Hank Sienzant

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The wound in Kennedy's back was shallow, therefore could not have been created by the rifle found on the 6th Floor.

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.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0093a.htm

This is why critics get no traction. They are constantly overruling experts in various fields and substituting their own opinion instead. That won't work. 

All the best,

Hank

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Before kindergarten you should have learned that the back of your neck isn't four inches below the bottom of your shirt collar.  That's a lesson you still haven't learned.

He said of course he was in the building because he worked there.  That was the context of his statement -- he worked in that building.

There you go again, taking his comment out of context.

Oswald didn't deny being on the steps.  You're making that up because you can't touch anything else I've written.

LNers dispute the location of the back of JFK's neck.

I noticed that Hosty's notes are the only item in the First Day Evidence you took exception to.

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 -- the time the President was shot. The only one avoiding the context is you.

Your problem is Oswald told a number of different stories in custody. 

He is noted as saying he was having lunch on the first floor when the President was shot here (that would be before buying the Coke which occurred after the assassination):

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm

He says he was on the first floor when JFK passed the building here:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm

Oswald is noted as having said he ate his lunch after buying the coke here:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

In Harry Holmes memorandum for the record, he says he came *downstairs* after the assassination here (where he was intercepted by Truly and Baker), and makes no mention of eating his lunch at all:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0330b.htm

But you go with Hosty's notes over all the others, why exactly? 

Hank

On 4/25/2021 at 1:33 PM, W. Niederhut said:

And the scripture reading for this Sunday, regarding Parnell's homily, is from Proverbs 26:11...

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."

Logical fallacies are a poor substitute for evidence. But if that's all you got, that's all you got.

Hank

On 4/22/2021 at 9:38 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Bingo.  Joined in 2012, 86 posts.  22 of them in 7 hours yesterday.  A "sleeper agent" for McAdams?  One who given the similarity of their phrasing might have responded online in his behalf before? 

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 Amazon forums for about five years, until they went belly-up. You can also see a whole lot of my posts at the InternationalSkeptics forum (formerly the James Randi site) - on both the JFK assassination and the Jeffrey McDonald murder case. 

I came here because McAdams' forum is no longer active. Him having passed away and all, and since he was the sole moderator and had to approve posts before they got to the forum, well, maybe you can figure it out from there without any more help on my part. 

Here's my first post on the International Skeptics forum from December of 2011:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7843394#post7843394

Note my current post count there: Posts: 5,025

You guys are funny. I think I've communicated with John McAdams maybe 10 times in my life. I've never posted as him, nor as David Von Pein, nor as anyone except Hank Sienzant and Joe Zircon (again, to make my first wife happy). He did credit one discovery of mine here:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm

All the best,

Hank

On 4/22/2021 at 10:36 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Jim D is on BOR tonight?

How do I find this broadcast on my radio here on the California Coast 125 miles South of SF?

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 difficult to track and respond to all of them.

 

 

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 radio this evening.

Thanks to Ron Bulman for posting the link.

== UNQUOTE ==

On 4/22/2021 at 10:18 AM, W. Niederhut said:

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 radio this evening.

Thanks to Ron Bulman for posting the link.

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? 

All the best, 

Hank

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

Hank, please.  This stuff is as old as the hills and you recycle this rubbish as if its new and has not been exposed as such.

Holmes was a xxxx.  Plain and simple.  He was so bad that his family had to apologize for him posthumously in a letter sent to JFK Lancer.  And you did not know that?

The FBI knew that the correct name was not on any part of the application. Both Gil Jesus and John Armstrong have addressed this issue. (Armstrong, pp. 476)

Both John and David Josephs have proven that C2766 was not at Klein's at the correct time for it to be shipped to Dallas. (Armstrong, p. 469). David is really devastating on this issue.  Here is the main takeaway from his work:

• Rupp admits that he does not track individual serial #’s for rifles – that 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

•   The FBI’s investigation states that Klein’s’ own documentation does not corroborate “C” 2766 but a “N” 2766 or “C” 2746 – sent June 18, 1962 and March 27,1963 respectively. “C”2766 could not have been associated with VC836 as we will show.

