" tired of just supposition and innuendo. Parker shreds him to pieces with facts and evidence.
>>>
>>>But Scrum Drum is “obviously” right.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you can tell me to stuff it, I lean CT, but must confess The LNers here make better cases than those at the assassination or education forum. Just thought I'd pass along some thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks I enjoy the robust debate and jousting!
>>>
>>>Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster. Indeed, the MORE we cite, the less you
>> answer.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ

Run coward... RUN!

[Bud]

<snicker> Little Fucking Dwarf

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:19:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:06:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:44:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 04:56:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
>>>>>> easy Puppy....
>>>>>
>>>>>Ad hominem logical fallacy.
>>>> It was... and in *response* to a logical fallacy. Watch folks, as
>>>> Huckster is unable to defend his lie.
>> LFD.

Obscene LFD.

Keep in mind folks, that Huckster just two days ago proclaimed: "The

only side that's been courteous here is my side."

Here, with Huckster's statement freshly in everyone's mind,
Chickenshit proves Huckster a liar.

[Bud]

That is your name from me for awhile, "LFD". It stands for "Little Fucking Dwarf".

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 10:53:18 -0800 (PST), "healyd...@gmail.com"
> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about
> > as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debate is
> > over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't
> > close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal
> >
> > Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people
> > can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are.
> > You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a
> > knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.
> I consider just a few believers to be my equal in knowledge of the
> evidence in this case, and in this forum, only Huckster makes the
> list. (Although McAdams did in the past, and was just as provably a
> liar and coward)

And there's the ad hominem.

>
> (But I don't hold a candle to Mark Lane in depth of knowledge on this
> case.)

Mark Lane knew so little about this case he was never in any danger of being eliminated by the witness elimination program.
The proof is in the pudding -- he lived until he was 89.

>
> But sadly, when Huckster shows his ignorance, he does so in a dramatic
> fashion... such as the post he cited from another forum.
>
> I'm sure he regrets pointing out that post... as I certainly would
> never have seen it if Huckster didn't cite it here.
>
> I'd never seen him post such hogwash in this forum, and took great
> delight in demolishing his kook nonsense, statement by statement, with
> citation to the relevant evidence.
>
> My refutation of his silliness is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE...

Except it was refuted.

> and
> Hucktster has simply refused to reply AT ALL to my demolishing of each
> and every one of his lies in that post.

I responded in the original thread. I saw no need to chase you around every time you post something.

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>
> This is a perfect demonstration of Huckster Sienzant's cowardice &
> dishonesty.

No, that's a repost by you. It's an example of your "cowardice and dishonesty"

Here's the original thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ

You reposted some stuff and ignored the original thread.

>
> I look forward to seeing him post such nonsense in the future.

Begged question logical fallacy.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:53:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
> >> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> >>>
> >>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
> >>> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
> >>> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
> >>> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
> >>> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
> >> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
> >> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
> >> offered me the same courtesy.
> >
> > I'm calling BS on that.
> Then all you need to do is produce the first post of mine that called
> you "Huckster" - and demonstrate that you didn't, just previously,
> call me something other than my real name.

First off, exactly as I stated, Ben deletes a lot of my point and doesn't bother to respond to the point made. He then utilizes logical fallacies to make it appear I have something to establish.

Here he's utilizing the shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. Ben claimed that he never ever referred to someone by other than their posted name if they offered Ben the same courtesy. So let's see that post where you called me Huckster for the first time and cite the post immediately before that where I called you by other than Ben Holmes. Got one?

>
> That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
> a lie if it were true.
>
> Just to help you out, here it is:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
>
> Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'

Negative, Ben. I already explained that. I said, on Amazon, as a reference to the famous fictional detective invented by A.Conan Doyle, something like "How do you explain that one, Holmes?" (and this was in a response to another poster entirely). You jumped in to proclaim I didn't even know who I was responding t, that you didn't write the post. I explained patiently what I meant.

I even brought it up here, and pointed out your perfidy again:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/_Kwxb5fnAAAJ

and repeated that point a few posts later.

After that, you still called me Henry here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ

But eventually you realized you could up the ante, pretending my reference to "No shit, Sherlock" was directed at you and I wasn't using your first name correctly. That's when you started calling me Huckster.

It's all BS by you. I never referenced you as anything but Ben. You were looking for an excuse to start calling me names, and you had to take one statement where I summarized a point directed to someone else on another forum and pretend it was directed at you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 10:53:18 -0800 (PST), "healyd...@gmail.com"
>> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about
>>> as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debate is
>>> over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't
>>> close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal
>>>
>>> Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people
>>> can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are.
>>> You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a
>>> knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.
>>
>> I consider just a few believers to be my equal in knowledge of the
>> evidence in this case, and in this forum, only Huckster makes the
>> list. (Although McAdams did in the past, and was just as provably a
>> liar and coward)
>
>And there's the ad hominem.

Tell us Huckster - does the word "liar" or "coward" have a meaning and
usage in the English language?

Are those real concepts? Or only "ad hominem."

>> (But I don't hold a candle to Mark Lane in depth of knowledge on this
>> case.)

LFD.

>> But sadly, when Huckster shows his ignorance, he does so in a dramatic
>> fashion... such as the post he cited from another forum.
>>
>> I'm sure he regrets pointing out that post... as I certainly would
>> never have seen it if Huckster didn't cite it here.
>>
>> I'd never seen him post such hogwash in this forum, and took great
>> delight in demolishing his kook nonsense, statement by statement, with
>> citation to the relevant evidence.
>>
>> My refutation of his silliness is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE...
>
>Except it was refuted.

By who? CITE THE POST WHERE THIS POST REFERENCED WAS "REFUTED."

But you can't... you're lying again.

You didn't respond to it, and no-one who *did* respond offered any
substantive argument.

>> and
>> Hucktster has simply refused to reply AT ALL to my demolishing of each
>> and every one of his lies in that post.
>
>I responded in the original thread.

CITE THAT RESPONSE!!!

But you can't... you're lying again.

>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>
>> This is a perfect demonstration of Huckster Sienzant's cowardice &
>> dishonesty.
>
>No, that's a repost by you. It's an example of your "cowardice and dishonesty"

I invite anyone to do a seach, and find ANY earlier example of the
first statement: "Hank, what was his motivation for being such a
liar?" to be found in this forum.

The FIRST time it appears is in my FIRST post on Aug 26th.

You're a proven liar... yet again.

My post was NEVER POSTED ANYWHERE prior to that date, and the cited
post cannot *POSSIBLY* be a "repost."

Watch folks, as Huckster CANNOT cite a prior example of that post.

Anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

>Here's the original thread:
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ
>
>You reposted some stuff and ignored the original thread.

You're lying again, Huckster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:46:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:53:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
>>>> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>>>>>
>>>>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
>>>>> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
>>>>> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
>>>>> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
>>>>> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>>>> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
>>>> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
>>>> offered me the same courtesy.
>>>
>>> I'm calling BS on that.
>>
>> Then all you need to do is produce the first post of mine that called
>> you "Huckster" - and demonstrate that you didn't, just previously,
>> call me something other than my real name.
>

>First off...


Tut tut tut... you made a claim... now you refuse to support it.

>> That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
>> a lie if it were true.
>>
>> Just to help you out, here it is:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
>>
>> Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'
>
>Negative, Ben.

I cited. You lose.

[Greg Parker]

On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:05:47 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> Two years ago, you wrote in a comment to the story cited in the link below:
> “ 3. The weapons were ordered in the name of AJ Hidell. The only piece of evidence linking that name to Oswald as an alias was a fake Selective Srvice card in that name allegedly being carried by Oswald on the day, yet appearing in no photos taken of the material found on him and mentioned in none of the earliest reports by the arresting officers. There is in fact, no trace of this card existing until the following day. What made it an obvious fake was that it contained a passport photo of Oswald. Oswald would have known that these cards carried no such photo - as would most people. So as fake ID, it was totally and utterly useless. It;s ONLY utility was, as I said, linking Oswald to the use of the name as an alias - and thus to the weapons.”
>
> Here’s the link:
>
> https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/kennedy-assassination-sixth-floor-museum/
>
> Do you stand behind the above remarks?
>
> Thanks,
> Hank

Yes, Hank, I do.

The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he "definitely had it".

Jones denied remembering passing on any information about this card when questioned by the HSCA. Unless Jones had Alzheimer's in the late '70s, I would expect him to recall this vital piece of information. After all, intelligence is all about knowing what information is vital and what isn't, and being able to memorize it.. So, imo, either the FBI lied or Jones did. But Dodd under questioning got Jones to admit that what he probably said to them was "An a Hidell". Or in full, that Oswald was connected in NO to "an A Hidell". Which of course fits with the known facts. No indication of Oswald using it as an alias himself. The person passing out the flyers at the dock where the Wasp was berthed for instance, was described by the police who escorted him out of the area as being years older and much heavier than Oswald. In fact, a similar description to the "suspect" in Dallas. Those flyers were stamped A J Hidell and had an incorrect PO Box stamped on it. Oswald claimed he was then contacted by Hidell and asked to take over distribution. Twp reams of flyers were then delivered to Oswald's address by an unknown Cuban and these were stamped with Oswald's name and home adress. Why,, it's as if Oswald didn't even know he had a PO Box!

Did the card exist? Yes it did.

Did Oswald make it? Yes, he did.

Did he make it for nefarious purposes? No he never.

Did he put the name Hidell on it? Unlikely. More likely is that is why the card was not produced earlier. The police - who had there own photo lab - changed the name and number on it.

So why did Oswald make the card? That was answered by his bosses as Jagger.

Mr. GRAEF. I believe so; So I called--but to reiterate mainly our best source of employees has been the Texas Employment Commission. They have a larger pool to draw from, so I called--in the course of my dealing with them they have various departments and in the course of dealing with them, I became familiar with one person.
Our particular photographic department is not one that we find experienced personnel readily, and the work we do is, I would say, quite different in various ways from ordinary photography, as most people know it. I will enlarge on that slightly by saying we do many, many things with letters. For example, we can take a straight line of type and we can curve it or bend it or twist it or put it in a circle, for example, and so, rather than just taking pictures of people as ordinary photographers do, this work which we perform for advertising agencies and artists in this area is a matter of training, learning first to use the equipment we have which takes some time, and then the differences in the material that we use.

We see such attempts at learning how to curve numbers and lettering on the fake card in his own name. Anyone who has worked in such an environment will tell you that the most likely scenario is that Oswald would be shown how to use the equipment and then instructed to play around with it and get used to handling it. Those two cards, both initially in his own name, are the result.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:47:18 -0800 (PST), Greg Parker
<gparker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then
> are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that
> the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was
> certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is
> something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible
> explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he
> "definitely had it".

This is also demonstrated by the fact that there was no confusion when
arrested - they knew that it was Oswald ... there was not even a HINT
of anyone saying: "Okay, who are you... Oswald or Hidell"

And yes... Huckster is well aware of these facts, and as you assert,
has no sensible explanation for these facts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:39:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:28:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:19:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:06:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:44:51 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 04:56:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you notice CTs rarely cite evidence?
>>>>>>>> easy Puppy....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ad hominem logical fallacy.
>>>>>> It was... and in *response* to a logical fallacy. Watch folks, as
>>>>>> Huckster is unable to defend his lie.
>>>> LFD.
>> Obscene LFD.
>>
>> Keep in mind folks, that Huckster just two days ago proclaimed: "The
>> only side that's been courteous here is my side."
>> Here, with Huckster's statement freshly in everyone's mind,
>> Chickenshit proves Huckster a liar.

Obscene LFD.

Where are you Huckster?

[Greg Parker]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 5:12:01 AM UTC+11, Steven Galbraith wrote:

> Oswald said that he was in the building at the time of the shooting. Something he told Fritz and the interrogators (yes, according to their accounts).

Good to see you jump back into the fray after disappearing from the other thread - where your response here actually belongs.

