Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 36

[Gil Jesus]

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

The jacket which was found after the Tippit murder and identified as being owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and discarded by him in his escape, had a tag on it from a dry cleaning store.

The identification of the store that attached that tag and the record of the cleaning would have been evidence that proved that the jacket indeed belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

QUESTION # 36: What was the name of the store that cleaned the jacket ?

[John Corbett]

Who knows? Who cares?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 02:09:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cowardice removed...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 5:02:53 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

That is unknown. There is no evidence Oswald bought the jacket new, that is simply an assumption by conspiracy theorists. More than likely, Oswald bought the jacket second-hand, from a Goodwill store or Salvation Army store, and the tag is from the prior owner. He was making minimum wage and couldn’t afford to live with his wife and two kids, so they were living apart from him in Mrs. Paine’s home). He was not a spendthrift.

That the jacket was purchased second-hand would also account for the jacket being one size too large — beggars can’t be choosers, and Oswald simply settled for whatever the store had on hand (second-hand stores are not known for their wide selection). Conspiracy theorists like to pretend the discrepancy in sizes points to another shooter, but it doesn’t. Marina testified they did not pay for dry-cleaning, she laundered all their clothes.

Oswald also left his rooming house north of and before the Tippit shooting zipping up a jacket. When seen by Johnny Brewer south of, and after the Tippit shooting, he had no jacket. When arrested, he had no jacket. Marina identified the found jacket (CE162) as one of Oswald’s.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm
== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us about Exhibit 159, a sweater?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was my gift to Lee, a sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 160?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's shirt.
Mr. RANKIN. 161?
Mrs. OSWALD. This is a pullover sweater. This is his pullover sweater.
Mr. RANKIN. 162?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's…
== unquote ==

There’s also the fact that the shells in evidence establish Oswald’s revolver, taken from his hand in the theatre, was used to kill Tippit.

When ALL the evidence is considered, it points to the jacket belonging to Oswald, no one else. It likewise points to Oswald killing Tippit.

Gil will no doubt give me a zero for this response pointing out how the consilience of evidence ensnarls Oswald as both the killer of Tippit and the assassin of Kennedy (Oswald had no reason to kill Tippit if he wasn’t already the President’s assassin).

Ben will ignore the above, change the subject, and ask me about stuff I never said, already denied multiple times, and he will pretend I said it still, asking me to explain it yet again.

NTF will make some inane comment and call all the witnesses that gave testimony pointing to Oswald liars.

Don Willis will parse some witness’s words beyond reason, and argue that means Oswald was framed for the Tippit shooting.

Proceed.

[Donald Willis]

No, just your words, and very much within reason: Oswald couldn't afford a new jacket, yet he sprung for dry cleaning?

And, you know, it would be more helpful if you actually read the posts on which you comment...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 08:25:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


> Ben will ignore the above, change the subject, and ask me about
> stuff I never said, already denied multiple times, and he will pretend
> I said it still, asking me to explain it yet again.

Lie again, and claim that your assertion was just a "joke."

If you had any honest in you at all, these would be simple to answer:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Run coward....

RUN!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

No, that’s a straw man argument (not at all what I said). So very much beyond reason, your forte.

Read it again. Respond to the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.

What part of “Marina testified they did not pay for dry-cleaning, she laundered all their clothes” did you fail to understand?

Gil should deservedly give you a zero.

>
> And, you know, it would be more helpful if you actually read the posts on which you comment...

I read it, and explained it in painstaking detail.

I neglected to mention that the FBI only canvassed the dry-cleaning establishments in Dallas and New Orleans, not the entire states of Texas and Louisiana, nor the entire country. If somebody had that jacket dry-cleaned in Houston or San Antoine, moved to Dallas, and outgrew that jacket, then donated it, that would further explain why it had a dry-cleaning tag when Oswald never had his clothes dry-cleaned.

> , and argue that means Oswald was framed for the Tippit shooting.
> >
> > Proceed.

Pretty much nailed Don Willis’s response. He parsed my words incorrectly, instead of a witnesses, but otherwise, spot on.

[Hank Sienzant]

Nailed that one also: “Ben will ignore the above, change the subject, and ask me about stuff I never said, already denied multiple times, and he will pretend I said it still, asking me to explain it yet again.”

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 09:59:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:09:29?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 08:25:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ben will ignore the above, change the subject, and ask me about
>>> stuff I never said, already denied multiple times, and he will pretend
>>> I said it still, asking me to explain it yet again.
>>
>> Lie again, and claim that your assertion was just a "joke."
>>
>> If you had any honest in you at all, these would be simple to answer:
>>
>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>>
>> Run coward....
>>
>> RUN!!!
>

>Nailed that one also...

Nailed that one also: "Lie again..."

Huckster the Coward runs...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Donald Willis]

You said "second hand". How does that not mean that he "couldn't afford a new jacket"?

>
> Read it again. Respond to the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.

You DIDN'T say "second hand"?? It's right there.

>
> What part of “Marina testified they did not pay for dry-cleaning, she laundered all their clothes” did you fail to understand?
>
> Gil should deservedly give you a zero.
> >
> > And, you know, it would be more helpful if you actually read the posts on which you comment...

> I read it, and explained it in painstaking detail.