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Just like virtually everything else in this case, the chain of custody for the rifle would be blown apart at trial. Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. 

 

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 original shipper in Italy. Thanks for establishing that. 

Further, we know from Kleins business records that C2766 was shipped to Oswald. I cited for this previously, but here it is again:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

And your claim that C2766 was not at Kleins is established to be false by the link above and the testimony of William Waldman and their other business paperwork. 

Let me cite the testimony of the man employed at Kleins as a vice-president. He designed the system to track the incoming shipments. 

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN. And is the original copy, or was the original copy prepared by someone under your direction or supervision?
Mr. WALDMAN. The original was prepared under a system which I originated and this particular order was not prepared at my direction. It would be--the merchandise was ordered in a routine basis at a time in which it was needed, and----

== UNQUOTE ==

So William Waldman is the best person to testify as to how Kleins tracked the rifles they received in bulk and shipped to individual customers. Gil Jesus isn't qualified to testify to that. Neither is John and David Josephs. Nor is John Armstrong. None of what you cite is evidence. It is argument and opinion. Waldman's testimony is evidence. He's qualified to testify to what the Kleins business records show. He testified they go through the shipment and assign a unique Kleins control number to each rifle.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. WALDMAN. This is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast Freight covering 10 cases of guns delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963, from Crescent Firearms.
Mr. BELIN. I note that there is some handwriting on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 2 that says, "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., J. A. Mueller, 2--21-63." Would that be one of your employees at that time?
Mr. WALDMAN. He was. Mr. Mueller was in charge of our receiving department at that time.
Mr. BELIN. And do you know how many guns or rifles would have been packed in each carton or case?
Mr. WALDMAN. Referring to the various delivery receipts, copies of which we have, these are packing slips, incidentally, not receipts; these were packing receipts included in each case. It was indicated there were 10 rifles in each case.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these are memos prepared by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. And is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 an accurate photostat of these other copies?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. I notice that there are numbers on each of these papers with 10 serial numbers each. I see here No. 3672, 3504 on the first photostat of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Do you see that?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to ask you to search through these 10 photostats and see if you find any invoice number that has on it a serial number, C-2766.
Mr. WALDMAN. Crescent Firearms delivery memo No. 3620 covering carton or case No. 3376 does have a--indicate a rifle bearing serial No. 2766.
Mr. BELIN. Well, is it 2766 or is there a prefix to it?
Mr. WALDMAN. There is a prefix, C-2766.

[That's here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm ]

Mr. BELIN. And you see that as also a part of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3; I believe you are reading from the actual document in your possession which Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostat of; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. When a shipment of rifles is received, what is your procedure with regard to recordkeeping on the serial numbers of the rifles?
Mr. WALDMAN. We assign to each rifle a control number which is a number used by us to record the history of the gun while it is in our possession and until it is sold, thus each rifle will be tagged with both this control number and with the serial number of the rifle which is stamped on the--imprinted on the gun by the manufacturer.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have the same--does the same manufacturer give different serial numbers for each weapon that the manufacturer makes?
Mr. WALDMAN. The gun manufacturers imprint a different number on each gun. It's stamped into the frame of the gun and serves as a unique identification for each gun.
Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C--2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.

== UNQUOTE ==

That is, VC-836 is Kleins unique control number for the rifle bearing the C2766 serial number.

You can see that association here in the first column.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0362b.htm

Note the assigned Kleins prefix is "VC" for all the rifles on that page. Note as well that control number VC836 is assigned to the rifle bearing the serial number C2766.

Note further that the Kleins paperwork showing the shipment to Oswald's PO Box shows both VC836 and C2766. Do you need the link to that paperwork a third time? Here it is.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

All the best,

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 8:45 PM, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this is Wiki's definition of a Gish Gallop

The Gish gallop is a term for an eristic technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

The problem with Hank copping out with this is that my questions were all well founded, based on accurate information and were quite sound.  For instance, the chain of custody for CE 399 is now very well illustrated by the ARRB declassifications and the work of Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson.   Hank does not want to deal with that record.