Not that I care... anyway... we know what Oswald said was NOT what the official reports claim he said. Hosty clearly recorded Oswald as saying he went out to watch the presidential parade. That should have gone into his joint report with Bookhout because the whole reason for the reports was to accurately describe what was said - not to pass judgement on its veracity or to edit it or to change it. We all know why the unambiguous truth of what was said, was avoided.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/fmOZOv0FxAxOiWSC7T-atoLPDGbxFjf9KxkWyjBU2DeSpU5Z1UfIjjDcCqO4Xd_deWtIcxPlv0Aj5iA9cTo7pCERg_iOOPvepcKY_xxMC028s_0xiwjYE3WxGMmxopbUkxu6D5yy-wMG555hj2yjrGOa

> I would think that Oswald would have been screaming to the news media that "I was on the steps during the shooting!! Ask my co-workers!!". But he never did.

Firtsly, that assumes he knew his time on earth was limited. It also assumes (wrongly) that Oswald was like everyone else. He wasn't.

From the report of Youth House Social Worker, Evelyn Strickman: "Laconic and taciturn, Lee answered questions, but volunteered almost nothing about himself SPONTANEOUSLY." Similar comments were made by some of his interrogators This lack of spontenuity is one of many signs he had of being a high functioning Asperger sufferer. Dr Hartogs had diagnosed him with having a Schizoid Personality Disorder (which has nothing to do with psychophrenia) . SPD is very similar to Asperger's and each can be mistaken for the other. In this case, Hartogs could not diagmose Aspergers's because it was not recognised in the US at that time. But either way. Aspergergers or Personality Disorder... it was not in his nature to volunteer anything unlsess specifically asked - even when it was in his best interest to do so. Sufererers of these conditions do not have the "tools" to make those judgements.

> And as you added, none of Oswald's co-workers mentioned seeing him on the steps. Particularly Wes Frazier who was right behind "Prayerwoman" and who testified that he never saw Oswald after breaking for lunch. But Oswald is standing right in front of him during the parade/assassination?

LOL. Like no one undeerstood what was going down and what waas good for them.

> As to Mr. Parker; I think he's watched too many episodes of the "In the Heat of the Night." Or watched the movie too many times. He's got Fritz as a racist Southern sheriff

He was.

From https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
The chief of the homicide unit, Captain Will Fritz, told reporters a few days after the murder, “We still have about 100 more Negroes to check on. We’ll investigate each one as we have time to get to him.”

Police didn’t get around to Tommy Lee Walker for four months, in late January 1954. The service station on Denton Drive where he worked had been robbed—months after Walker had moved on to another job. Police asked the station’s owner for a list of previous employees and their addresses, which led officers to Tommy Lee’s house near Exall Park. He was arrested and taken in for questioning on a Friday evening. While there, he later told friends and family, he feared for his life after seeing jail officers beat a black inmate.

Late the next night, Tommy Lee was brought before Captain Fritz, who questioned him for hours—not about any involvement in the robbery for which he had been arrested, but about Venice Parker’s murder. Tommy Lee said that Fritz told him he had received a phone call implicating him in the crime. Fritz had received no such call. Fritz said that there were witnesses and that police knew what he had done. Fritz had a reputation for being unusually effective at wringing admissions of guilt out of suspects, and his techniques worked in this case as well. Years later, we know much more about how often false confessions occur and what can trigger them—fear, cultural differences, sleep deprivation, and feelings of hopelessness, all of which played a role in this case.

Tommy Lee said later that he was intimidated when Fritz shouted at him again and again that he was lying about the murder. He said Fritz asked repeatedly if he had to “bring in the men from upstairs” when Tommy Lee balked at signing a confession. He believed that was a reference to the two officers he’d earlier seen beating a man.

Many hours later—alone, confused, and frightened—Tommy Lee wearily signed a confession for the murder. It included details about the crime that only police knew, along with a number of errors and information that simply didn’t add up. Tommy Lee, sensitive to issues of race and sexuality, insisted to Fritz that he hadn’t raped Venice Parker. The dubious confession claimed that the young mother had accidentally been stabbed when she “started to run and jumped into my knife.” Walker would say later that he didn’t see or hear the full transcript of the confession until it was read aloud in court during his trial.

> and Wade as a corrupt Southern prosecutor framing all sorts of people.

He was. https://www.amazon.com/Henry-Wades-Tough-Justice-Prosecutors/dp/1608447456

The sorry history of wrongful convictions in Dallas Country is shown here: https://innocenceproject.org/dallas-county-cases-where-dna-has-proven-innocence/ Many on this list were prosecuted by Wade's office - the others by those who learned from Wade.

> This was the murder of the president; not the murder of a gas station attendant. All while all sorts of people just watched them do it.

In an interview with author Joseph McBride, Leavelle said he had different views on the murder of President Kennedy and Tippit, describing the president's assassination as "no different than a south Dallas nigger killing...it was just another murder inside the city limits of Dallas. I’ve handled hundreds of them."

Anything about the actual topic of this thread you would like to add?

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:08:25 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:
Paying any attention to trolls, and you'll have to "get tired." I
personally have no interest in speculation.

As do I. The Darnell and Weigman frames are evidence. The Hosty note stating that Oswald claimed to be outside watching the parade is evidence. The official statements of those on the steps are evidence and form the basis for identifying all bar that one person in the back corner.

From chapter 8 of the book "Finding the Truth with Criminal Investigation" by Daniel A Reilly, professor of Criminology, Law, and Society at George Mason University

"An investigative plan includes speculative analysis based on experience and logic. The facts and evidence available to the investigator after the initial introductory phase of an investigation are reviewed, and certain determinations about that crime are
made."

> I deal with solid
evidence and facts.

So you were saying.

> You can argue until you're blue that a fuzzy photo shows this person, or that person, but what you CANNOT argue with is that the FBI stated contradictory "facts" about the origin of the paper in the "papersack" (as merely one example)

Careful. You are one step away from claiming this is no different to the Rorschach test known as Badge Man. It is VERY different. It is a real person. A real person who stands out because he alone is unidentified by the available documentation, unlike all others on those steps.

What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get there.

> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.

> Facts like those.

"Facts like those" that have been debated ad infinitum without resolution or concession. Oswald was exactly what he claimed. A patsy. He had an alibi. Being on the steps was it. A real invesrtigation would attempt to prove or disprve that alibi, not twist part of it after Oswald's murder and then deep-six the rest, which was the path they chose.

> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.

You are talking about WILD speculation. Not ALL speculation is wild. As above, it is an important part of any police plan to form speculations based on the available evidence, in order to progress toward th facts.

You are apparently one of the many in this community who don't like having fantasies about solving the case and/or "proving" a conspiracy, undermined or sidelined. But here is the most important FACT of all/ The way forward is simple. Giving Oswald the Innocence Project treatmnent, When he is officially exonerated, the case is by default, back in open status. Proving a conspiracy does not exonerate Oswald. Showing his alibi is supported by other evidence does, and would be rock solid with clear frames from the orignal films. Or not. Because I know that there is that one in a million chance I'm wrong, and there actually was a random from the street stupid enough to stand in that spot.

[Ben Holmes]

Careful - you're one step away from asserting I said something I've
never said. I have strong objections to such. If you cross that
line, you get the same treatment as *anyone* who does so.

I don't discuss or debate Badgeman for the reason I gave... honest
people can view a film frame and come to different conclusions.

Honest people CANNOT deny that the FBI contradicted itself on the
origin of the paper in the "paperbag."

> What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or
> a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the
> worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get
> there.
>
>> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
>>bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.
>>
>> Facts like those.
>
>"Facts like those" that have been debated ad infinitum without
> resolution or concession.

Sad to say, you're lying. You cannot produce **ANY** serious effort
to claim that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, or the
throat wound.

Nor can you produce **ANY** serious effort to deny that the FBI was
the author of the document I referred to.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

Be honest, step up to the plate, AND BE SPECIFIC. When you make
claims you can't document, it's a lie. Plain and simple.

> Oswald was exactly what he claimed. A patsy. He had an alibi. Being on
> the steps was it. A real invesrtigation would attempt to prove or
> disprve that alibi, not twist part of it after Oswald's murder and
> then deep-six the rest, which was the path they chose.

I know that there are people who will debate this... I'm not one of
them... for the reasons given above. *NOT* because it's true or not
true.

>> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.
>
> You are talking about WILD speculation. Not ALL speculation is wild. As above, it is an important part of any police plan to form speculations based on the available evidence, in order to progress toward th facts.
>
> You are apparently one of the many in this community who don't like having fantasies about solving the case and/or "proving" a conspiracy, undermined or sidelined. But here is the most important FACT of all/ The way forward is simple. Giving Oswald the Innocence Project treatmnent, When he is officially exonerated, the case is by default, back in open status. Proving a conspiracy does not exonerate Oswald. Showing his alibi is supported by other evidence does, and would be rock solid with clear frames from the orignal films. Or not. Because I know that there is that one in a million chance I'm wrong, and there actually was a random from the street stupid enough to stand in that spot.

Be caueful what you claim I'm talking about. Many in this forum have
learned the price of making baseless claims of what I've stated.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Careful, there, Parker. Ben is a bad ass. If you step over the line, he'll spank you with Mark Lane and stuff.

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:08:25 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:

Greg chose to run and hide from my factual presentation in my response to "stets" (which stets could not answer)...Greg is a fraudulent blowhard whose record vs myself is he is always the first to quit and run from a debate over Prayer Man, the Lunch Room Encounter, or Harvey & Lee...Because Greg comes from a forum where he enjoys total say achieved through cowardly banning and only allowing those who agree with him membership he is used to making self-referencing pronouncements and sneaking out of a debate where he is obviously losing...Greg reached his bail-out point in this current exchange when he got cornered over his lie that Lumpkin was the cop who Mrs Garner was talking about when she mentioned seeing "THE" cop with Truly...Greg uses the dishonest tactic of filtering out that which he is unable to answer in his replies...It is a debate tactic called "seizing the narrative" where the person who is obviously losing the debate tries to take control by artificially directing the points to be discussed so people don't realize that he is unable to answer the best points of evidence...By using this dishonest tactic the cheater makes it look like he is sincerely addressing flaws in your argument when in fact the sole reason he's doing it is because he's knows he can't answer what you wrote...So in this light we can understand that Greg never came back to account for the fact he tried to get away with a seriously bogus argument when he claimed "THE" cop Mrs Garner was talking about was Lumpkin...I posted several times that Lumpkin went to Parkland and it wasn't until after he made that trip that he returned to the Depository...When I pointed-out that Lumpkin's round trip had to take at least 20 minutes Greg ignored it and never answered it...You see Greg is a nut who gets away with murder because he has a whole legion of agreeing sycophants on his troll farm who know what their job is and help him get away with this level of bogus research...Over here he has the nut and troll David Healy helping attend his butt crack hygiene along with the other regular trolls who help him get out of credible debate by switching the subject...You can see Greg run and hide to the help of those trolls whose main interest is screwing up anyone who tries to debate seriously...When I posted that it was more than clear Mrs Garner was talking about a very narrow and very specific time window that started no later than 2 minutes after the last shot, and was before Williams ran down to the 4th floor windows, Greg ignored it and could not answer...To any honest researcher (that does not include Parker) the idea that Mrs Garner was referencing Lumpkin is laughable because the time periods in question are not even close...Mrs Garner made it more than clear that the first people she saw after Adams & Styles descended were "Truly and the cop" who emerged shortly after...If we look at Truly & Baker's claim they would have emerged on the 4th floor landing no later than 2 minutes and maybe a few seconds after the shots after having confronted Oswald in the Lunch Room...If Adams & Styles descended the stairs at 20-25 seconds after the shots then 2 minutes and change would be about right for the wording Mrs Garner used to describe this time frame...In light of this there is simply no way Garner could be referring to 20 minutes or more after the shots and Lumpkin because the evidence Greg is deliberately fudging here would have Williams running down to the 4th floor windows way before that...Greg is a nut and he is bailing-out of the debate at his own word because he knows damned-well that he was going to have to answer for this...If "THE" cop were Lumpkin then Garner would have seen Williams and the other workers that were with him as the first people after Adams & Styles descended...Greg also skated on answering that the wording in the 1964 Stroud letter saying "Truly and 'THE' cop" meant that Garner was referring to Baker because Baker was "THE" cop that Truly was said to be going up the stairs with...The reason Greg quit and ran from the debate was because he knew he couldn't answer this...And he couldn't answer that Williams' seeing Baker's helmet emerge above the boxes was in perfect synch with Mrs Garner seeing Truly & Baker headed up to the 5th floor...

