Hank Sienzant

2 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Yearslong McAdams was spreading the disinfo that Mary Sherman was just an orthopedist and not a cancer-expert as established by Edward Haslam in his book DR MARYS MONKEY and later by Judyth Baker in her book ME AND LEE ... McAdams was using a stolen unredacted manuscript of Bakers then unpublished book ME AND LEE and quoting out of it on the internet ... 

Spartacus Educational says her specialty was as an orthopedic surgeon who worked with Alton Ochsner into the causes of cancer:

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKshermanM.htm

Quote

Mary Sherman became Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, and practiced medicine at UC's Billings Hospital. Sherman's research was brought to the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner and she was invited to become a partner in the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans where he was carrying out research into the causes of cancer. She was also offered the post of Associate Professor at the Tulane Medical School. Sherman accepted Ochsner's proposal and started work for her new employer in 1952.

Sherman's career prospered and she was elected to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS). Soon afterwards she was appointed as chairman of the Pathology Committee of the AAOS.

According to that site, the New Orleans Time-Picayune called her an orthopedic surgeon in reporting on her death on July 21st, 1964:

Quote

 

(4) New Orleans Times-Picayune (21st July, 1964)

An intruder forced his way into a fashionable St. Charles Ave. apartment early today, stabbed a prominent woman orthopedic surgeon to death and set fire to her body. Police apparently had virtually no clues to the identity of the slayer of Dr. Mary Stults Sherman...

 

 

They cite no source for the cancer claim that I could find, unless it's Haslam's book. 

Spartacus Educational says Haslam "argues" in his book (not "establishes") her cancer credentials:

Quote

Edward Haslam argues in Dr. Mary's Monkey (2007) that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. [emphasis added]

My understanding is Spartacus Educational leans toward conspiracy.

On 6/4/2021 at 9:30 AM, Micah Mileto said:

There is nothing on the x-rays confirming or denying the possibility of a shallow hole in the lower back of the skull. It is also difficult to differentiate between bullet fragments and artifacts on the x-rays. The x-rays are low quality and blurry because they were taken with portable equipment made for the battlefields of WW2. Everybody can agree these x-rays could use more scrutiny from experts and machines.

The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded Kennedy was struck twice, both times from above and behind. The original autopsists, with the body in front of them, reached the same conclusions. Your expertise in autopsies is what, exactly? 

 

 

Quote

And even if the official x-rays provably didn't show any kind of hole in the lower back of the skull, then my contesting argument would be that the x-rays could have been somehow faked or that the EOP wound could have existed lower in the hairline below the skull.

"Somehow faked" - even though the HSCA medical panel reached the conclusion those were JFK's x-rays and the photographic panel concluded there was no evidence of fakery. 

You could adopt the argument that they were right, but that would be no fun and would mean abandoning your belief in extra shots striking JFK. 

 

Quote

There's also nothing confirming or denying a small hole in the lower back of the scalp on the autopsy photos. The autopsy photos are, as the HSCA put it, of low photographic quality. There is witness evidence for missing photos.

The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded two shots from above and behind. You have what? Complaints about the extant evidence, which doesn't overturn any of the conclusions.

 

Quote

 

The contemporaneous documents like the face sheet, Sibert and O'Neill's teletype, the handwritten and typed protocols, supplemental report, and Burkley's death certificate all support the EOP wound.

Humes, Boswell, Finck, Roy Kellerman, and John Stringer were four witnesses who gave very precise descriptions of seeing a small hole in the lower back of the head. 

Other witnesses gave descriptions which were less detailed but also clearly suggested an EOP wound: Burkley, Lipsey, Robinson, and Chester Boyers.

More witness and document evidence suggests an EOP wound includes the damage to the brainstem and cerebellum and the "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" FBI memo.