If I were him, neither would I. 

 

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, since that was raised in this thread already and I already cited some of the evidence linking the rifle to Oswald. What *evidence* do you have that the rifle CE139 is not the rifle shipped to Oswald? 

None, I would wager. 

On 4/21/2021 at 8:41 PM, Richard Booth said:

What I wrote was clearly about John McAdams, I identified him by name and I highlighted a few things he liked to do.

I noticed that you had brought up a fallacy of logic that McAdams frequently used, and I wanted to chime in to note that it was one of his tactics given this thread is about McAdams.

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.

On 4/21/2021 at 8:39 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Yes, McAdams would want people to debate theories and when the nutters can't refute the facts they pretend the facts don't exist.

Attempt to poison the well. Your assertions are not evidence. 

What facts am I pretending don't exist? The autopsy report of the doctors' conclusions typed up on 11/24/63? The Sibert/O'Neill report from 11/26/63? The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository? The witnesses that saw a man with a weapon in that window, or the rifle sticking out the window? 

What? 

All the best, 

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 8:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Hank A: I did respond. I pointed out it was a Gish Gallop. 

And I pointed out that what you were really doing was evading the questions because they undermine your position. 

Which is what the WC did back in 1964.

If the prosecution cannot surmount problems in their own core evidence, they have a long road ahead of them.   Or as Bob Tanenbaum once said, no DA could have convicted Oswald on this evidence.  Because most of it would have been thrown out before trial.

Sorry, there is no obligation on my part to answer begged questions. You want to make a point, cite the evidence for it. I have no obligation to disprove your assertions put in the form of begged questions. 

What you're trying to do is shift the burden of proof. You make an assertion, you need to cite the evidence for it, advance an argument for it, and show how the evidence supports your assertion. You've done none of that. It is not my obligation to disprove your assertions. 

All you've done, in effect, is ask if I still beat my wife. 

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 8:37 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsy conclusions were not contemporaneous.

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. You ignore the autopsy doctors' conclusions and reference a recollection by non-medical personnel 15 years after the event. No, I'm rejecting the recollections on the grounds it conflicts with the Sibert and O'Neill memorandum for the record prepared on 11/26/63 as well it conflicting with the autopsy report itself, as well as the lack of evidence for your conjectures. 

Saying you already cited cited the source for your arguments is not responsive to any of my questions. Saying I can't process information because of my bias is not reponsive to my points. Try dealing with the points I made, instead of ignoring them. 

All the best,

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 8:04 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Thompson presents WImp's case for a blur illusion on pages 197-207 of his book.

Wimp presented this at an AARC conference himself with images and film.  

Its a combination of a camera blur and the infusion of black with white areas on film.  Thompson does a nice job presenting it with pictures.  Wimp did a nice job with the equivalent of a GIF.  Hank does not want you to listen to this or see it. Quite natural.

He also does not want to answer any of my questions I posed to him since they blast him out of the park. He calls them "begged questions", yeah sure Hank.  Asking how an entrance wound leaves a gaping avulsive hole in the back of Kennedy's head is a "begged question"?  Please; I wouldn't answer that either if I were you.

As per the rifle, look you can McAdams riff on this all day long.  But the following are all facts:

1. The entire transaction, including depositing it in Klein's account took about 24 hours.  When Oliver Stone did it, without any such deposit step, it took six days.

2. Not a single witness at the USPS office saw or recalled Oswald picking up a four foot package containing a rifle.

3. This is just about impossible to  understand.  Why? Because if you buy the FBI story--which I do not, but you are stuck with--Oswald did not order the rifle in his real name.  He ordered it under an alias, Hidell. As Stewart Galanor points out in his book Cover -Up, under  postal regulations,  the rifle should have been returned to sender due to the wrong name. (See Document 37). 