There is a pompous poseur who is single-handedly responsible for the evidence failing to progress on the JFK internet...James Gordon is an unqualified ignoramus who treats the necessary adversarial debate and challenge healthy debate produces as rules violations because he doesn't want to admit he isn't smart enough to oversee high level academic debate so he reacts to specific challenges of evidence and demands for accountability with false accusations of site rules violation in order to get out of taking responsibility for his incompetent moderation...When you challenge Greg on his silly nuttery like I am doing here Gordon calls it a rules violation and takes moderator action and in doing that he helps the cheaters not answer for their faulty claims...This whole process has hamstrung the progress of JFK research and established a condition of protecting bad research as the main impetus on the JFK internet...You can see Greg and the deniers scurry to the protection of that rank injustice in their evasions of my evidence...The first motive of the Education Forum is preservation of that cult of personality...Good evidence and fair debate is not the main interest of that forum and they are OK with it as long as they are the only voices...Gordon is a podcast host and author ass-wiper and shouldn't be in charge...

Greg has also refused to answer my Prayer Man evidence that proves beyond a doubt that Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man...DiEugenio is quite aware of this because he admitted it but research is a winner-takes-all game to Jim and he isn't afraid to play dirty because he, like Greg, has a strong group of sycophants he knows will bail him out of his rank dishonesty...In the 5 years of asking the Prayer Man nuts to show Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens and Wiegman they have never answered...This would not be allowed on a credibly moderated internet and relying on the idiot king fauntleroy Gordon to decide this is a situation that no credible research community would tolerate for the sake of its own credibility...To fail so badly on this evidence and therefore default would be met with judgment on a credibly moderated JFK internet...The current one seeks to bail-out the cheaters and protect their dishonest lack of response all so the main egotistical favorites can avoid admitting they got one seriously wrong...This is fatal dysfunction and it has managed to destroy the current JFK internet's credibility and progress of evidence...

Greg also just outright dodged my analysis of Holmes' statement where it was more than clear from his wording that he overheard the description of two stops of Oswald...One in the Lunch Room, and one in the Lobby...The current JFK internet currently consists of DiEugenio suck-ups that are seeking to get Jim's approval so they give credence to Parker's bullshit about the Lunch Room Encounter...Greg never gave any honest answer to the fact that it was impossible to take the elevator down the front entranceway steps nor was it possible for Oswald to be stopped by a cop after he descended to the street so Holmes was PROVABLY talking about Oswald coming down from the 2nd floor Lunch Room to see what the commotion was about...Coming down from the 2nd floor Lunch Room after being stopped by Baker in the "Vestibule" near the Coke machine...Greg knew he couldn't get around this so he did his usual cowardly scooting right on time once again at his own word...The sad truth here is I am doing the credible moderation Gordon is failing to do and everyone knows it...If there were credible oversight of the JFK internet Greg would be scored as the nutty troll and evidence scrambler that he is and we would dismiss his disinformation and get to the real evidence...As is usual with liars and cheaters, Greg doesn't really believe what he is posting and therefore quits first because he doesn't really believe it...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 6:31:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 10:53:18 -0800 (PST), "healyd...@gmail.com"
> >> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about
> >>> as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debate is
> >>> over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't
> >>> close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal
> >>>
> >>> Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people
> >>> can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are.
> >>> You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a
> >>> knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.
> >>
> >> I consider just a few believers to be my equal in knowledge of the
> >> evidence in this case, and in this forum, only Huckster makes the
> >> list. (Although McAdams did in the past, and was just as provably a
> >> liar and coward)
> >
> >And there's the ad hominem.
> Tell us Huckster - does the word "liar" or "coward" have a meaning and
> usage in the English language?

Begged question and shifting the burden of proof.
Tell us, Ben, do you still beat your wife?

>
> Are those real concepts? Or only "ad hominem."

You need to establish the liar and coward, not just assert the claims.
Regardless, it's still attacking the messenger instead of the message.
And whether you want to claim it's accurate or not, it's still a logical fallacy.

Attack the message, not the messenger. You can't do that, so you call me names.

> >> (But I don't hold a candle to Mark Lane in depth of knowledge on this
> >> case.)
> LFD.

Mark Lane knew so little about this case he was never in any danger of being eliminated by the witness elimination program.
The proof is in the pudding -- he lived until he was 89.

> >> But sadly, when Huckster shows his ignorance, he does so in a dramatic
> >> fashion... such as the post he cited from another forum.
> >>
> >> I'm sure he regrets pointing out that post... as I certainly would
> >> never have seen it if Huckster didn't cite it here.
> >>
> >> I'd never seen him post such hogwash in this forum, and took great
> >> delight in demolishing his kook nonsense, statement by statement, with
> >> citation to the relevant evidence.
> >>
> >> My refutation of his silliness is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE...
> >
> >Except it was refuted.
> By who? CITE THE POST WHERE THIS POST REFERENCED WAS "REFUTED."
>
> But you can't... you're lying again.

I already cited the original thread. You deleted it.

>
> You didn't respond to it, and no-one who *did* respond offered any
> substantive argument.
> >> and
> >> Hucktster has simply refused to reply AT ALL to my demolishing of each
> >> and every one of his lies in that post.
> >
> >I responded in the original thread.
> CITE THAT RESPONSE!!!

I already cited the original thread. You deleted it.

>
> But you can't... you're lying again.
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
> >>
> >> This is a perfect demonstration of Huckster Sienzant's cowardice &
> >> dishonesty.
> >
> >No, that's a repost by you. It's an example of your "cowardice and dishonesty"

No, that's a repost by you. It's an example of your "cowardice and dishonesty"

Here's the original thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ

You reposted some stuff and ignored the original thread.

> I invite anyone to do a seach, and find ANY earlier example of the
> first statement: "Hank, what was his motivation for being such a
> liar?" to be found in this forum.
>
> The FIRST time it appears is in my FIRST post on Aug 26th.
>
> You're a proven liar... yet again.
>
> My post was NEVER POSTED ANYWHERE prior to that date, and the cited
> post cannot *POSSIBLY* be a "repost."

Again, I posted my rebuttals in the original thread. I'm under no obligation to chase you around and rebut everything you post everytime you post.

>
> Watch folks, as Huckster CANNOT cite a prior example of that post.
>
> Anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
> >Here's the original thread:
> >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ
> >
> >You reposted some stuff and ignored the original thread.
> You're lying again, Huckster.

Ad hominem and begged question logical fallacies.

> >> I look forward to seeing him post such nonsense in the future.

It's still a Begged question logical fallacy. Exactly as I stated the first time. You don't establish your claims by merely repeating them.

[Hank Sienzant]

Already supported it. You deleted my point.

Hank Sienzant's profile photo
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2021, 5:46:27 PM (24 hours ago)
to

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:53:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
> >> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
> >>>
> >>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
> >>> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
> >>> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
> >>> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
> >>> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
> >> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
> >> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
> >> offered me the same courtesy.
> >
> > I'm calling BS on that.
> Then all you need to do is produce the first post of mine that called
> you "Huckster" - and demonstrate that you didn't, just previously,
> call me something other than my real name.

First off, exactly as I stated, Ben deletes a lot of my point and doesn't bother to respond to the point made. He then utilizes logical fallacies to make it appear I have something to establish.

Here he's utilizing the shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. Ben claimed that he never ever referred to someone by other than their posted name if they offered Ben the same courtesy. So let's see that post where you called me Huckster for the first time and cite the post immediately before that where I called you by other than Ben Holmes. Got one?


>

> That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
> a lie if it were true.
>
> Just to help you out, here it is:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
>
> Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'

Negative, Ben. I already explained that. I said, on Amazon, as a reference to the famous fictional detective invented by A.Conan Doyle, something like "How do you explain that one, Holmes?" (and this was in a response to another poster entirely). You jumped in to proclaim I didn't even know who I was responding t, that you didn't write the post. I explained patiently what I meant.

I even brought it up here, and pointed out your perfidy again:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/_Kwxb5fnAAAJ

and repeated that point a few posts later.

After that, you still called me Henry here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ

But eventually you realized you could up the ante, pretending my reference to "No shit, Sherlock" was directed at you and I wasn't using your first name correctly. That's when you started calling me Huckster.

It's all BS by you. I never referenced you as anything but Ben. You were looking for an excuse to start calling me names, and you had to take one statement where I summarized a point directed to someone else on another forum and pretend it was directed at you.

Let me add this: Ben is pretending any reference to Sherlock Holmes must be a reference to him, and therefore, since I mentioned Sherlock Holmes, I called him by something other than his name. He is effectively denying the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a fictional detective, much as Mark Lane effectively denied the existence of echoes in talking about what some witnesses named as the source of the shots.

His argument is a joke, as Lane's argument is a joke.

> >> That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
> >> a lie if it were true.
> >>
> >> Just to help you out, here it is:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
> >>
> >> Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'
> >
> >Negative, Ben.
> I cited. You lose.

You cited my explanation of why you were wrong.

Again, and this is not for you, because we both know you will delete it, but:

It's all BS by you. I never referenced you as anything but Ben. You were looking for an excuse to start calling me names, and you had to take one statement where I summarized a point directed to someone else on another forum and pretend it was directed at you.

Let me add this: Ben is pretending any reference to "Sherlock Holmes" must be a reference to himself, "Ben Holmes", and therefore, since I mentioned "Sherlock Holmes" in a post on Amazon, I called Ben by something other than his name. He is effectively denying the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a fictional detective, much as Mark Lane effectively denied the existence of echoes in talking about what some witnesses named as the source of the shots.

We both know you have no reason to call me anything but Hank, but you do persist in the name-calling anyway.

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:17:49 AM UTC+11, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

> Careful, there, Parker. Ben is a bad ass. If you step over the line, he'll spank you with Mark Lane and stuff.

All good, He and Hank are having a wrestling match which conveniently allows both to avoid what Hank started here.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 5:51:19 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 2:17:49 AM UTC+11, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:





> All good, He and Hank are having a wrestling match which conveniently allows both to avoid what Hank started here.

Says Parker while he ignores my total destruction of him on all points as posted in my last comment...


(Greg is an uncredible troll)...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:24:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 6:31:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 14:20:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2021 10:53:18 -0800 (PST), "healyd...@gmail.com"
>>>> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Top Posy ONLY: I kinda like LFD as in Left for Dead... makes about
>>>>> as much sense as the Warren Commission Report of 1964. The debate is
>>>>> over, it has been over for years and years. Lone Nuts simply can't
>>>>> close this LHO did it by his lonesome deal
>>>>>
>>>>> Your argument is with Mark Lane Dudster... and you of all people
>>>>> can't argue with a lawyer, Regardless of how smart you THINK you are.
>>>>> You have neither the cred's or the brainpower to run over a
>>>>> knowledgeable critic. No one here does -- so, don't feel slighted.
>>>>
>>>> I consider just a few believers to be my equal in knowledge of the
>>>> evidence in this case, and in this forum, only Huckster makes the
>>>> list. (Although McAdams did in the past, and was just as provably a
>>>> liar and coward)
>>>
>>>And there's the ad hominem.
>> Tell us Huckster - does the word "liar" or "coward" have a meaning and
>> usage in the English language?
>>

>> Are those real concepts? Or only "ad hominem."
>

>You need to establish...


To whom?

>>>> (But I don't hold a candle to Mark Lane in depth of knowledge on this
>>>> case.)
>> LFD.
>>

>>>> But sadly, when Huckster shows his ignorance, he does so in a dramatic
>>>> fashion... such as the post he cited from another forum.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure he regrets pointing out that post... as I certainly would
>>>> never have seen it if Huckster didn't cite it here.
>>>>
>>>> I'd never seen him post such hogwash in this forum, and took great
>>>> delight in demolishing his kook nonsense, statement by statement, with
>>>> citation to the relevant evidence.
>>>>
>>>> My refutation of his silliness is ABSOLUTELY BEYOND ANY DISPUTE...
>>>
>>>Except it was refuted.
>>
>> By who? CITE THE POST WHERE THIS POST REFERENCED WAS "REFUTED."
>>
>> But you can't... you're lying again.
>
>I already cited the original thread. You deleted it.

You're lying again, Huckster...

It's a PROVABLE FACT that you've **NEVER** responded to that thread.

Anyone can click on the link seen below and note that there were only
two people who responded, neither one of them was you. And neither
whom "refuted" the post.