 

I'm confused about something: Why do we conduct an autopsy, and at that autopsy, take photos and x-rays of the deceased? I thought it was to reach a conclusion about what caused the death of the deceased and to document that conclusion via the evidence gathered, rather than rely on the memories of some observers decades later about what the evidence revealed. While memories fade, the evidence doesn't.  Isn't that why the HSCA panel used the extant autopsy evidence to reach their conclusions?

 

Quote

There is literally no way to debunk this unless an exhumation and second autopsy proves otherwise.

Now that's funny. 

We both know conspiracy believers will reject any evidence and any conclusion by any panel that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. You yourself did this above in rejecting the HSCA autopsy experts conclusions: 

Quote

...the x-rays could have been somehow faked or that the EOP wound could have existed lower in the hairline below the skull.

If you're wedded to something, divorce is hard and messy. 

On 6/3/2021 at 10:35 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Humes never explained why he did not track the wound in the back.

Hank asks me what professionals do I abide by?

How about Henry Lee?  The most famous and probably illustrious criminalist in the world.

We asked him for the upcoming documentary, can you chart a trajectory through the body without it being dissected.

He replied on camera that its very difficult to do so.  He was even more negative off camera.

There you go Hank.  Someone not invested in this case with sterling credentials.

BTW, you should have heard him about the problems with Kennedy's autopsy.  He had nothing but disdain for it.  See Hank, he is a professional, one of the best.  And he is coming from the real world.  Not the Bermuda Triangle of the Warren Commission.

Curiously, you don't quote Henry Lee with disagreeing with the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations Medical Panel or with the original autopsists. Did he actually study the extant autopsy materials and reach a different conclusion?

I remind you the HSCA autopsy panel had sterling credentials as well and actually agreed with the original autopsists about the origin of the shots (above and behind). And that panel had over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. And they actually studied the extant autopsy materials before reaching their conclusion. What did Henry Lee do concerning the JFK autopsy? 

   

Quote

Hank is so blinded by the smoke and mirrors of Oswald did it, that he cannot see how Humes would be ripped to shreds at trial.

Yeah, you said that already. But when I asked you to cite your source ("according to who?") you simply repeat your claim instead. 

  

Quote

In fact, with what he did to his notes and autopsy--destruction of original evidence--he would probably be charged with a crime in the real world. But Hank cannot see that. 

Hilarious. What world are you living in? Humes and I are in the real world. Humes wasn't charged with any crime. Your complaint here makes absolutely no sense. 

 

Quote

He is so blind that he cannot even comprehend the various problems with the supplementary autopsy.

Sorry, no. Instead of attacking me and calling me "blind", why don't you quote the autopsy experts that said they disagreed with the conclusions of the original autopsy and the HSCA review panel? Both those groups reached the same conclusions: two shots from above and behind struck the President. One bullet exited the throat of Kennedy and the other exited the right top of his head. 

 

Quote

Take a look at the date on that one Hank and note that its handwritten. 

 

So now you're complaining about the handwritten date on the Supplemental autopsy report instead of the lack of a date on the autopsy report? Sorry, same points as before: if these supposed conspirators you conjecture were attempting to fool everyone, do you think they'd overlook something as simple as the date? 

How does the lack of a date or a handwritten date overturn the conclusions or call into question the conclusions of the autopsy or the supplemental autopsy report?

Wouldn't Humes be the best person to know when the various reports were prepared? 

 

Quote

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

ad hominem. 

 

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

 

I answered your points in two separate posts:

 

On 6/3/2021 at 8:29 PM, Chris Barnard said:

I’ve just had a look at the JFKA section and the comments on that forum. It strikes me as very anti-intellectual, in general. 

What in particular struck you that way? 

Hank

On 6/1/2021 at 3:17 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Hank is a real case.

I'm a real person. Is "case" synonymous with "person" where you come from? 

Or are you just going all ad hominem on me? 

 

Quote

He cannot admit the autopsy report has no date on it.  So what does he say? He relies on Humes's testimony.