4.  The rifle the police found is not the one on the order. Wrong weight, wrong length, different classification.

5. As far as the payment goes, the 21. 45 deposit has a huge problem.  It was made by check from another Chicago bank.  (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 474) 

PS As per that silly argument he tries to pass about there being no difference between replying to a question as you are being escorted by the cops in a hallway, while being hustled off to a line up or your cell, and sitting in a chair being questioned without hustle and bustle around you--I mean anyone can see the difference in circumstances.  Anyone except a -----. 

Still a Gish Gallop. I get it, when any individual point doesn't withstand scrutiny, bring up a baker's dozen in one post, because there's not sufficient time to rebut them all. 

Let's try to deal with this on a point by point basis.

Thompson and Wimp have what expertise in the subject matter, film and photo analysis? Hank doesn't care whether you see it or not. Citing claims by people with no training, education, or background in the subject matter doesn't make it true. At no point did I say "Don't look at what Thompson and Wimp claim". That's a straw man argument by you.  

Yes, asking if I still beat my wife is a begged question, as is asking how an entrance wound leaves a gaping avulsive hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You need to prove I ever beat my wife, not just insert it into a question as a given. That's a logical fallacy. 

Now to your number points and PS.

1. I wasn't aware Oliver Stone did this in 1963. Does his test in 1992 or thereabouts matter whatsoever? Please explain how this is a serious attempt to investigate the assassination. 

2. Asked and answered. You ignored my response and asked the same question again. Here's my response you ignored: 

"Second, the rifle was shipped to Oswald in March of 1963. Eight months later, the weapon was found in the Depository. Oswald was accused of using that rifle to assassinate the President. Sometime after that, no one wanted to take credit (or more accurately, the blame) for handing the rifle over to Oswald, and you find that worthy of note?"

3. Asked and answered as well. You ignore the response and repeat the question. 

"Harry Holmes explained that while the rules say one thing, in practice the PO staff might take shortcuts. 

== QUOTE ==

Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?

Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

== UNQUOTE ==

4. So what? I have related this story of what happened to me concerning a Christmas gift from Sears via their mail order catalog:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11855876&postcount=3970

Rather than disappoint a customer, retailers often ship something else when they run out of stock. And Kleins ran out of stock on the rifle Oswald ordered. We know that because the next month's Klein's ad (Oswald ordered in March of 1963), from April of 1963, showed the rifle Oswald was shipped, not the rifle Oswald ordered. 

5. Not according to the VP of Kleins, who actually was familar with the Kleins system.

== QUOTE ==

Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

== UNQUOTE ==

He's testifying about this form: 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

And regards the PS: You are the one making the argument for the difference but you haven't made a convincing one for the reasons I pointed out and you ignored. You accused me of ignoring evidence in your original response to my point, but it was you who ignored the recorded response by Oswald originally. Now you attempt to claim Oswald didn't really mean it because of the "hustle and bustle" in the hallway, but you ignore my point about that. Immediately after his response as to his whereabouts, Oswald claimed to be a patsy in the same hallway, during the same 'hustle and bustle". Did he not mean that as well, or are you attempting to accept half his hallway claims and disregard the other half? 

All the best, 

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 6:42 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

I've confronted Mr. Baker many times with the evidence and he shows no indication he can process the fact that the back of his neck isn't four inches below the bottom of his shirt collar.

6.5mm FMJ don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

That's unresponsive to the points I made.  

Here they are again:

== QUOTE ==

Begging the question logical fallacy. 

Your assertions are not evidence.  

One obvious fact is that the rifle shipped to Oswald's PO Box was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. Do you dispute that obvious fact? 

== UNQUOTE ==

On 4/21/2021 at 7:39 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Hank,

        You must be talking about those poorly photo-shopped, reverse-sequence frames of the Zapruder film published by Henry Luce and CIA asset C.D. Jackson in Life magazine in November of 1963, eh?