>> You didn't respond to it, and no-one who *did* respond offered any
>> substantive argument.
>>>> and
>>>> Hucktster has simply refused to reply AT ALL to my demolishing of each
>>>> and every one of his lies in that post.
>>>
>>>I responded in the original thread.
>>
>> CITE THAT RESPONSE!!!
>
>I already cited the original thread. You deleted it.

You're a gutless liar... as anyone can click the link below and see.

>> But you can't... you're lying again.
>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/EXgACefbH6Y/m/eXDKgyMGAwAJ
>>>>
>>>> This is a perfect demonstration of Huckster Sienzant's cowardice &
>>>> dishonesty.
>>>
>>>No, that's a repost by you. It's an example of your "cowardice and dishonesty"
>

>Here's the original thread:
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ

Nowhere in that thread is the post I cited.

Yet you claim that the post I cited was a "repost."

>> I invite anyone to do a seach, and find ANY earlier example of the
>> first statement: "Hank, what was his motivation for being such a
>> liar?" to be found in this forum.
>>
>> The FIRST time it appears is in my FIRST post on Aug 26th.
>>
>> You're a proven liar... yet again.
>>
>> My post was NEVER POSTED ANYWHERE prior to that date, and the cited
>> post cannot *POSSIBLY* be a "repost."
>
>Again, I posted my rebuttals in the original thread.

And *NONE* of your rebuttals explain why you lied about the Wade news
conference.

What was the question you asserted was asked at the beginning?


> I'm under no obligation to chase you around...


ROTFLMAO!!!

Lie again, moron, and claim that you have no obligation to support
YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

>> Watch folks, as Huckster CANNOT cite a prior example of that post.
>>
>> Anywhere, anytime, anyplace.
>>
>>>Here's the original thread:
>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/w-mE1Gs-aGc/m/xCzQx1obAgAJ
>>>
>>>You reposted some stuff and ignored the original thread.
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>>

>>>> I look forward to seeing him post such nonsense in the future.

And as I predicted, Huckster was unable to produce a prior post from
my citation... yet he claimed my cite was a "repost."

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:57:10 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:

> > Careful. You are one step away from claiming this is no different to
> > the Rorschach test known as Badge Man. It is VERY different. It is a
> > real person. A real person who stands out because he alone is
> > unidentified by the available documentation, unlike all others on
> > those steps.
> Careful - you're one step away from asserting I said something I've
> never said. I have strong objections to such. If you cross that
> line, you get the same treatment as *anyone* who does so.

Fuck off with your bullshit threats. I never puts any words in your mouth. You are simply assigning what I said to something it wa not aimed at. That has to be deliberate.

> I don't discuss or debate Badgeman for the reason I gave... honest
> people can view a film frame and come to different conclusions.

Badgeman is a bunch of nothing. There is no one there. It is false to equate that to a frame showing a real live flesh and blood person. What's more, Marina was sent the Darnell frame and without prompting, simpy said, "That's Lee".

> Honest people CANNOT deny that the FBI contradicted itself on the
> origin of the paper in the "paperbag."

Never said anything about the fucking paper bag. I agree. The FBI roduced contradictory eports. That has been known for a long long time and has made zero difference in this case. What do you claim it proves?

> > What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or
> > a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the
> > worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get
> > there.
> >
> >> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
> >>bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.
> >>
> >> Facts like those.
> >
> >"Facts like those" that have been debated ad infinitum without
> > resolution or concession.
> Sad to say, you're lying. You cannot produce **ANY** serious effort
> to claim that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, or the
> throat wound.

Fuck off. Not debating this crap. Take it to another thread. I dont care if "the prosector" stuck his cock in the the throat wound, or what else was done or wasn't done at the fucking autopsy. I am not David "the Body Sbatcher" Lifton. This debate is old and tired and useless in progressing the case an inch. Like it or not, this debate was lost ages ago, if not on the facts, then in the PR ring.

> Nor can you produce **ANY** serious effort to deny that the FBI was
> the author of the document I referred to.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>
> Be honest, step up to the plate, AND BE SPECIFIC. When you make
> claims you can't document, it's a lie. Plain and simple.

I never made any claims about any documents. This thread is not about them. Fuck off with them and start another thread.

> > Oswald was exactly what he claimed. A patsy. He had an alibi. Being on
> > the steps was it. A real invesrtigation would attempt to prove or
> > disprve that alibi, not twist part of it after Oswald's murder and
> > then deep-six the rest, which was the path they chose.
> I know that there are people who will debate this... I'm not one of
> them... for the reasons given above. *NOT* because it's true or not
> true.
> >> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.
> >
> > You are talking about WILD speculation. Not ALL speculation is wild. As above, it is an important part of any police plan to form speculations based on the available evidence, in order to progress toward th facts.
> >
> > You are apparently one of the many in this community who don't like having fantasies about solving the case and/or "proving" a conspiracy, undermined or sidelined. But here is the most important FACT of all/ The way forward is simple. Giving Oswald the Innocence Project treatmnent, When he is officially exonerated, the case is by default, back in open status. Proving a conspiracy does not exonerate Oswald. Showing his alibi is supported by other evidence does, and would be rock solid with clear frames from the orignal films. Or not. Because I know that there is that one in a million chance I'm wrong, and there actually was a random from the street stupid enough to stand in that spot.

> Be caueful what you claim I'm talking about. Many in this forum have
> learned the price of making baseless claims of what I've stated.

LOL

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:33:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 2:31:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 10:53:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT), John Burroughs
>>>> <stets...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 1:21:10 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> The members of this site aid Parker and his quitting and running when the evidence that refutes him demands answers...
>>>>>
>>>>> As a long time old Lurker, I would like to provide a couple
>>>>> observations I have made that I find distracting and unproductive.
>>>>> The following applies to several posters In no particular order:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Calling each other names other than their user name. I'm never
>>>>> sure who the comment is directed towards, plus it's very juvenile and
>>>>> off putting. Who is Huckster and other names for example.
>>>> Indeed, I'd be the first to agree. And *NOT A SINGLE TIME* have I
>>>> ever referred to someone other than their posted name as long as they
>>>> offered me the same courtesy.
>>>
>>> I'm calling BS on that.
>>
>> Then all you need to do is produce the first post of mine that called
>> you "Huckster" - and demonstrate that you didn't, just previously,
>> call me something other than my real name.
>>
>>

>> That's the nice thing about my assertions, you could easily prove them
>> a lie if it were true.
>>
>> Just to help you out, here it is:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ
>>
>> Although I kept deleting it, you kept slapping me with "Sherlock.'
>

>Negative...


Here it is again for lurkers to read:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:07:12 -0800 (PST), Greg Parker
<gparker...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:57:10 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>>> Careful. You are one step away from claiming this is no different to
>>> the Rorschach test known as Badge Man. It is VERY different. It is a
>>> real person. A real person who stands out because he alone is
>>> unidentified by the available documentation, unlike all others on
>>> those steps.
>>
>> Careful - you're one step away from asserting I said something I've
>> never said. I have strong objections to such. If you cross that
>> line, you get the same treatment as *anyone* who does so.
>
>Fuck off

And off to troll jail you go...

[Hank Sienzant]

That's Begged. The image doesn't establish it's a male person. In fact, some believe the image is female, correct?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the female most frequently suggested is Sarah Stanton?

Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.

Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.

> is
> > unidentified by the available documentation, unlike all others on
> > those steps.
> Careful - you're one step away from asserting I said something I've
> never said. I have strong objections to such. If you cross that
> line, you get the same treatment as *anyone* who does so.
>
> I don't discuss or debate Badgeman for the reason I gave... honest
> people can view a film frame and come to different conclusions.

Except it's not a film frame. It's a small area of a Polaroid photograph taken by Mary Moorman and blown up and colorized to make the image the creator wanted you to see. It's fanciful

>
> Honest people CANNOT deny that the FBI contradicted itself on the
> origin of the paper in the "paperbag."

Asked and answered elsewhere. Numerous times.

> > What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or
> > a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the
> > worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get
> > there.

Or some other Depository employee, even a female one. It's curious you left that possibility out of your choices, don't you think?

> >
> >> Or that anyone who claims the prosectors dissected the track of the
> >>bullet, or the neck wound isn't an outright liar.
> >>
> >> Facts like those.
> >
> >"Facts like those" that have been debated ad infinitum without
> > resolution or concession.
> Sad to say, you're lying. You cannot produce **ANY** serious effort
> to claim that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, or the
> throat wound.
>
> Nor can you produce **ANY** serious effort to deny that the FBI was
> the author of the document I referred to.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>
> Be honest, step up to the plate, AND BE SPECIFIC. When you make
> claims you can't document, it's a lie. Plain and simple.
> > Oswald was exactly what he claimed. A patsy. He had an alibi. Being on
> > the steps was it. A real invesrtigation would attempt to prove or
> > disprve that alibi, not twist part of it after Oswald's murder and
> > then deep-six the rest, which was the path they chose.
> I know that there are people who will debate this... I'm not one of
> them... for the reasons given above. *NOT* because it's true or not
> true.
> >> Speculation is a game best played by trolls.
> >
> > You are talking about WILD speculation. Not ALL speculation is wild. As above, it is an important part of any police plan to form speculations based on the available evidence, in order to progress toward th facts.
> >
> > You are apparently one of the many in this community who don't like having fantasies about solving the case and/or "proving" a conspiracy, undermined or sidelined. But here is the most important FACT of all/ The way forward is simple. Giving Oswald the Innocence Project treatmnent,

That's for living people who were convicted by a judge and jury at trial. Dead people don't get a trial because they are beyond the reach of justice. If found guilty, do we dig him up and execute him legally by lethal injection? What if he's found guilty but given a life sentence? Do we put in a jail cell next to or with a living prisoner? Or found innocent? Do we let him go free?

Your suggestion makes no sense.

> When he is officially exonerated, the case is by default, back in open status.

Begged question. You mean if, not when, and of course, the Innocence Project isn't going to waste their time on trying to free a dead guy in any case. That's not their mission.

https://innocenceproject.org/about/

Our Work
The Innocence Project's mission is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated, and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment.

> Proving a conspiracy does not exonerate Oswald. Showing his alibi is supported by other evidence does, and would be rock solid with clear frames from the orignal films. Or not. Because I know that there is that one in a million chance I'm wrong, and there actually was a random from the street stupid enough to stand in that spot.

What's stupid about it and how do you know it wasn't somebody else from the Depository?

After all Billy Lovelady and Wes Frazier and Sarah Stanton and others found the steps a good place to view the motorcade. Why wouldn't anyone else seek those steps to put them slightly above the crowd?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

not so sure how Parker's ROKC board expects to get the Kennedy case REopened?

Oswald was taken off the board, let his body tell the rest of the story. Sure are a lot of PR hounds out-n-about these days... lot's of theories and no cash to back them up.... The only successful one to emerge is Oliver Stone and he has the money folk and the writer(s) as in Jimmy DiEugenio and a few others that cut the grade...

makes absolutely no difference what DP film/picture anyone converses about and/or studiously studies, if ya can't determine and confirm the in-camera films lineage, those that pin their hopes on DP films-photos are bullshitting themselves and work on wishful thinking.. I think that was part of the original disinfo plan way back in the 60's begining with a best sellers Dallas imagery...

Mark Lane paid little heed to the "case imagery." And what he left behind proves still a tough contender...

Perhaps Brian Scrum Drum has rattled the downunder gang more than they realize...

[Hank Sienzant]

That was LBJ on the plane flight back from Dallas. At least per the Realist's Paul Krassner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Realist
"Krassner's most successful prank was The Parts That Were Left Out of the Kennedy Book, a grotesque article following the censorship of William Manchester's book on the Kennedy assassination, The Death of a President.[9] At the climax of the short story, Lyndon B. Johnson is on Air Force One sexually penetrating the bullet-hole wound in the throat of JFK's corpse.[9] Krassner acknowledged Marvin Garson, editor of the San Francisco Express Times and husband of Barbara Garson (author of the notorious anti-Johnson play MacBird! ), for coming up with that surreal image.[10] According to Elliot Feldman, "Some members of the mainstream press and other Washington political wonks, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, actually believed this incident to be true."[11] In a 1995 interview for the magazine Adbusters, Krassner commented: "People across the country believed – if only for a moment – that an act of presidential necrophilia had taken place. It worked because Jackie Kennedy had created so much curiosity by censoring the book she authorized – William Manchester's The Death of a President – because what I wrote was a metaphorical truth about LBJ's personality presented in a literary context, and because the imagery was so shocking, it broke through the notion that the war in Vietnam was being conducted by sane men.".[12]

In 1967, the Canadian campus newspaper The McGill Daily published an excerpt from Krassner's story. The Montreal police confiscated the issue and Rocke Robertson, principal of McGill University, charged student John Fekete, the supplement editor responsible for the publication, before the Senate Discipline Committee.[13]"

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Top Post Only: Cut to the chase: yep, I can hear it now, the courtroom Judge declaring that's a "begged" question. One can certainly understand the idea of actually prosecuting a case against LHO.... O-U-C-H!