I thought I just did, and posted how we know the date. From Humes testimony, which I cited. Who would know the date it was prepared better than he? Doug Horne? 

 

Quote

Well, Humes is the guy who told a tale to that young medical illustrator about the location of the back wound for those humiliating drawings by Mr Rydberg in the WC volumes. Which expose the WR as a farce in and of itself.

As Humes admitted in his testimony, the drawings weren't intended as a substitute for the photographs taken at autopsy. He admitted they were in part schematic because the illustrator wasn't working from the actual photographs, but only Humes verbal description:

== quote ==

Commander HUMES - When appraised of the necessity for our appearance before this Commission, we did not know whether or not the photographs which we had made would be available to the Commission. So to assist in making our testimony more understandable to the Commission members, we decided to have made drawings, schematic drawings, of the situation as we saw it, as we recorded it and as we recall it. These drawings were made under my supervision and that of Dr. Boswell by Mr. Rydberg, whose initials are H. A. He is a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator in our command at Naval Medical School.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you provide him with the basic information from which these drawings were made?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Distances, that sort of thing?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We had made certain physical measurements of the wounds, and of their position on the body of the late President, and we provided these and supervised directly Mr. Rydberg in making these drawings.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you checked the drawings subsequent to their preparation to verify their accuracy?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And proportion?
Commander HUMES - I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed.

== unquote ==

 

And if you read the transcript of his testimony before the Commission, you can see that Specter is building a case for having the photographs and x-rays in evidence, so much so that Chief Justice Warren has to interject his own question:

== quote ==

Mr. SPECTER - Now as to that last factor, would the X-rays be of material assistance to you in pinpointing the specific locale of the exit?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir. The only path that the X-rays show in any detail are of the minor fragments which passed from point A to point B.
Mr. SPECTER - Now that you have finished your major descriptions of the wounds, can you be any more specific in telling us in what way the availability of the x-rays would assist in further specifying the nature of the wounds?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe, sir, that the availability of the X-rays would materially assist the Commission.
Mr. SPECTER - How about the same question as to the pictures?
Commander HUMES - The pictures would show more accurately and in more detail the character of the wounds as depicted particularly in 385 and 386 and in 388-A. They would also perhaps give the Commissioners a better---- better is not the best term, but a more graphic picture of the massive defect in 388.
Mr. SPECTER - Going back for a moment, Doctor Humes---
The CHAIRMAN. Before we get off that, may I ask you this, Commander: If we had the pictures here and you could look them over again and restate your opinion, would it cause you to change any of the testimony you have given here?
Commander HUMES - To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chief Justice, it would not.

== unquote ==

 

Quote

Humes is the guy who told another tale about blood on his autopsy papers so he had to burn them.

If there was anything nefarious going on, why would he admit that? Why not just rewrite the autopsy papers and claim *these* are the originals? Why admit to burning anything if there's a cover-up of any kind in place? 

 

Quote

Humes is the guy who almost walked out of the ARRB deposition, when Jeremy Gunn asked him where that upward particle trail was on the x ray which he described in his report. Why? Because its not there.

I see a particle trail in the x-ray that travels from back to front. Gunn didn't?

 

Quote

As both Doug Horne and Dave Mantik have shown, the report we have today simply cannot be the first one.  The evidence says that it was revised.  As the late Jerry McKnight wrote, this was likely done with Galloway's help AFTER Ruby shot Oswald.  As Jerry demonstrated, there is simply not enough information in the extant notes to apply to the entire document.  The fact that it was made up willy nilly, and this is likely the second or maybe even third draft, explains why, in order to keep the official myth going, the Clark Panel made those radical changes in it.

What did the HSCA photographic panel conclude of the photos and x-rays? That those photos and x-rays were legitimate.

What did the HSCA medical panel (with over 100,000 autopsies conducted between them) conclude from the extant autopsy evidence? That JFK was struck twice, both times from behind. 