        I'm referring to the actual Zapruder film that we all finally got to see in 1975.

        On the actual Zapruder film, JFK's head clearly snaps violently backward and to the left when struck by the fatal bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll area.  And the occipital skull fragment and brain matter was blasted backward behind the limo, striking a cop. 

        

I'll await your evidence the frames in LIFE magazine are photo-shopped in any way.

I'll await your evidence the Zapruder film is different from the frames published in LIFE magazine.

Your assertions are not evidence. 

On the actual Zapruder film, as published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence, the head moves backward starting in Z315, approximately 1/9th of a second after the bullet impact is visible on the head.

This was - for the second time now - ascertained by Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman when David Lifton tried to draw Feynman into the assassination debate. But from the moment immediately before the impact (Z312) to the moment immediately after impact (Z313), the head moves forward. Lifton details all this in his book, BEST EVIDENCE. 

Hank

On 4/21/2021 at 6:46 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

The spin you put on this stuff must be dizzying.

This is stuff I learned before kindergarten.

Seriously, inside and outside?

I'm not the one arguing when Oswald said he was inside the building he really meant outside. You are.

I have steps going up to my front door. When I stand on my steps, I am outside my house. Oswald denied being on the steps, denied being outside, he said he was inside the building. 

What will you be disputing tomorrow, the difference between large and small? Critics do that about Connally's back wound as well, claiming the wound was described as both large and small. 

Hank

PS: I noticed you didn't try to rebut my argument in any fashion, you just asserted it was 'spin'. 

7 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

What I wrote was clearly about John McAdams, I identified him by name and I highlighted a few things he liked to do.

I noticed that you had brought up a fallacy of logic that McAdams frequently used, and I wanted to chime in to note that it was one of his tactics given this thread is about McAdams.

That you would prefer instead to engage in a pointless back and forth about something else entirely is your right, but I'm not going to play that game. This will be the second time that I have had to clarify my comments were about John McAdams and I won't make any additional statements about it.

And this is the third time you've responded to me, and the second time you're telling me you weren't talking to me about what I said, when your initial post was clearly a response to what I wrote, and you clearly likened my arguments to some straw man arguments instead of responding to the actual points I made. 

You can deny it all you want. It doesn't change the facts any. 

Hank

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Hank actually wrote this:

One obvious fact is that the rifle shipped to Oswald's PO Box was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination. Do you dispute that obvious fact? 

First, its the wrong rifle.  

Second, no one ever recalled LHO picking up any rifle. 

In fact, according to USPS rules he could not have done so since the order was not in his name.

Hank is in the Von Pein/Litwin school.

First, the Kleins records show they shipped him the rifle bearing the serial number C2766. That's the rifle found in the Depository. It's Oswald rifle.

Second, the rifle was shipped to Oswald in March of 1963. Eight months later, the weapon was found in the Depository. Oswald was accused of using that rifle to assassinate the President. Sometime after that, no one wanted to take credit (or more accurately, the blame) for handing the rifle over to Oswald, and you find that worthy of note? 

Third, The portion of the application that shows who was allowed to receive mail at the PO Box 2915 (where the rifle was shipped) was discarded, so there's no way to know who was allowed to receive mail at that box. It's important to note that Oswald did designate Hidell as eligible to receive mail at another PO Box (30061) he opened in New Orleans a few months later. 

Fourth, Harry Holmes explained that while the rules say one thing, in practice the PO staff might take shortcuts. 

== QUOTE ==

Mr. LIEBELER. Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when that package came in?
Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?

Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.
Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

== UNQUOTE ==

I trust this clears up some of your confusion. 

All the best, 

Hank

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Hank, let me repeat my questions which you did not reply to, instead you quote something I wrote about Uscinski. And then you say I am not responding with facts.  

Please.  In this day and age, to say the WR is not speculative?  What are you going to say: its factual? 

How? 

What is your proof that LHO was in the window at the proper time?

What is your proof that anyone could do what the WC said Oswald did?