[Hank Sienzant]

What part of "I referenced Sherlock Holmes" are you still pretending not to understand in what you're citing?

You're not Sherlock Holmes. Not not, not then. Not ever.

Here's what you deleted and ran from:

Negative, Ben. I already explained that. I said, on Amazon, as a reference to the famous fictional detective invented by A.Conan Doyle, something like "How do you explain that one, Holmes?" (and this was in a response to another poster entirely). You jumped in to proclaim I didn't even know who I was responding t, that you didn't write the post. I explained patiently what I meant.

I even brought it up here, and pointed out your perfidy again:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/_Kwxb5fnAAAJ

and repeated that point a few posts later.

After that, you still called me Henry here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/c88Jxa48yPE/m/htb-sZYkAgAJ

But eventually you realized you could up the ante, pretending my reference to "No shit, Sherlock" was directed at you and I wasn't using your first name correctly. That's when you started calling me Huckster.

It's all BS by you. I never referenced you as anything but Ben. You were looking for an excuse to start calling me names, and you had to take one statement where I summarized a point directed to someone else on another forum and pretend it was directed at you.

Let me add this: Ben is pretending any reference to Sherlock Holmes must be a reference to him, and therefore, since I mentioned Sherlock Holmes, I called him by something other than his name. He is effectively denying the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a fictional detective, much as Mark Lane effectively denied the existence of echoes in talking about what some witnesses named as the source of the shots.

His argument is a joke, as Lane's argument is a joke.

And you deleted this:

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:59:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

>What part of ...


Who are you trying to convince?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 6:47:19 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 3:05:47 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Two years ago, you wrote in a comment to the story cited in the link below:
> > “ 3. The weapons were ordered in the name of AJ Hidell. The only piece of evidence linking that name to Oswald as an alias was a fake Selective Srvice card in that name allegedly being carried by Oswald on the day, yet appearing in no photos taken of the material found on him and mentioned in none of the earliest reports by the arresting officers. There is in fact, no trace of this card existing until the following day. What made it an obvious fake was that it contained a passport photo of Oswald. Oswald would have known that these cards carried no such photo - as would most people. So as fake ID, it was totally and utterly useless. It;s ONLY utility was, as I said, linking Oswald to the use of the name as an alias - and thus to the weapons.”
> >
> > Here’s the link:
> >
> > https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/kennedy-assassination-sixth-floor-museum/
> >
> > Do you stand behind the above remarks?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hank
>
> Yes, Hank, I do.

That makes no sense. You said the card was the only thing linking him to the Hidell alias, but there's plenty of other evidence linking him to the Hidell alias.

>
> The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he "definitely had it".

You're stuck on the card. What about the other evidence?

>
> Jones denied remembering passing on any information about this card when questioned by the HSCA. Unless Jones had Alzheimer's in the late '70s, I would expect him to recall this vital piece of information.

Your expectations are not the standard here.

> After all, intelligence is all about knowing what information is vital and what isn't, and being able to memorize it.. So, imo, either the FBI lied or Jones did.

Your opinion is not the standard here either.

> But Dodd under questioning got Jones to admit that what he probably said to them was "An a Hidell". Or in full, that Oswald was connected in NO to "an A Hidell". Which of course fits with the known facts. No indication of Oswald using it as an alias himself.

What about the Flyers? Some are stamped with OSWALD, some with HIDELL. Both used the same rubber stamp kit Oswald owned.

> The person passing out the flyers at the dock where the Wasp was berthed for instance, was described by the police who escorted him out of the area as being years older and much heavier than Oswald. In fact, a similar description to the "suspect" in Dallas.

You mean like 30 and 165 or so?

That's exactly how Baker described him after the lunchroom encounter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191124022805/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair

> Those flyers were stamped A J Hidell and had an incorrect PO Box stamped on it.

Some of the flyers for the FPCC that Oswald distributed were stamped with HIDELL:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0242b.htm

Oswald owned PO Box 30061 in New Orleans. But many have suggested Oswald may have been dislexic.

> Oswald claimed he was then contacted by Hidell and asked to take over distribution.

Ted Bundy claimed he didn't kill anybody. Should we always take the word of the acccused? If not, when do we take it? When you think we should or is there some rule you can posit we should follow?

> Twp reams of flyers were then delivered to Oswald's address by an unknown Cuban and these were stamped with Oswald's name and home adress. Why,, it's as if Oswald didn't even know he had a PO Box!

Stamped using Oswald's stamp kit.

>
> Did the card exist? Yes it did.
>
> Did Oswald make it? Yes, he did.
>
> Did he make it for nefarious purposes? No he never.
>
> Did he put the name Hidell on it? Unlikely. More likely is that is why the card was not produced earlier. The police - who had there own photo lab - changed the name and number on it.

The name and number is typed on photographic stock. It's a poorly produced fake card.

When Oswald needed a vaccination certificate to get into Mexico, he produced his own and it was purportedly signed by "Dr. A. J. Hideel, Post Office Box 30016, New Orleans, LA." That was in Oswald's handwriting. He needed it stamped, so he used the bottom of a coffee can to make the raised impression. He put the name of Robert Hidell as a contact on one employment application and George Hidell on another. Quite simply, Oswald was using that fake name all over the place.

>
> So why did Oswald make the card? That was answered by his bosses as Jagger.
>
> Mr. GRAEF. I believe so; So I called--but to reiterate mainly our best source of employees has been the Texas Employment Commission. They have a larger pool to draw from, so I called--in the course of my dealing with them they have various departments and in the course of dealing with them, I became familiar with one person.
> Our particular photographic department is not one that we find experienced personnel readily, and the work we do is, I would say, quite different in various ways from ordinary photography, as most people know it. I will enlarge on that slightly by saying we do many, many things with letters. For example, we can take a straight line of type and we can curve it or bend it or twist it or put it in a circle, for example, and so, rather than just taking pictures of people as ordinary photographers do, this work which we perform for advertising agencies and artists in this area is a matter of training, learning first to use the equipment we have which takes some time, and then the differences in the material that we use.
>
> We see such attempts at learning how to curve numbers and lettering on the fake card in his own name. Anyone who has worked in such an environment will tell you that the most likely scenario is that Oswald would be shown how to use the equipment and then instructed to play around with it and get used to handling it. Those two cards, both initially in his own name, are the result.

Your "both initially in his own name" is merely your unproven conjecture. As is your allegation that the police changed anything on the card.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:47:18 -0800 (PST), Greg Parker
<gparker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then
> are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that
> the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was
> certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is
> something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible
> explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he
> "definitely had it".

This is also demonstrated by the fact that there was no confusion when
arrested - they knew that it was Oswald ... there was not even a HINT
of anyone saying: "Okay, who are you... Oswald or Hidell"

And yes... Huckster is well aware of these facts, and as you assert,
has no sensible explanation for these facts.

...



Notice folks - that Huckster read this, and promptly ran away...

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:46:16 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> > > Careful. You are one step away from claiming this is no different to
> > > the Rorschach test known as Badge Man. It is VERY different. It is a
> > > real person. A real person who stands out because he alone
> That's Begged. The image doesn't establish it's a male person. In fact, some believe the image is female, correct?

Not anyone with any cfedibility. That it was a female started as an April Fool's joke by Duncan McRae. He has openly admitted that (and indeed, he did post it first on April 1st. The ONLY person who bought it was Brian Doyle -who up until then, was adamaent that it was a male. He may have convinced a couple of others - but those few all have one thing in common - that all hate me and my forum, It is a campaign based on pre spite and an admitted joke.

If you think you see a 300 pound female in those images, you are either using those idiots who push that line in order to try and discredit something that exonerates Oswald, or you need tp get new glasses.

And in any case, as I said in a previous reply, Marina idemtified the figure as Lee.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the female most frequently suggested is Sarah Stanton?

Yes, it is. She was 300 pounds of blubber. Is that what you see?

>
> Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
>
> Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
> Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
> Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
> Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
> Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
> Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.

Except that Stanton never placed herself in that back corner. Neither did Lovelady

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.

You see what Ball did there don't you? Lovelady was about to name the person standing BEHIND him. It was NOT Stanton whom he had already named. Ball headed him and changed course before Lovelady could name that person. But before you get your knickers all knotted, I doubt he would have named Oswald - whether or not it WAS Oswald. He wasn;t that dumb. They all knew what was required. But Ball was obviously not going to take any chances.

> Except it's not a film frame. It's a small area of a Polaroid photograph taken by Mary Moorman and blown up and colorized to make the image the creator wanted you to see. It's fanciful

Exactly. And no different to what was done here to produce an alleged "female". It looks like a fucjing etchasketch.

> > > What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or
> > > a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the
> > > worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get
> > > there.
> Or some other Depository employee, even a female one. It's curious you left that possibility out of your choices, don't you think?

Not at all. We know where everyone in that building was because they were all specifically asked by the FBI. Everyone on the steps is known from those records. Except the person in the back corner who mysteriously, no one claimed to see.

What's more, the figure is OBVIOUSLY A WHITE MALE, dressed on worker's clithes and with a slight receding hairline. It can't be anyone who worke in that building EXCEPT Oswald - and we know from Hosty's interrogation notes that he place himeslf outside watching the parade. If you want to make the case that

It was Stanton (or any other female) you can join Doyle and be sidelined from further debate

If you want to make the argument that Marina was wrong and it a different MALE eemployee, name your possibilities.

If you want to make the argument that Marina was wrong and it was an unknown male from the street, explain why no one claimed to see any strangers that day (they were all specifically asked).

> > > You are apparently one of the many in this community who don't like having fantasies about solving the case and/or "proving" a conspiracy, undermined or sidelined. But here is the most important FACT of all/ The way forward is simple. Giving Oswald the Innocence Project treatmnent,

> That's for living people who were convicted by a judge and jury at trial. Dead people don't get a trial because they are beyond the reach of justice. If found guilty, do we dig him up and execute him legally by lethal injection? What if he's found guilty but given a life sentence? Do we put in a jail cell next to or with a living prisoner? Or found innocent? Do we let him go free?

The Innocence Project policies are as you claim. But they are only polices - not law. In any case, one of the things the Innocence Project does is review the police case and alibis. used. That can be done by anyone - as in say experienced lawyers,legal experts and forensic experts for a documentary. Whuch is why I said gibe him the Innocence Project TREATMENT - not give his case to the Innocence Project = although again - there is no legal bar to their involvement.

> Your suggestion makes no sense.

Yada yada yada. So say you. Yawn.

> > When he is officially exonerated, the case is by default, back in open status.
> Begged question. You mean if, not when, and of course, the Innocence Project isn't going to waste their time on trying to free a dead guy in any case. That's not their mission.
>
> https://innocenceproject.org/about/

Than you Professor! The Innocence Project has already involvement. Very quietly, on a project by others. It got nowhere because of what these "ohers" were trying to do - but that's a whole different kettle of fish and has little in common with NY aims.

> Our Work
> The Innocence Project's mission is to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated, and to bring reform to the system responsible for their unjust imprisonment.

What IS funny is that the FBI used Oswald's murder as a civil rights violation in order to insert itself into the investigation. So in effect, a civil rights violation is now the excuse to withhold help with another civil rights violation - a post-mortem trial by kangaroo court where none of the nceties and checks and balances of a cpurt room were allowed,

Talk about a screwed up system... But I am glad you seem to be aware of the work of the Innocence Project and the reason it exists.