Why is it that I keep citing the legitimate experts in this case and you keep telling me why all the experts were wrong? Have Doug Horne, Dave Mantik, or Jerry McKnight ever conduct even one autopsy? 

 

Quote

BTW, if you talk to a criminal lawyer, what Humes did would not fly in a court room.

What did he do that would get his testimony excluded? It wouldn't. If what he did was so bad, the defense would love to cross-examine him. 

 

Quote

On top of the tall tales, the fact that he burned his notes, and at least the first draft, would eliminate him as a witness.

How so? Please cite for this. 

 

Quote

When you add in his professional failure to override the brass in the morgue and dissect the back wound? Plus the failure to dissect the bullet paths in the skull?  From which Kennedy died? 

Humes explained why he didn't dissect the bullet path in the skull at autopsy. And did go on in his testimony to describe the supplemental examination.

== quote ==

Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination.
This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain.
The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination.
From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated.
To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state.
We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries.
We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.
The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.
This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.
There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull.
This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location.
This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound.

== unquote ==

 

Quote

Plus, according to Perry, he was on the phone with him that night trying to get him to change his story.

Not according to Perry's testimony to the Warren Commission. I see nothing in the below about Humes trying to get him to change his story:

== Quote ==

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?
Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday?
Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?
Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?
Dr. PERRY - He did.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?
Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?
Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.
Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?
Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you observe any bruising of the neck muscles of President Kennedy when you were engaged in your operative procedure that you have described?
Dr. PERRY - This bruising, as you describe, would have been obscured by the fact that there was a large amount of blood, hematoma, present in the neck and the mediastinum and hence all the blood tissues were covered by this blood.

== quote ==

 

Quote

Besides Hank, who can take Humes seriously as a witness? 

Yeah, he only conducted the autopsy on the President. Why call him to the stand? 

 

Quote

He would be obliterated on cross examination. As Finck was in New Orleans.  Except it would be even worse since he was the lead  pathologist.

According to what legal experts? You? 

 

Quote

These are the kinds of witnesses Hank relies on, without informing you of their huge liabilities.

Yeah, two of the three medical professionals who conducted the autopsy of the President. We should just skip what they have to say and go right to the conspiracy theorist version of events. It would save us all a great deal of time. 

Hank

On 6/1/2021 at 1:53 PM, Micah Mileto said:

What do you think about the EOP wound? Seems like no matter how the EOP subject is approached, it strongly supports a conspiracy.

Didn't I cover this subject with you in detail on the International Skeptics forum?

You are MicahJava there, are you not?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12325583&postcount=303

Hank

On 4/28/2021 at 12:37 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

What information is forthcoming from people like you and Joe Zircon who pretend inconvenient evidence doesn't exist?

It's Hank Sienzant, but Joe Zircon works fine. I posted at alt.assassination.jfk for about a decade (starting in 1998) under that alias to honor my wife's wishes. "Joe Zircon" is a play on "Joe Diamond", the name of the person who shot the accused assassin in Richard Condon's novel "Winter Kills". "Joe Diamond" is of course a play on "Jack Ruby", who shot and killed Oswald. 

 

Quote

There is no debate.  It's just nutters in denial of physical reality, among other things.

Absolutely. Our only disagreement is which side has the nutters and which side has the evidence on their side. You'll note in this thread the only one who has been posting evidence is me. You and others have been posting opinion, assertions, and utilizing logical fallacies to attempt to rebut that evidence. 

Let's start with : What did Oswald say when he was asked where he was during the shooting? 

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

 

Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. 

What time do you think the questioner was asking about?

 

Hank

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  

What a bizarre criticism.

I post on my schedule, when I have time. You can post on your schedule.

You can read my posts when you have time, and I'll read yours when I have time. 

Deal?

Hank

On 4/28/2021 at 5:39 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Its almost funny how Hank buys everything that the hsca or WC puts out as long as it incriminates Oswald.