What is your proof that CE 399 was on Connally's stretcher?

How could you possibly get CE 399 into evidence in court?

How could a bullet from behind leave a large avulsive would in the back of Kennedy's skull?

Where did the 6.5 mm fragment come from in 1968?

How does a bullet go from a right left trajectory, to a left right trajectory to exit Kennedy's skull?  And exit above and to the right of his right ear, and land in the front seat. Cut in half, with the base and tip landing there.  But the middle part left in the rear of the skull?

How did Oswald send a coupon and payment to Klein's in Chicago for the rifle, which arrived, was sorted, and then deposited in about one day--a distance of  thousand miles.  When Oliver Stone did that experiment, it took six days.  And recall, back then--no zip codes, no computers, no sensors. 

Note I used the word proof at the start.  Oswald had no lawyer to defend him or raise these questions.  Therefore, there was no standard that the WC had to meet.  This is why they never had to answer these questions.

 

I did respond. I pointed out it was a Gish Gallop. 

On 4/19/2021 at 7:38 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am signing off on this thread because I fear that it is giving too much publicity to the nasty comments about McAdams and I don't want that. Besides, everyone has made their points.

I see it differently. Debating the assassination with conspiracy theorists is what John McAdams would want us to do. Doing it in this thread is the best place for that. Pointing out their attempts to poison the well by attacking McAdams himself instead of his arguments is a good place to start. 

All the best.

Hank

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

I have no interest in talking to you about any of your points and you mistakenly think that is what I was doing.

What I was doing was talking about John McAdams, which is the subject of this thread. 

I don't care what you say to your "opponent" and have zero interest in participating in that discussion.

Curiously, for someone who had no interest in talking to me about anything, you responded to one of my points with comments about what I wrote. 

== QUOTE ==

Ah, the good ole' "McAdams Special" as I like to call it.

Deign your opponent a crackpot buff and move along. If your opponent brings up the facts again, deem it a "factoid" and move along. 

== UNQUOTE ==

You weren't talking about McAdams, you were clearly talking about what I wrote. 

When I pointed out you avoided what I wrote entirely and substituted a straw man argument instead, suddenly you have no interest in talking to me. 

Hank

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not my suggestion.  It's what the doctors speculated the night of the autopsy.

The rounds didn't exit.

The historical record indicates two possibilities -- the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or the rounds were high-tech blood soluble.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

<quote on>

Church:  Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved not only designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby:  Well, there was an attempt—

Church:  Or the dart.

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Church:  As a murder instrument, that is about as efficient as you can get, is it not?

Colby:  It is a weapon, a very serious weapon.</q>

https://citizentruth.org/cia-heart-attack-gun/

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely.... Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic).</q>

 

1. I note you reference the autopsy doctors supposed speculation, rather than the autopsy doctors conclusions. (More on this below).  

2. If the rounds didn't exit, they had to be going pretty slowly to start with, right? They only had to penetrate, what, about six inches of flesh to exit? Why would bullets just stop in the body? 

3. The historical record suggests a third possibility, one you don't even mention. The bullet struck JFK's back and exited his throat. That's the conclusion of the autopsy doctors, and the conclusion of the HSCA forensic panel that studied the extant autopsy materials in 1978. I'll go with the experts with over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. What is your medical training? 

4. Can you cite in the Sibert / O'Neill FBI report dated 11/26/63 about what they observed at the autopsy where there is any mention of an ice bullet? If this was a court trial of Oswald, couldn't their 11/26/63 memorandum be used to impeach their recollections from 15 years after the fact? Is there any contemporaneous evidence (circa 1963) that there was any speculation about an ice / plastic / frangible bullet? I see nothing of the sort in the historical record. 

5. The historical record (see the S/O memorandum for the record) reflects the doctor's attempt at merging the evidence they had at the time: that the bullet that struck JFK in the back exited out his back and was found on a stretcher at Parkland. Nothing in the historical record about plastic / ice / frangible bullets. 