Too bad it wasn't around in the 1950s. This poor vicim of Frtz and Wade may be still alive and living as a free man now...
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

> > Proving a conspiracy does not exonerate Oswald. Showing his alibi is supported by other evidence does, and would be rock solid with clear frames from the orignal films. Or not. Because I know that there is that one in a million chance I'm wrong, and there actually was a random from the street stupid enough to stand in that spot.

> What's stupid about it and how do you know it wasn't somebody else from the Depository?

As I have said, we know who everyone is on the steps from testimony and other stamements - except the person no one claimed to see. That solitary figure in the back corner.

> After all Billy Lovelady and Wes Frazier and Sarah Stanton and others found the steps a good place to view the motorcade. Why wouldn't anyone else seek those steps to put them slightly above the crowd? Frazier was 6 feet tall at least, and had no wall blocking his view.

The back corner was not an okay spot. You had others in front, and a wall to contend with blocking view, Frazier was at least 6 feet tall and had no wall to contend with and Lovelady couldn't have seen too much because he had to be told that Kennedy had been shot.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

A wrestling match? More like a couple of crack whores fighting over who gets to clean the pipe.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:31:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:47:18 -0800 (PST), Greg Parker
> <gparker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then
> > are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that
> > the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was
> > certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is
> > something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible
> > explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he
> > "definitely had it".
> This is also demonstrated by the fact that there was no confusion when
> arrested - they knew that it was Oswald ...

The Oswald ID looked real. The Hidell ID looked fake. Which would you believe was his real name?

> there was not even a HINT
> of anyone saying: "Okay, who are you... Oswald or Hidell"

Except for the evidence to the contrary, you mean.
== quote ==
Mr. HILL. That was the second question that was asked the suspect, and he didn't answer it, either.
About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."
Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?
Mr. HILL. That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.
Mr. BELIN. Was this the first time you learned of the name?
Mr. HILL. Yes; it was.
== unquote ==

== quote ==
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of card it was?
Mr. WALKER. Just an identification card. I don't recall what it was.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. WALKER. And I told him, "That is your real name, isn't it?"
Mr. BELIN. He - had he earlier told you his name was Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. WALKER. I believe he had.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. WALKER. And he said, "No, that is not my real name."
== unquote ==

>
> And yes... Huckster is well aware of these facts, and as you assert,
> has no sensible explanation for these facts.

The only ones with no sensible explanation for that facts are CTs, as always.

> ...
>
>
>
> Notice folks - that Huckster read this, and promptly ran away...

Ad hominem.

This response is less than 12 hours after your post. You do appear to declare victory a lot, and way too soon as well.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 03:47:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 7:31:11 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:47:18 -0800 (PST), Greg Parker
>> <gparker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The card was not produced until Saturday. All we have before then
>>> are allusions to it in a small number of communications alleging that
>>> the card was mentioned by Col Jones to his FBI contact. There was
>>> certainly no mention of it by any of the arresting officers - which is
>>> something I am certain you have known for years and have no sensible
>>> explanation for except to shrug and claim it doesn't matter because he
>>> "definitely had it".
>>
>> This is also demonstrated by the fact that there was no confusion when
>> arrested - they knew that it was Oswald ...

Speculation removed.

>> there was not even a HINT
>> of anyone saying: "Okay, who are you... Oswald or Hidell"
>
>Except for the evidence to the contrary, you mean.

Nope.

>> And yes... Huckster is well aware of these facts, and as you assert,
>> has no sensible explanation for these facts.

[Steven Galbraith]

Both Paul Bentley, one of the detectives who brought Oswald in, and Gerald Hill who also was in the car, said Oswald was asked in the police car on the way to the police station whether his name was Oswald or Hidell. Hill said he was unsure exactly what the name was but it sounded like Hidell. Bentley said it was Hidell.

Bentley: "Shortly after we left the theater I took Oswald's wallet out of his left rear pocket which contained two or three identification cards. One of the names listed was Lee Harvey Oswald, the other was Hidell. When asked his real identity, his response was, "You find out the best you can!". source: "No More Silence".

Sgt. Hill: Mr. HILL. "About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."

Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?
Mr. HILL. That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.

Source: WC testimony.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 6:07:14 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 1:57:10 AM UTC+11, Ben Holmes wrote:
>

> Badgeman is a bunch of nothing. There is no one there. It is false to equate that to a frame showing a real live flesh and blood person. What's more, Marina was sent the Darnell frame and without prompting, simpy said, "That's Lee".

Greg talks to Ben because Ben doesn't challenge his bullshit as effectively as I do...Greg stopped talking to me and ran to Ben and others because Greg is used to simply banning and ignoring anyone who out-argues him...That is how he does "research"...He pronounces, uses wordsmithing to speak from authority, but then publicly runs from discussions where he has been clearly out-argued and lost...

Counter to popular opinion Badgeman is real...You can't have that many "hits" on glasses, badges, muzzle flash etc and it be a mirage...

Greg is just an outright liar...You can listen to the goofus Ed LeDoux's recorded phone call to Marina and she told him she hadn't even read that ROKC garbage book 'Prayer Man' Ed sent her...Any honest researcher who listens to LeDoux's conversation with Marina will instantly realize Marina thought she was being referred to the Cinque Doorway Man theory that she was familiar with from 1964...Ed knew it which is why he didn't question her more deeply to correct it and got off the phone before it could be clarified...Marina also said "Check out Billy Lovelady" when responding to what she thought was the Oswald in Altgens theory...What liars the ROKC people are and they will take any wisp of suggestion that Oswald was Prayer Man and turn it in to claims of fact...In the mean time they ignore/troll my evidence that has PROVEN Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton and only prove what a threat they are to good research...Marina being confused and saying it is Lee does not serve as replacement for showing Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens like the ROKC trolls still haven't done...


Because the JFK internet does not have any credible moderation the COINTELPRO tactic of the resident trolls aiding a person who has badly lost a debate on points by engaging them and therefore leading them away from the better debate is employed and that person is never held accountable for his bad claims...This site's trolls are helping bail Greg out from his resounding inability to answer my arguments...The Education Forum has also done that with Bart Kamp where they praise his work on Malcolm Blunts' archive while ignoring that he is a childish troll who refuses to admit the Prayer Man evidence...The get-out-of-bogus-research-card is a side benefit of clique membership...Greg gets a huge lift to his bogus research from James Gordon who bans anyone who violates Jim D's protection order for Parker because Gordon keeps Jim's butt crack well tended as is his servile role...This corrupted curve, along with DiEugenio's support of Parker, has led to Greg's BS being favored on the Education Forum...

[Steven Galbraith]

Among the possessions Oswald had on him when he was arrested in New Orleans was:

"4. Card for the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD signed by A. J. HIDELL, Chapter President, issued June 6, 1963.

Marina testified that she signed the Hidell name. However, Oswald told Harry Holmes, according to Holmes, that he never heard of this Hidell person.

From Holmes' testimony:
Holmes: "Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."

I guess Fritz et al. got lucky when they planted this Hidell card/name on Oswald. The name sure has an interesting history. Poor old Oswald had some bad luck. He was bringing curtain rods to work the same day someone stuck a rifle out the window and killed JFK. Then this card with the Hidell name? No wonder he hated America; everything was against him.

[Scrum Drum]

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 8:56:40 PM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 10:46:16 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:






> > That's Begged. The image doesn't establish it's a male person. In fact, some believe the image is female, correct?


> Not anyone with any cfedibility. That it was a female started as an April Fool's joke by Duncan McRae. He has openly admitted that (and indeed, he did post it first on April 1st. The ONLY person who bought it was Brian Doyle -who up until then, was adamaent that it was a male. He may have convinced a couple of others - but those few all have one thing in common - that all hate me and my forum, It is a campaign based on pre spite and an admitted joke.

Not "believe"...I have PROVEN Prayer Man is female...If you do credible analysis (something the hacks Parker, Kamp, and Murphy never did) you can see Prayer Man has a uniform-colored fabric from shoulder to knee...That uniform-colored fabric is Stanton's dress that goes from her shoulder to her knees...If it were Oswald you would see the color of his shirt broken by his belt and then a change to the color of the trousers...This alone disproves Greg's obvious bullshit...

Greg is a liar...First of all Greg has done nothing but lampoon MacRae on his ROKC website...However when he needs MacRae to push his Prayer Man lies now suddenly MacRae becomes an unquestionable source...Greg is a liar who bases his claims on misrepresenting situations and using dishonest wordsmithing to get out of evidence...The real truth about MacRae is I got him to go to the Education Forum 5-6 years ago and post Davidson's devastating enhancement that directly showed Stanton's female face on Prayer Man...There is no doubt that MacRae was backing Davidson as real and as proving Prayer Man was a female...Greg is just outright lying to you when he says MacRae meant it as a joke...MacRae was so sincere about it that when Gordon did his dirty moderating and suspended MacRae for posting proof that shot down his site's pet theory MacRae demanded all his posts be erased and quit the site...Greg is a liar because he conveniently forgot to mention to you that Davidson posted several times that his enhancement was genuine and that it showed the face of a woman...Davidson also posted his metadata proving that the image of Stanton's female face was gotten by means of legitimate scientific digital photo analysis process...This is how it works with these scumbags and trolls that have hijacked the JFK internet...A digital photo expert proving Prayer Man has a female face isn't good enough for them...All you are seeing is a sick pup using wordsmithing to convince himself that he hasn't been refuted...It is a good example of how the Prayer Man theory came to be in the first place...

> If you think you see a 300 pound female in those images, you are either using those idiots who push that line in order to try and discredit something that exonerates Oswald, or you need tp get new glasses.

In the thread where Greg openly cut and ran he posited that the women's wide hips on Prayer Man, that he admitted he could see, were due to Prayer Man being reflected in the front entrance glass divider therefore making the illusion that his girth was wider...This was obviously Greg's Rube Goldberg excuse for Prayer Man's wide women's hips that he knew he couldn't deny...For the last 6 years I have been pointing-out to Greg that photo science requires if Prayer Man's wide hips were due to Prayer Man being reflected in the glass that his most visible feature in the form of his white cheek would be the first thing that would reflect...If we go to Darnell we can see that there is no reflection of Prayer Man's cheek in the glass...Science requires that if the most reflective feature fails to reflect that therefore everything else will also fail to reflect so Greg's bullshit excuse is shot down...And this is where Greg jumps out of the debate and refuses to admit good arguments...He deals with it by ignoring the fact he's been out-argued and just repeats his same reflection BS because he is used to getting away with that on his censored troll farm...He also lies and says Prayer Man is leaning against the wall...Any simple photo analysis will show Prayer Man has turned and is facing Frazier in Darnell...Meanwhile out in the world of credible research the wide hips, fat forearm, and hand all show direct evidence of Stanton's obese features on Prayer Man...Not to mention Stanton's exact 5 foot 4 height that Greg conveniently doesn't mention...In the world of popularity research you can just ignore skilled evidence and refer to your friends...The assholes on the Education Forum simply ignore all this and pretend they don't see it...Greg is never held accountable for his idiotic claims and they then enter regressive posts that totally ignore my evidence (Thanks to the asshole James Gordon who moderates backwards)...Weeks later Greg is then given the nod by that group of crooks...

> > Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.

Greg & Gordon have literally retarded the progress of the evidence on the JFK internet...Because we are forced by cowardly banning to only see Greg's dishonest repetition of his debunked points we fail to discuss that Lovelady probably saw Oswald up in the 2nd floor Lunch Room just like Stanton and Arnold...We know Lovelady was corrupted and did not tell the truth in his witnessing because we know he lied about seeing Oswald exit through the front door...We can extrapolate this to his description of going outside to lunch...Even Greg admits this because his bogus Prayer Man claim requires Lovelady to cover-up his alleged witnessing of Oswald as Prayer Man...Because of Greg's dumb-down hijacking and ignoring of evidence we don't discuss things like Lovelady failing to mention Dougherty in the Domino Room because he did not want to lead investigators to Dougherty and his witnessing of Oswald eating in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...This is high quality material that belongs on the Education Forum...It is kept off of that forum by a vindictive booby named James Gordon...Gordon is a fool who bans he who offers the best cutting edge progressive material and protects idiot hacks...Gordon should be booted off that board, not me...

> >
> > Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
> > Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
> > Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.