Maybe he wants to add the humdinger about the doctors at Bethesda not seeing the same hole in the rear of the skull that the doctors at Parkland did? I mean why not Hank? Or them not being sure Shaw was in Clinton, when in fact they had classified testimony from the sheriff that he asked Shaw for his DL and it said Clay Shaw?

Greg Parker will show that the rifle in the BYP is 36 inches long.

When Oliver's documentary gets broadcast it will show the same thing in a different way.

 

What I wrote (and cited) was in direct response to your claim:

"... Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. "

Here's what I wrote:

Quote

 

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, that appears in various postassassination photographs."  

 

Instead of rebutting any of that or even addressing any of that, you simply changed the subject! That's a logical fallacy called a red herring:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring

Quote

 

Red Herring

Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

 

Now try responding to the point. You claimed the rifle in the Depository was not the same rifle as that in the back yard photos (BYP). I pointed out the experts working for the HSCA disagree with your assessment. This is the point where you provide your evidence to support your claim (not your argument or opinion, your evidence). Got any?

On 4/27/2021 at 9:18 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

56 other ear witnesses to two or four shots?  Really?

All you can do is cherry pick the evidence you can fake debate about while ignoring the proven fact JFK was shot from two directions.

Please stop creating straw men to knock down. I said nothing about 56 witnesses to two or four shots. Your argument is not a rebuttal to anything I said. 

I asked:

== quote ==

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're alleging. Make a case, not a Gish Gallop.

== unquote ==

You failed to do any of that. Instead, in defense of your Gish Gallop logical fallacy, you set forth  another logical fallacy, that of a straw man argument, where you rebut something I didn't say and pretend that is adequate. It's not. 

And ignoring that Oswald put himself in the building at the time of the shooting isn't helping your argument any. 

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 was shot. Oswald claimed he was inside the building at the time the President was shot. He didn't put himself outside on the steps. He put himself inside the building at that time -- at the time the President was shot. The only one avoiding the context is you.

On 4/29/2021 at 1:13 AM, James DiEugenio said:

We have neutralized Hank's assertions, since they are based upon quicksand.

One cannot rely on the conclusions of the WR as he is doing. 

 

 

Not once have I cited the Commission's conclusions, other than to compare it to the HSCA's about the source of the shots that struck the victims. Those conclusions were identical. In all other cases, I've cited the testimony to the commission by experts. Expert testimony that supports the conclusion that both the WC and the HSCA reached: Oswald fired all the shots that struck either victim in the car. 

On 4/28/2021 at 2:09 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Because contempt is the only intellectually honest response to pathological lying.

Same contempt I have for Holocaust deniers.

You certainly do! 

You and Zircoff always have.  I dealt with you guys for years on usenet.  I know your fake-debate routine by heart. 

What pablum! 

Both of you have spent decades ignoring the First Day Evidence.  You haven't earned any one's respect.  Not around here, sonny jim.

Hilarious. Seriously. 

You can't debate the facts so you resort to name-calling. I've seen it a multitude of places, from a multitude of conspiracy believers. They must label me dishonest or a "pathological xxxx" even though I back up my points with citations to the evidence. You call it a "fake-debate routine", but don't explain what is fake about any of it. I'm utilizing the actual evidence to support my conclusions. 

I don't care if you respect me or not, or what names you call me. That's like water off a duck's back to me. But the only one ignoring the evidence is you. I cite the actual testimony from the experts, and you repeat your opinions, which have no value here. 

Hank

On 4/28/2021 at 12:29 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Perhaps you and Hank can answer some questions, rather than ignoring rebuttals.

1)  Did JFK's head snap violently backward during the fatal shot? 

2)  Did the fatal shot blast an occipital skull fragment (and brain matter) backward, behind the limo, striking a cop? 

3)  Did ballistics testing show that a fatal head shot fired from the TSBD (behind the limo) would have knocked JFK's head forward, blowing off the right side of his face?  

