Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hank Sienzant

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hank Sienzant

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    JFK Assassination, Reading in general

Recent Profile Visitors

1,554 profile views
  1. No, Joe Zircon was the alias. Hank Sienzant is my real name. Your suspicions aren't evidence. Nor is your opinion that Ben Holmes calling me names is a spanking. I cite the evidence, or ask Ben to make his case and cite the evidence, and he immediately goes into name-calling mode. Pretty much all Ben does is ask begged questions on Alt.Conspiracy.JFK, and then try to shift the burden of proof and ask others to disprove his assertions. He's personally responsible for pretty much making that forum a desolate area. All the best, Hank
  2. Wow. So, let's see, I'm either ignorant or lying, but, to quote Richard Booth from a post on the 21st: == QUOTE == McAdams' legacy will always be that of the guy who called those who disagreed with him "crackpots" and "buffs" while doing away with facts he didn't want to address by calling them "factoids" which was a clever way of denoting some facts as less-factual, or perhaps relevant, than others. This style works very well when preaching to the choir, or perhaps persuading a person on the fence who is easily persuaded by less than scholarly methods. That is John McAdams. He was a
  3. The point is Oswald told many different stories in custody and to reporters. I've posted links to the source materials. You hand-wave away the detailed posts -- providing quotes from the experts -- I've posted, suggesting they are less than honest, but if I simply dismissed the claims made here by others, you would dismiss those as well. You don't point out any errors in my posts, you apparently don't like that they are long, detailed, and cite the actual evidence. That was essentially your only real criticism of them. All the best, Hank
  4. Well, that's not what the photographic experts working for the HSCA concluded. Why are your claims so often unsourced or from non-experts while I cite the actual expert conclusions? https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm "...A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown that exist in photographs today with marks shown on the photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, th
  5. Did Oswald say he was halfway between being inside and outside? No. He said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting.
  6. Another example of a Gish Gallop. You need to do more than list a bunch of things you think support your case. You need to make a case for each of them. Start with the "the 56 ear-witnesses to a "bang...bang bang" shot pattern". Weren't there other witnesses who put the first two shots as bunched? Weren't there other witnesses who heard only two shots? Weren't there other witnesses who heard four or more? Now, tell me how you know these witnesses (whom you neither name nor cite their statements) are the right ones. Start there. Then tell me how these witnesses support anything you'r
  7. That's not what the autopsists concluded. That's also not what the HSCA forensic panel concluded. I'm not sure you understand the problem. Your opinion does not outweigh theirs. You have no expertise in the subject and your opinion of the wounds isn't worthwhile. You're not a qualified pathologist, you don't have the necessary expertise in the subject matter to overrule the review panel that conducted betwee them over 100,000 autopsies. Their opinion here counts. Yours does not. Further, they concluded the shot exited the throat and went on to strike Connally. https://www
  8. Again, here's the fuller quote: == QUOTE == 1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir? 1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building. 1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir == UNQUOTE == He is asked if he was in the building *at that time* -- and it's evident from the preceding question to Oswald that the question is referencing the time when the President
  9. Logical fallacies are a poor substitute for evidence. But if that's all you got, that's all you got. Hank
  10. Hilarious! I've been reading about the assassination since the day it happened. I was a conspiracy theorist probably before you were born. Back in the late 1960s, I used to argue for a conspiracy in high school. I started posting on Prodigy and AOL in the early 1990s, and then moved on to other forums, including both Alt.Conspiracy.JFK and Alt.Assassination.JFK. You can see plenty of my posts there. I was posting as Joe Zircon at the behest of my first wife in the late 1990's through about 2007 extensively. In about 2012 or so I started posted under my own name. I also debated on the Am
  11. Are you and Niederhut related? One of you is apparently cribbing from the other. Niederhut wrote this, which is word-for-word what you wrote (including the mis-spelling of my name). I've bolded the language that's identical in both your posts: == QUOTE == Bunk. Siezant's posts on this thread are what a RAND Corporation analyst dubbed a "firehose of falsehoods." It's a propaganda technique of flooding media with so many falsehoods that it is difficulty to track and respond to all of them. I'm looking forward to hearing James DiEugenio's analysis on Black Op radi
  12. First: It's Sienzant. Second: I am citing - repeatedly - the testimony and the supporting evidence and then, only in response to claims brought up by others. What falsehoods do you think I posted? Please, by all means, enlighten me. Just claiming I am posting falsehoods is inadequate. So can you name three errors on my part that you can support with evidence? Now, I am not looking for your opinion - or the opinion of some other critic - but the facts. That is, things you can confidently assert and back up with actual evidence. Not opinion. Not argument. Evidence. Got any?
  13. You misunderstand. I'm not asking for your logical fallacies (like poisoning the well and ad hominem directed at Harry Holmes) or opinion or argument (like the article and book you cite). I'm asking for your *evidence*. What you cite is opinion, argument, and logical fallacies. And you think you're disproving one thing but you're actually proving it. Hilarious! You wrote: "...C2766 is in carton #3376 on packing slip #3620 is only ascertained by looking at the original slips created when the rifles were packaged in Italy". So we know that rifle was shipped to America by the orig
  14. Yes, and that's exactly what you did. You raised a number of points in the form of begged questions, and wanted me to respond to them all. I did. I pointed out they were a Gish Gallop. Asserting as you do they are "well founded, based on accurate information and were quite sound" isn't evidence of anything. It's simply another assertion by you. Asserting further about CE399 and how I don't want to deal with that record is simply more unproven assertions by you. If you have an argument to make, present the evidence and make your argument. Let's stick to the rifle for the moment, sinc
  15. Yes, so you responded to me about what I wrote, comparing my post to what you say McAdams did. Then you said you wouldn't respond to me any more, then responded to me some more. Your turn.
  • Create New...