This is regressive to Greg's failure to show Stanton to Frazier's left in Wiegman and Altgens...Those two photo sources are closest to the time in question when Stanton shifted over to the Prayer Man spot as confirmed by Lovelady when he said "Stanton was next to me over on the far right of the entranceway"...Please take note that Greg ignores this...

> >
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
> > Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
> > Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.
> Except that Stanton never placed herself in that back corner. Neither did Lovelady

Frazier is referring to Gloria Calvery...Greg doesn't mention Gloria Calvery because he knows she is on the steps with Carol Reed in Darnell...Greg avoids this because he knows that once you identify Calvery on the steps in Darnell then that calibrates Darnell to Frazier's statement that Stanton turned to him to tell him what Calvery shouted...Frazier said Stanton told me "I think she said the president has been shot"...Greg dishonestly ignored my proof that we can see Prayer Man turn from facing forward in Wiegman to facing Frazier in Darnell...And in doing so Prayer Man makes the exact turn at the exact time that Frazier described Stanton as making in order to tell him what Calvery had shouted...Greg needs to ignore this because it is damning proof...Davidson discovering Stanton's face on Prayer Man only furthers its damning-ness...This, of course, is not good enough for Greg and the assholes on the EF and they ignore it...

>
> Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
> Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.
> Mr. BALL - What is the first name?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley.
> Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name?
> Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton.
> Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps
> Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
>
> You see what Ball did there don't you? Lovelady was about to name the person standing BEHIND him. It was NOT Stanton whom he had already named. Ball headed him and changed course before Lovelady could name that person. But before you get your knickers all knotted, I doubt he would have named Oswald - whether or not it WAS Oswald. He wasn;t that dumb. They all knew what was required. But Ball was obviously not going to take any chances.

Greg is a liar because he knows damned-well that Lovelady cleared this up at the HSCA and told them he was about to name Frazier as the person behind him...Greg is such a lying bullshit artist and con man that he tries to make you forget that you can see Frazier behind Lovelady in the photographic images...Greg dishonestly avoids admitting that Lovelady named those to his left, behind him, and to his right in order in that statement and that they went: Shelley to his left, Frazier behind, and Stanton in the only remaining spot to his right - and low and behold that's what we see in the images...

Keep in mind that while Greg tries to make you keep your eye on the hand with the cards in it he fails to mention that the image that shows the time period that Lovelady was talking about in this witnessing is Altgens and Greg has failed to show Stanton to Frazier's left in that clear image...

>And no different to what was done here to produce an alleged "female". It looks like a fucjing etchasketch.

Don't get sucked in to Greg's ROKC mockery trolling...On a scientific basis ALL the Prayer Man images possess enough valid data to prove Prayer Man is Stanton...Davidson proved this beyond a doubt when he used those images to show Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man...When Davidson posted his metadata proving this Greg and his trolls ignored it as did the assholes on the Education Forum that are getting away with the murder of calling themselves serious researchers...Greg is just an Alex Jones-type who will promote what he knows to be false evidence to keep from admitting his Prayer Man bullshit was exploded in his face by myself...

> > > > What is a fact is that the person in the corner is either Oswald or
> > > > a random from the street who decided that he was going to stand in the
> > > > worst viewing spot possible - and elbow his way through a crowd to get
> > > > there.

You can't show Stanton to Frazier's left in Altgens and when asked to do so publicly quit and ran...Sarah proved she was Prayer Man when she said she could not see the limousine at the time of the shots...The west wall of the portal is blocking Prayer Man's view of the limo...

> > Or some other Depository employee, even a female one. It's curious you left that possibility out of your choices, don't you think?
> Not at all. We know where everyone in that building was because they were all specifically asked by the FBI. Everyone on the steps is known from those records. Except the person in the back corner who mysteriously, no one claimed to see.

You're a liar Greg and you are publicly ignoring Frazier's description of Sarah turning to him and staring at him in shock for the longest time...This is exactly what Prayer Man is doing in Darnell and it proves Prayer Man is Stanton since you can't show her to Frazier's left...Your research method is to ignore sound proof and then return to your censorship forums and their constituency in order to repeat your refuted claims...You are taking full advantage of the JFK internet popularity contest that they call research...

>
> What's more, the figure is OBVIOUSLY A WHITE MALE, dressed on worker's clithes and with a slight receding hairline. It can't be anyone who worke in that building EXCEPT Oswald - and we know from Hosty's interrogation notes that he place himeslf outside watching the parade. If you want to make the case that

Greg is contemptuously ignoring the full case of evidence I have presented that Oswald was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...Greg ignores that Hosty's notes are right in the same chronological sequence as Bookhout's and Fritz's that start at the 2nd floor Lunch Room encounter 90 seconds after the shots...Kamp's Hosty notes claim is just the Prayer Man nuts desperately trying to force any wisp of evidence in the Prayer Man direction...Oswald cannot be out on the front steps if Stanton heard him say he intended to go back in to the Break Room and if Carolyn Arnold saw him in there shortly after...And this is without involving all my other proof that Prayer Man is Stanton...It can't be Oswald if Prayer Man is wearing a dress and has a woman's face...

>
> It was Stanton (or any other female) you can join Doyle and be sidelined from further debate

Translation: " We JFK internet hijackers use scumbag mods to censor and ban anyone who out-argues us and we then ignore their good proof "...

Trolling Greg is using wording to pretend he is in a position of authority and is the greater force by which others are "side-lined" (cowardly censored)...He does this in order to avoid being seen as the laughable out-argued blowhard he is who is used to getting away with that on his ROKC troll farm...

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:24:54 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > Do you stand behind the above remarks?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Hank
> >
> > Yes, Hank, I do.
> That makes no sense. You said the card was the only thing linking him to the Hidell alias, but there's plenty of other evidence linking him to the Hidell alias.

If you think there is other tangible evidence, please share. Don;t be bashful and don't try and shift your burdon onto me.

Warren Commission testimony to the effect that Oswald had a Hidell card on his person is meaningless in the absence of yjpse same wotnesses confirming any such thing in earlier statements. And please do not give any horsehit about statements just being a brief incomplete snapshot. That kind of horseshit was buried along with McAans.

We aso have an FBI agent listing it as being in Oswald's wallet on the evening of Nov 22. Trouble is, it not shown in any photos of the wallet contents or listed in other lists.

The fact remains that there was neber any suggestion coming from New Orleans police or FBI that "Hidell" was an Oswald alias. There was never a hint of it being an alias untu the handwritten FBI notes mistook "an A Hidell" initially as reading "Ana Hidell" and when that didn't pan out, as "AKA Hidell" which stuck bcause it was desparately needed to stick once it was known the weapons were ordered in that name. But in the end, what the notes actually said was "An A Hidell" in terms that suggested Hidell as an ossociate of Oswald.

> You're stuck on the card. What about the other evidence?

You keep talking about "other" evidence without actually laying that "other' evidence out. O'm begining to suspect you know that this "other evidence" is total crap.

> > Jones denied remembering passing on any information about this card when questioned by the HSCA. Unless Jones had Alzheimer's in the late '70s, I would expect him to recall this vital piece of information.
> Your expectations are not the standard here.
> > After all, intelligence is all about knowing what information is vital and what isn't, and being able to memorize it.. So, imo, either the FBI lied or Jones did.
> Your opinion is not the standard here either.

No, tat is not my opinion. Look up the purpose of intelligence" for youtself. Intel that is collected needs to be parsed and then passed...

> > But Dodd under questioning got Jones to admit that what he probably said to them was "An a Hidell". Or in full, that Oswald was connected in NO to "an A Hidell". Which of course fits with the known facts. No indication of Oswald using it as an alias himself.

> What about the Flyers? Some are stamped with OSWALD, some with HIDELL. Both used the same rubber stamp kit Oswald owned.

The ones stamped Hidell were the omes handed out on the Dock where th Wasp was berthed. That person was escorted off the dock by a cop who gave a descriptiion that was NOT Oswald. When Oswald took over, they were the stamped with his name. A logical and flowing sequence of events supported by the change in name on the flyers, an UnOswald description of the person handing out the Hidell flyers, Oswald's own version of events that Hidell contacted him through the mail and asked him to take over the distributio, followed by a five or six inch pile of flyers delivered to Oswald which equals about 2 reams worth, a ream equalling 500 and with 2 reams being the number ordered from Jones Printing in May by someone calling themselves Osborne and again. not being described as looking anything like Oswald. I thought your Nutters prefered nice, neat flowing and logical sequences like that?

> > The person passing out the flyers at the dock where the Wasp was berthed for instance, was described by the police who escorted him out of the area as being years older and much heavier than Oswald. In fact, a similar description to the "suspect" in Dallas.
> You mean like 30 and 165 or so?
>
> That's exactly how Baker described him after the lunchroom encounter.

Who is the "him" that Baker was describing having seem on the 3rd or 4th floor landing? Oswald was sittng in the same small interview room while Baker was giving his affidavit - a fact I am sure you are aware of. Not a peep from Baker that he was the guy, Despite being about to eyeball the skinny runt, he still described as 20 pounds too heavy and 6 years too old.

Go back nearly 20 years. I am sure we have had this debate before. And here you are stll bringing up the same discredited bullshit.

> Oswald owned PO Box 30061 in New Orleans. But many have suggested Oswald may have been dislexic.

That was the diagnosis of Dr Rome - a CIA affiliated doc hired by the WC to give a diagmosis based solely on Oswald's written words.

It is the most comical diagnosis in history.

Dyslexia is a READING disorder. Sufferers AVOID rading because of it. OSwld wasa prolific reader.

> > Oswald claimed he was then contacted by Hidell and asked to take over distribution.
> Ted Bundy claimed he didn't kill anybody. Should we always take the word of the acccused? If not, when do we take it? When you think we should or is there some rule you can posit we should follow?

Logical fallacy. You are saying if one dog bites you, all dogs must bite you.

When do we take th word of the accused? When other evidence supports it, or where no eidence contadicts it. Which is the whole purpose of a frame - to create evidence discrediting the accused.

Otherwise you are dragging us back to the Salem Witch trials when the accusation was sacrosanct and unimpeachable and the only way of proving innocence was via a failure to float when tied up and throw in the water.

Here, you have an alleged communist being accused of the assassination of the leader of the Free World - and being accused not by those who play fair when it comes to the law, but by a bunhj of rednecks now known for framing innocent people to iinflate their reputations and egos. nd that was in turn being supported by the FBI and other federa agencies through a false claim that blaming anyone but a lone nut would trigger Armageddon.

> > Twp reams of flyers were then delivered to Oswald's address by an unknown Cuban and these were stamped with Oswald's name and home adress. Why,, it's as if Oswald didn't even know he had a PO Box!
> Stamped using Oswald's stamp kit.

Stamped with a 98 cnt stamp kit that anyone could have owned and used. Don;t lie Hank. It was not rraced to any particular kit.

> The name and number is typed on photographic stock. It's a poorly produced fake card.

Yes, Exactly, Dif you miss the reason he was goten rid of nby the comapny? I believe it was because his wprk was of poor quality. Or at least, that was the testimony,

> When Oswald needed a vaccination certificate to get into Mexico, he produced his own and it was purportedly signed by "Dr. A. J. Hideel, Post Office Box 30016, New Orleans, LA." That was in Oswald's handwriting. He needed it stamped, so he used the bottom of a coffee can to make the raised impression. He put the name of Robert Hidell as a contact on one employment application and George Hidell on another. Quite simply, Oswald was using that fake name all over the place.

It really does not say Dr Hideel. The first "l" just has an unusually last loop. But that certificate was not made by Oswald, nor was it needed, since he never went to Mexico.

As for handwriting "experts" - it is now admitted that it's early absolutist principles are just so much hooey; And analyzzing signatures in particular,is frought with traps that wre not avoided by the FBI in 1964. First of all, they treated the "hidell" signatures as if it was just another signature analysis. It wasm't. Since "Jidell was not Oswald's name, but it was allegedly a signature and signatures are highly stylized forms of writing, you really do need plenty of known exanples of Oswald signing as "Hidell" in order to make a proper comparison, Wat was done here by the FBI iwas ess than meaningless. It was fraudulent.

Of course, if they really thought they could compare someone's normal writing to a stulized signature in another name, they did have one such example from Marina who claimed she signed the name Hidell on Oswald's FPCC card at his insistence. Firstly, if he wanted all the Hidell sigsnatures to match, why sign he vaccine cerificate himself? Why didm't the FBI compare Marina's signature of Hidell on the FPCC card to the vaccine card.