All the best,

Hank

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

As to Hank's reply about the Hosty note, what a joke.

Oswald was not under oath when he made that reply.  He was quickly being escorted to and from a line up and back to his cell. In other words it was all willy nilly.

I would think most objective people would say that when he was in a room responding to questions in a more calm manner, that would be the reply one would rely on. But still that would not be as good as a sworn affidavit or statement at trial.  But that is what these guys do.  They pick and choose and then eliminate the evidence that destroys their case.

As Stanley Marks wrote: What is the evidence that Oswald was at the window at the crucial time, and what is the evidence he could do what the WR said he did?  Because, in court, this is what a prosecutor would have to prove. And Victoria Adams, Styles and Garner are a nightmare for the prosecution on this issue. And the FBI rifle tests are a similar nightmare for the shooting feat.

 

I'll remind you Oswald wasn't under oath when he gave any statement in custody to the LEOs in attendance, either. You're attempting to draw a distinction without a difference.

And I'll point out In that same exchange, he also declares himself a patsy. Are you backing away from that claim, or did Oswald mean that? Or was that too willy-nilly as he was being escorted back to his cell as well? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

I'll also remind you of the point I made earlier, that the suspect in custody isn't typically the best person to rely on for facts about his whereabouts at the time of the crime. But that's exactly what you're doing here, picking the claim you like best and discounting the other one. 

I accept both as statements Oswald made, and simply point out they contradict each other. I'm not the one picking and choosing, you are. If we're accepting both as statements uttered by Oswald (and one is on tape), then one is untrue. His claim he was in the building seems pretty emphatic to me, and he even offered up a reason for his being in the building at the time of the shooting: "Naturally, if I work in the building...".

That doesn't sound like some erroneous off-the-cuff remark to me. Explain why he would explain it that way if he was outside. 

Respectfully, 

Hank

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Before Hank replies with the tole DVP?McAdams well, his head bobbed forward before it went back, Josiah Thompson has brought that into serious question today.

Through the work of Dave Wimp, and we have posted that on this board at two points.

 

Not sure what "the tole DVP?McAdams well" is supposed to be, but the head can seen to change its angle and move forward after the bullet impact (compare Z312 and Z313) as seen here: 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Un-enhanced-high-resolution-digital-copies-of-Zapruder-Film-Frames-312-and-313-Z312-and_fig1_325023601

and here:

https://www.jfk-online.com/Closeup_312-313.gif

Who you gonna believe, Thompson and Wimp, or your own eyes? 

It doesn't start moving backward until Z315, according to Thompson's own measurements in the erroneously titled SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS.

All the best,

Hank

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is pure bunk, Hank, and I say this as a former physics tutor of undergraduates at Brown University in the 70s.

The retrograde trajectory of JFK's head and occipital skull fragments during the fatal head shot is obvious from the Zapruder film.  In fact, an occipital skull fragment hit one of the cops riding behind the limo, as I recall.  

This is basic Newtonian physics.  The fatal shot that knocked JFK's head violently backward and to his left could not possibly have been fired from the TSBD.   The CIA paid some yo-yo to publish a pseudo-scientific article claiming that the retrograde motion of the skull was secondary to de-cerebrate posturing-- but that is nonsense.  The retrograde motion was instantaneous on impact-- caused by the momentum of a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll area to the front and right of the limo.

So you're arguing that momentum is imparted 1/9th of a second after the collision of two bodies? 

The explosion of the head seen in Z313 is to the front, the result of a bullet impact between frames Z312 and Z313. Right? 

The large skull fragment from the top of the head can be seen in Z313 moving forward at about the one o'clock position. Right?

Two frames later, the head starts to move backward -- but the bullet is long gone by that time. 

Richard Feynman is not some yo-yo. He's a Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist, and he pointed out the head moves forward upon impact to David Lifton back in the 1960's. Lifton details the exchange in BEST EVIDENCE.

You can buy it here:

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/kw/david-lifton-best-evidence/

All the best,

Hank