 

 

Hilarious. The only one ignoring rebuttals has been you. 

1. Asked and answered already. The bullet is long gone by the time the Zapruder film captures frame 313. The bullet was travelling over 2000 feet per second, and Zapruder's camera exposed film at the rate of 18.3 frames per second. At Z312, Kennedy's head is not yet struck. At Z313 the head is visibly damaged, and one large fragment (most likely the Harper fragment) can be seen spirally upward at about the one o'clock position in that frame. 

At a minimum of 2000 feet per second, the bullet that struck JFK in the head travels about 110 feet between frame 312 and 313. Momentum, from my college physics classes, is imparted at the moment of impact. The moment of impact must have been between Z312 and Z313. That means the movement caused by the bullet itself is reflected in those two frames. In Z313 JFK's head moves forward and down relative to Jackie. That's the movement you see caused by the bullet strike. Anything that transpires after frame Z313 is not caused by the bullet strike, because the bullet is long gone. 

2. Asked and answered already. The Harper fragment was found in front of the limo at the time of the head shot. This is reflected in both the FBI interview of Harper and the map Milicent Cranor asked Harper to mark (previously provided to you).

3. I'm unaware of any ballistics test that establish what you claim. Enlighten me with a link to the actual test(s) that establish this. Are you referring to the tests performed by Light, Dziemien, and Olivier, perchance? If so, please quote the conclusion of the expert, not your own conclusion. Here, I'll do it for you:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm

== QUOTE ==

Mr. SPECTER. I hand you Commission Exhibit 862, move its admission into evidence, and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. This is the same skull. This is just looking at it from the front. You are looking at the exit. You can't see it here because the bone has been blown away, but the bullet exited somewhere around---we reconstructed the skull. In other words, it exited very close to the superorbital ridge, possibly below it.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received.
Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car.
This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head.

Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.

== UNQUOTE ==

CE 567 and CE569 are two fragments found in the limo by the Secret Service on the evening of the assassination. They were ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle (CE139).

== QUOTE ==

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
... 
Mr. EISENBERG - Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568.
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.

... 

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

== UNQUOTE ==

The bullet that struck Kennedy in the head, therefore, according to the expert testimony, was fired from Oswald's weapon -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. 

Hank

 

On 4/27/2021 at 5:01 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I love this one by Hank:

They are more contemporaneous than the recollections you cite from 1978. A draft was prepared the Sunday after the autopsy and it was typed up the same day - on 11/24/63

Can anyone show me a date on the autopsy report?  If you can please do.

Humes testimony dates it:

== QUOTE ==

Commander HUMES - I believe at this point I would like to have, if you have my gross autopsy description because I will give the dimensions of these wounds at this time.
Mr. SPECTER - We will use the Commission Exhibit No. 387 and I will ask you first of all, for the record, to identify what this document is, Dr. Humes.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 387 for identification.)
Commander HUMES - This document is a copy of the gross autopsy report which was prepared by myself, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, and completed within approximately 48 hours after the assassination of the President.

== UNQUOTE ==

Here is CE387:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501b.htm

Hank

On 4/27/2021 at 9:18 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

No, all I have to do is inventory them and point out the redundancy.  6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue so your lone nut theory is idiotic on it's face.

I don't have to make a case for anything.  The evidence speaks for itself.

My "Lone Nut" theory (a misnomer because I don't think Oswald was a nut) is that the 6.5mm FMJ bullet fired from Oswald's rifle didn't leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, so you're knocking some straw man theory down, not mine. 

Yes, the evidence speaks for itself. And the medical experts (which excludes you and I) concluded what? That all the bullets that struck JFK were fired from above and behind the level of the deceased. And came from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. 

Here's the HSCA conclusion on that (see I.A):  

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm

Here's the WC conclusions on the same subject:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0021b.htm

Your opinion about what we should be looking at or how is meaningless. 

Hank

 

On 4/28/2021 at 8:01 AM, Denny Zartman said:

Wasn't the rifle that was found a Mauser?