Sorry to make you respond, painfully, and in such detail, to a two-sentence post.

But, yes, you're right--the tag could have been from a previous owner.

>
> I neglected to mention that the FBI only canvassed the dry-cleaning establishments in Dallas and New Orleans, not the entire states of Texas and Louisiana, nor the entire country. If somebody had that jacket dry-cleaned in Houston or San Antoine, moved to Dallas, and outgrew that jacket, then donated it, that would further explain why it had a dry-cleaning tag when Oswald never had his clothes dry-cleaned.
> > , and argue that means Oswald was framed for the Tippit shooting.
> > >
> > > Proceed.
> Pretty much nailed Don Willis’s response. He parsed my words incorrectly, instead of a witnesses, but otherwise, spot on.

"Incorrectly"? That's Bud's word. And two sentences is "parsing beyond reason"??

[Hank Sienzant]

Another straw man argument. The part I am pointing out you got wrongisthe second half of this argument you advanced: “Oswald couldn't afford a new jacket, yet he sprung for dry cleaning?”

I never said he paid for dry-cleaning — I argued against that.

> >
> > Read it again. Respond to the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.
> You DIDN'T say "second hand"?? It's right there.

I didn’t say he paid for dry cleaning. That’s your straw man.

As I said, “Respond to the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.”

> >
> > What part of “Marina testified they did not pay for dry-cleaning, she laundered all their clothes” did you fail to understand?

Ah, you understand my point, you just wish to quibble and pretend you have a reasoned response. You don’t.

> >
> > Gil should deservedly give you a zero.
> > >
> > > And, you know, it would be more helpful if you actually read the posts on which you comment...
>
> > I read it, and explained it in painstaking detail.
> Sorry to make you respond, painfully, and in such detail, to a two-sentence post.

It takes more verbiage to straighten out a logical fallacy than it takes to utter it.

>
> But, yes, you're right--the tag could have been from a previous owner.

Thank you.

> >
> > I neglected to mention that the FBI only canvassed the dry-cleaning establishments in Dallas and New Orleans, not the entire states of Texas and Louisiana, nor the entire country. If somebody had that jacket dry-cleaned in Houston or San Antoine, moved to Dallas, and outgrew that jacket, then donated it, that would further explain why it had a dry-cleaning tag when Oswald never had his clothes dry-cleaned.
> > > , and argue that means Oswald was framed for the Tippit shooting.
> > > >
> > > > Proceed.
> > Pretty much nailed Don Willis’s response. He parsed my words incorrectly, instead of a witnesses, but otherwise, spot on.
> "Incorrectly"? That's Bud's word. And two sentences is "parsing beyond reason"??

I’m pretty sure it can be anyone’s word. I doubt highly that Bud trademarked or copyrighted it.

The straw man argument you advanced and reiterated was what was “parsing beyond reason”. That’s pretty much the definition of a logical fallacy — which you committed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 10:33:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Another straw man argument.

This one isn't:

[Bud]

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 5:02:53 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>
> The jacket which was found after the Tippit murder and identified as being owned by Lee Harvey Oswald and discarded by him in his escape, had a tag on it from a dry cleaning store.
>
> The identification of the store that attached that tag and the record of the cleaning would have been evidence that proved that the jacket indeed belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Where did you establish the tag made the store identifiable?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 12:26:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 1:17:05 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > And, you know, it would be more helpful if you actually read the posts on which you comment...
>
> > I read it, and explained it in painstaking detail.
> Sorry to make you respond, painfully, and in such detail, to a two-sentence post.

https://sketchplanations.com/the-bs-asymmetry-principle
The BS asymmetry principle
Also known as Brandolini’s Law, this is the simple observation that it’s far easier to produce and spread BS, misinformation and nonsense than it is to refute it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage coined in 2013 that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. The law states the following: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

The rise of easy popularization of ideas through the internet has greatly increased the relevant examples, but the asymmetry principle itself has long been recognized.
...
In 1845, Frédéric Bastiat expressed an early notion of this law:
We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete, we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations.

— Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Sophisms, First Series (1845)"

[Ben Holmes]

[BT George]

Building/construction/and establishing truth, by their very nature, take more time than antihalation/destruction or telling/spreading a falsehood. It is actually a basic principal applying to all existence if you think about it. For example, you can do hundreds of things to beautify and improve the ecosystem of a local lake but sufficiently large chemical spill could waste all that effort. Likewise, any efforts to restore said lake will be many and take long.

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:09:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises

an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion
about the issue he raised.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:09:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises
> an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion
> about the issue he raised.

I didn’t raise any issue. I pointed out the flaws in the issues Gil raised here.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/xbCrJ4_8zBg/m/FwQvghfrCAAJ

To date, no one has addressed my points. Ben hasn’t. Don hasn't. NTF hasn't. And most certainly Gil hasn't.

Don tried, but as I pointed out, he did not address my point, just a straw man of his own invention, as I never said what he pretended I said.

Much like you do everytime you post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:53:53 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:09:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises
>> an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion
>> about the issue he raised.
>

>I didn’t raise any issue...

You're lying again, Huckster...

[Hank Sienzant]

You're doing it again. As I was saying (and you ran from):

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:12:31 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:59?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:53:53 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>You're doing it again.

You're running again...