It is YOUR evidence that makes no sense.

> > So why did Oswald make the card? That was answered by his bosses as Jagger.
> >
> > Mr. GRAEF. I believe so; So I called--but to reiterate mainly our best source of employees has been the Texas Employment Commission. They have a larger pool to draw from, so I called--in the course of my dealing with them they have various departments and in the course of dealing with them, I became familiar with one person.
> > Our particular photographic department is not one that we find experienced personnel readily, and the work we do is, I would say, quite different in various ways from ordinary photography, as most people know it. I will enlarge on that slightly by saying we do many, many things with letters. For example, we can take a straight line of type and we can curve it or bend it or twist it or put it in a circle, for example, and so, rather than just taking pictures of people as ordinary photographers do, this work which we perform for advertising agencies and artists in this area is a matter of training, learning first to use the equipment we have which takes some time, and then the differences in the material that we use.
> >
> > We see such attempts at learning how to curve numbers and lettering on the fake card in his own name. Anyone who has worked in such an environment will tell you that the most likely scenario is that Oswald would be shown how to use the equipment and then instructed to play around with it and get used to handling it. Those two cards, both initially in his own name, are the result.

> Your "both initially in his own name" is merely your unproven conjecture. As is your allegation that the police changed anything on the card.

I note you are ot refuting that he was told to familiarize himself with the equipmemt - or that the cards most likely are a result of that training regine - which for a company like this would be a quick run through of operation followed by the oder to "play around with it and get the hang of it.

But yes you are right. It is my conjecture that both cards initially had the name Oswald That conjecture is based on the fact that no one claimed he had cards showing anything different to his real name. Futheer, there is zero evidence of him using that card as ID anywhere - or that he ever represented himself as Hidell in any way at any time. The evidence is clear that someone else was using that name in NO.

Here is th Oswald fake card showing a failed attempt to curve text for a fake stamp. Curving the text was one of the tasks spedicied by Graef in testmony as one of the things Oswald was required to learn.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/DBAAAOSwGD1cCs2V/s-l400.jpg

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 10:10:52 AM UTC-5, gparker...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:24:54 AM UTC+11, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Hank and Steven are helping walk Greg around the Prayer Man and Lunch Room evidence I completely shredded Greg over...Hank, Steven, and Greg are all muck-stirrers and water-muddiers...Hank offers the worthless wheel-spinning Greg requires that allows him to hide his bogus claims inside the confusion and cover of the bloviating pissing contest his lunatic claims require as a medium...Greg avoids my posts because they don't let him get away with this dishonest approach and force him to answer to firm evidence that disproves his BS...

Greg is a coward who appoints special rules for himself simply by pronouncing them...He has pronounced that he is no longer going to answer my destructions of his ROKC bullshit and has dishonestly phrased it as being because of my failure not his...Because of this Greg has self-excused himself from honestly accounting for the fact that I have proven beyond a doubt that Lumpkin could not be "THE" cop who Mrs Garner saw with Truly...What this means is Greg has failed to account for Mrs Garner's witnessing and its significance towards Harvey & Lee...Greg is intellectually atropied because for years he has tuned his muscles to simply ignoring that which he can't answer over on his ROKC troll farm so he expects that advantage out here in the real fair playing field world where he doesn't have the banning button to defend his lies...By failing to name "THE" cop who Mrs Garner saw with Truly therefore Greg defaults and yields that the only cop it could possibly be in that time slot is the cop who all the multiple witnesses said it was - Baker...This makes the Lunch Room encounter real and backed up by witnesses and therefore validates my Lobby scenario that Greg couldn't answer and responded to with booby ignoring...

Greg is a coward and he is openly running in public from the simple point that Altgens fails to show Stanton to Frazier's left as the Prayer Man crazies are contending...Nuts like Bart Kamp spent considerable effort in their lie that Stanton was over to Frazier's left...Kamp is so dumb and so driven by deceit that he failed to realize that he was contending that Stanton was 3 steps down while also saying at the same time Stanton was to Frazier's left...The assholes at Parker's ROKC forum don't bother with details like that because they are too busy trolling and "think-outside-the-box" Parker doesn't hold them accountable...

So we can run a very simple credibility test past Parker that would be done to anyone in any situation on the Education Forum...We can ask him to please openly and honestly answer why he and his website cannot give any answer at all as to why Stanton does not appear to Frazier's left in Altgens?...It is a simple question that shouldn't be difficult to answer if Greg is as credible as he sells himself with his pompous puffery sans substance...After all, a person with the credibility to ban and ignore should be able to answer a simple question - right?...This question also includes Wiegman that shows the exact same scene seen in Altgens at the exact same time from a 90 degree angle and therefore shows the spots in Altgens that are blocked by those standing on the steps...Please go to Greg's ROKC troll farm and read the idiotic juvenile responses this simple question provokes...In 6 years not one of those censorship-protected trolls has managed to give a straight answer to this...Why does Greg need the dishonesty and ignoring of the Education Forum to protect him from answering this?...

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:



So here we are again with Greg Parker scooting out from under bad claims he couldn't account for and cutting and running...Greg and his Prayer Man mob are allowed to practice a parallel corrupted form of research where they simply stop responding when you nail them on their bogus claims...Where we left off was Greg tried to lie and say the cop Miss Garner said she saw emerge on the 4th floor landing was Lumpkin but any simple reading of the Warren Commission interviews shows that Lumpkin went to Parkland Hospital before returning back to the Book Depository...That means Lumpkin couldn't have been the person seen by Miss Garner because he couldn't have gotten back to the Depository until at least 20 minutes after the shots...Greg is a silly liar who is supported by the nuts over on his ROKC troll farm...What makes Greg's lie even more egregious is the fact Barry Ernest makes it more than clear that the time window for Miss Garner's witnessing was around 2 minutes after the shots...Greg tried to pass-off something that was 20 minutes after the shots in order to lie and deny something that was well established to be 2 minutes after the shots...When I called him on it he ignored it and was then helped to switch the subject by this site's resident trolls...That's what Greg does...Because he is an arrogant crook who is used to banning people who out-argue him on his ROKC troll farm he thinks the whole world is his website and when he gets nailed he can just ignore it...Later Jim DiEugenio will give Parker the nod when he is at a safe distance because of banning and doesn't have to answer for Greg's obvious mendacity...

Where we are is Greg's failure therefore reaffirms the fact that Miss Garner saw Baker & Truly around 2 minutes after the shots...Therefore when Garner saw Baker & Truly head up to the 5th floor that proves that Bonnie Ray Williams saw Baker's helmet arise above the boxes in synch with the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter being real...Parker can't account for the evidence and when you post it clearly and ask him to answer it he cuts and runs ever time...The JFK research community then practices a self-indicting, dysfunctional, backwards form of rigor by assisting Greg in this self-destructive dishonesty...These people watch Greg doing this, don't say a fucking word, and remain silent, therefore assisting Greg Parker in his open destruction of credible JFK research...So while all these facts are proven in public for anyone to see, that community then responds by defying them in contempt, ignoring them, and then coming in on Parker's side like a gang of schoolyard bullies...This unholy corruption of proper research methods is then signed-off on by James Gordon who makes his moderation travesty services available to this dishonest gang...

What Greg has made clear with his cowardly cutting and running is I have proven the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter was real...I am upset that Barry Ernest showed poor research skills by saying on Black Op Radio that Oswald went from the 1st floor up to the 2nd floor Lunch Room...I have posted enough on Ernest's Facebook page, that Oswald was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room the whole time and never went up from the 1st floor, for Ernest to know better...But in any case, when debating the dubious Greg Parker source of these bogus Prayer Man claims directly I have proven that Oswald was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room and that the 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter was real and backed by the evidence...You can see the idiots on the Education Forum ignoring this and allowing credulous researchers like Stancak and Doudna to suggest Oswald was Prayer Man...As I have proven, they, like Greg Parker, have to use dirty moderation to ignore good evidence...The current JFK research community on the internet attacks and bans skilled research that progresses the evidence and protects bogus research from dubious internet hacks...

So what this shows is Parker has still failed to answer for the two stops of Oswald I have proven...One in the Lobby and one in the 2nd floor Lunch Room...And in this evidence is proof of Armstrong's two Oswalds being in the Depository and covered-up by the Commission...

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:15:14 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:05:47 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Parker is a world class coward because he is over on ROKC repeating the false claim that Lumpkin was the cop that Miss Garner saw with Truly...When I told Parker that Lumpkin went to Parkland after the assassination before coming back to the Depository, and that trip had to take 20 minutes, Parker ignored it and left the debate...You see Parker is a coward who is used to ignoring people who out-argue him because he is used to posting at his own ROKC website where he bans anyone who out-argues him...

Parker failed to answer that it is well-known that Miss Garner had made it more than clear that Truly and "THE" cop (meaning Baker) had come up fairly quickly after Adams & Styles descended...No person who was honestly trying to understand the evidence would ever argue that Garner was speaking about 20 minutes after the shots...Garner made it clear she was talking about the 2 minute time window when Baker & Truly emerged on to the 4th floor landing...Greg knows he is lying because he cut and ran from this debate because he knew he wouldn't get away with it...How dare he insult the intelligence of the research community by trying to get away with that...However, out on the Prayer Man-hijacked internet they don't seem to mind...

I told Greg proof that I am correct is in the fact Miss Garner made it clear that the first people she saw shortly after Adams & Styles descended were Truly and "THE" cop (Baker)...This has to be true because Bonnie Ray Williams and the other workers descended to the 4th floor windows after Bonnie Ray saw the helmet arise above the boxes...We know that was only a couple of minutes after the shots and not 20...Parker is in contempt of the PROOF that if Lumpkin was the cop Garner was referring to that Garner would therefore have seen Bonnie Ray Williams arrive at the 4th floor windows as the first people she saw after Adams & Styles descended...This is unavoidable so what this contemptuous asshole Greg Parker is asking you to do is ignore firm timing evidence that easily refutes what he is saying...

Because Parker is a coward who retreats to his censorship-protected forum where he knows he won't be confronted by the truth, he avoids answering for this unavoidable evidence...It is more than clear from an honest appraisal of all this evidence that Bonnie Ray Williams saw Baker's helmet in synch with Baker going up to the 5th floor after Miss Garner saw him...Parker has the balls to play dumb and still re-enter that "THE" cop was Lumpkin and all this happened 20 minutes later...But go look at his posts and you will see he has never directly confronted the FACT that Lumpkin went to Parkland Hospital before going to the Depository...Parker stupidly ignores that the known triangulation between Adams & Styles, Miss Garner, and Bonnie Ray Williams conclusively excludes Lumpkin from being "THE" cop (Baker) whom Miss Garner saw emerge on the 4th floor landing shortly after Adams & Styles descended...

Greg is an asshole because he knows that Martha Stroud knew about Baker's 2nd floor Lunch Room Encounter by the time she wrote that letter in 1964...So therefore the specific wording "THE" cop was a direct and obvious reference to Baker whom Stroud knew was the officer in question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:52:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 7:47:05 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 11:04:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, November 5, 2021 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:05:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I find it amusing that the coward who refuses to support his own
>>>> claims when refuted by solid and irrefutable evidence has the courage
>>>> to *ask* a question for someone else to answer.
>>>
>>> I find it amusing ...
>>
>>
>> Who cares what liar & coward think?
>
> You do apparently...


You're confused. I don't care what you think, I merely point out your
cowardice & lying to others.


>>>> It seems that Huckster doesn't follow rules he sets for others...

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 3:01:17 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:15:14 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:

When Holmes overheard Oswald say he went downstairs to see what the commotion was about Oswald was talking about going downstairs to the Lobby from the 2nd floor Lunch Room after the Lunch Room Encounter with Baker...


Because the Prayer Man nuts have crowded everyone else out of the conversation the research community is not exposed to the obvious interpretation of Oswald's words...Oswald was influenced by the commotion of the assassination and crowd noise when he was in the Lunch Room...So he got up and went to the Lunch Room Vestibule door window when he heard Adams & Styles clattering by on the noisy stairs...After the Lunch Room Encounter Oswald proceeded to the Lobby which is what he was describing when Holmes overheard him saying he went downstairs to see what the commotion was about...