No. It was mistakenly identified as one by Seymour Weitzmann in a memorandum for the record. But the two weapons look a lot alike and the MC is actually based on the Mauser design. Weitzman backtracked on his ID in his testimony. He also admitted he misidentified the scope. 

https://gaylenixjackson.com/jfk-assassination/seymour-weitzman/

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
... 
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. BALL - You also said it was a gun metal color?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Gray or blue?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Blue metal.
Mr. BALL - And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right.
Mr. BALL - And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?
Mr. WEITZMAN - It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.
Mr. BALL - Rough wood, was it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; rough wood.
Mr. BALL - And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
== UNQUOTE ==

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm

Film and photos of the rifle inside the building and being removed from the building were examined by the HSCA photographic panel in 1978. They determined the rifle shown is a Mannlicher-Carcano. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.htm

Question: Why would conspirators plant (or use) a Mauser and then try to frame Oswald for owning a Mannlicher-Carcano? If they are going to plant (or use) a Mauser in the assassination, why not frame the supposed patsy Oswald for owning that? 

Hank

On 4/27/2021 at 10:47 PM, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

He actually said he was inside the building during the shooting, if you believe the recording. You know the one, where he went on to say he was just a patsy because he had been to Russia. 

Hank

On 4/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Those aren't contemporaneous accounts -- therefore irrelevant.

Hilarious. According to what rule of law? Who sets the standards for what is admissible evidence here? You? Why? 

Below you declare that only the evidence that came in before the "Magic Bullet" can logically be weighed. I'd love to see you defend that. And while there is a bullet hole in the back of the shirt and the back of the jacket, you cite the holes but make no argument regarding that. You cite the autopsy face sheet but throw out the autopsy as not contemporaneous. 

On 4/27/2021 at 9:53 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

No, you don't understand the problem.  Only the evidence that came in before the Magic Bullet can logically be weighed.  CE399 taints everything that followed.

 

I don't cite any opinions.  I cite the evidence you are incapable of processing -- the bullet holes in the clothes, the contemporaneous reports of witnesses in position of authority, the verified and authenticated medical evidence, robust consensus witness statements.

Good old Joe Zircon -- throw the clothing evidence in his face and he'll say it's only an opinion.

It's the opinions of the medical people in the first 24 hours that count.  Both the Death Certificate and the autopsy face sheet were signed off as "verified."

Those are the opinions that count.

 

 

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

The 1964 WCReport is opinion, Hank Sienzant (alias I suspect).

Still smarting from the spanking Ben Holmes administered on ACJ? tsk-tsk.

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

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      You denied (above) that the fatal head shot knocked JFK's head violently backward, while blasting his occipital skull fragment and brain matter backward, striking a policeman behind the limo.

     Why did Jackie Kennedy immediately crawl onto the trunk? 

     Why did CIA asset C.D. Jackson purchase the Zapruder film for Cold Warrior Henry Luce's Life magazine, then have it locked away from the public view for 12 years -- after publishing photo-shopped, reverse-sequence stills from the film to make it look like the fatal shot had moved JFK's head forward?

     (I'm old enough to remember studying those altered Zapruder stills in Life magazine the week they were published, and naively believing that they were un-altered.)

     You're either ignorant about the damning physical evidence from the (un-altered) Zapruder film, or you're lying.

     In either case, I don't want to waste any more of my time engaging with your disinformation posts here.

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 all about below-the-belt discourse and rarely if ever about being intellectually honest, much less carrying on in a respectful manner. I talk about all of this because I believe it's important to examine the ways in which people communicate to get across their message, as one thing I have learned in my life is that it's very often not what you say, but how you say it. 

== UNQUOTE ==

And now you say you don't want to engage anymore and claim I'm spreading 'disinformation', but you cite nothing wrong with my posts specifically, nor do you post any contrary evidence. What turned you off, precisely? Was it the length of my posts? The fact that I cited evidence? The fact that I pointed out momentum is instantaneously transferred, it doesn't occur 1/9th of a second later? 

Your recollections are wrong, by the way. The swapped frames were never published in LIFE magazine, despite what you may think you remember. The Warren Commission published in CE885 (Volume 18) the Zapruder frames starting with frame 171 and ending with frame 334. You either read about the swapped frames in a conspiracy book or saw them for yourself in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, but you didn't see the swapped frames in LIFE magazine. You'll be unable to cite for that, because you're recalling something that never happened. 

You further claim the photographs are altered ("photo-shopped"), but you merely assert this. You offer no evidence of this. 

And the evidence that frames 314 and 315 are reversed in volume 18 are self-evident. 

Here's the frames in question.

Frames labelled 313-314: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0042b.htm

Frames labelled 315-316: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0043a.htm

Note that as published, each frame contains the bottom of the preceding frame and the top of the following one. So in frame Z313, we can see the President immediately before he is struck (the bottom portion of Z312), and then the image of the damage caused after the bullet has passed through his skull. 

Now, 314 should show the damage evident in 313 at the very top, but we only see that in the frame labelled 315 (on the next page). It is obvious from the frames themselves that those two frames (314 and 315) were swapped in the publication process. 

In addition, you assert something you can't know, that the frames were swapped "to make it look like the fatal shot had moved JFK's head forward". You simply reject out of hand any other explanation - like an innocent printing error by the Government Printing Office. 

You ask why Jackie crawled onto the trunk, as if you know, but we both know the First Lady didn't recall doing that, and she offered no reason why she did that. So you apparently want me to guess. Ok. I guess she had just witnessed the massive hole in her husband's head caused by a rifle bullet, and wanted to get out of the line of fire as quickly as possible. 

You call the Harper fragment a piece of occipital bone, and say it was blasted behind the limo, but it was actually found in front of, and to the left of the limo. And the medical panel for the HSCA determined it was from the top / right of the head, not the back of the head. I can provide citations for both these facts if you like.

Oh heck, here's the map:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif

And the medical panel conclusion (as illustrated by Ida Dox for the panel): 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068a.htm

And in fact, in frame 313 of the Zapruder film, you can see the Harper fragment as a blur at about the one o'clock position rotating *forward* of the President's head several times while the camera shutter is open:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

It is also apparent from the Z313 this fragment comes from the top of the head. No such fragment is seen emanating from the back of the head. And in fact, the Z-film shows no apparent damage to the back of the head, which is entirely consistent with the autopsy photos. 

It appears from here your mind is made up. I suggest you might want to put me on ignore if the facts I cite are too difficult for you to deal with in the future. 

Hank

 

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

He actually said he was out front with Shelly, if you believe the FBI agents notes.  And of course you would believe J Edgar's boys?  Back with another blast of 18 posts n 16 hours.  Many long ones.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...

 

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

On 4/21/2021 at 10:36 PM, James DiEugenio said:

... Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. 

 

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, that appears in various postassassination photographs."  

11 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Prayer Man is half way between being inside and outside. Jeesh.

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. 

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

First Day Evidence:

The bullet holes in the clothes; the contemporaneous written reports of Dr. Jones, Dr. Carrico, SS SA Glen Bennett, FBI SAs Sibert and O'Neill, and Mortician Thomas Robinson; the verified Death Certificate filled out by Admiral Burkley; the verified autopsy face sheet filled out by James Curtis Jenkins; the authenticated cervical x-ray; the 16 eye witnesses to the T3 back wound; the 14 eye witnesses to the throat entrance wound; the 56 ear-witnesses to a "bang...bang bang" shot pattern; the Elm St. photos and film showing a normal amount of shirt collar visible at the back of JFK's neck, debunking "bunch theory."

See above.

 

 

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're alleging. Make a case, not a Gish Gallop. 

Hank