Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Josh Cron
 Share

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

May I remind you that Oswald said in the hallway, when asked where he was during the assassination, said he was in the building, because he worked in the building? 

== 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 ==

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html

This tutorial, is it designed to expose that Oswald lied about his whereabouts during the shooting? 

Just curious.

Hank

So if you go to work and you step outside the front door for a minute you're no longer at work? 

You're no longer at the site of your employment because you're standing outside the front door?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

So ya'll suggesting two magic bullets, then?

What, one wasn't enough for you? 

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

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

If JFK was struck with a bullet in the back and another in the front, where'd they exit -- as there were no bullets seen in the full body x-rays at the autopsy.

The rounds didn't exit.

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Did they just magically disappear?

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

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable? 

If there were bullets that struck JFK in the back and the throat, why didn't they exit? The bullet that struck Connally went through his trunk, his wrist and into his thigh before apparently falling out onto a stretcher. What kind of bullets struck JFK twice from two different directions and didn't do significant damage? What evidence can you provide to make this argument reasonable?  

All the best,

Hank

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>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

old Hankster has been schooled in 1964 WCR conclusions and of course Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement by none other than Ben Holmes for the past 5 years at alt.conspiracy.jfk, Amazon (when it was up) and other venues. I prefer myself *Hank *move-the-goalposts' Sienzant,* Joe Zircon hasn't faired well these days... after 25-30 years of watching these nutter's in action, I suspect .John has a 13th floor walk-up--suite of rooms in purgatory awaiting him... what-a-crew.

(last time I got a ""warning"" here was in 2008, I'm due...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

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. 

You can call it whatever you like, but it still remains a logical fallacy of poisoning the well. That's what I said and cited for.

I notice you introduce additional logical fallacies, that of a straw man argument (I didn't deign my opponent a crackpot buff, nor did I deem it a factoid either. 

I pointed out a logical fallacy of poisoning the well in the prior poster's post. I note you avoided my actual point entirely. 

What would you call that?

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Begging the question logical fallacy. 

Your assertions are not evidence.  

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.

2 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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? 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hank Sienzant said:

You can call it whatever you like, but it still remains a logical fallacy of poisoning the well. That's what I said and cited for.

I notice you introduce additional logical fallacies, that of a straw man argument (I didn't deign my opponent a crackpot buff, nor did I deem it a factoid either. 

I pointed out a logical fallacy of poisoning the well in the prior poster's post. I note you avoided my actual point entirely. 

What would you call that?

Hank

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So if you go to work and you step outside the front door for a minute you're no longer at work? 

You're no longer at the site of your employment because you're standing outside the front door?

== QUOTE ==

1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

== UNQUOTE ==

Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, not outside on the steps. He's on record as saying inside the bulilding. Outside the front door is outside, isn't it? It is where I come from. Or do conspiracy theorists have a different definition of inside and outside? 

All the best,

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hank Sienzant said:

== QUOTE ==

1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

== UNQUOTE ==

Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting, not outside on the steps. He's on record as saying inside the bulilding. Outside the front door is outside, isn't it? It is where I come from. Or do conspiracy theorists have a different definition of inside and outside? 

All the best,

Hank

The spin you put on this stuff must be dizzying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Hank:

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  a 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.

 

A Gish Gallop is another form of logical fallacy. 

Asking a series of begged questions isn't the proper way to go about this. 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/gish-gallop.html

== QUOTE ==

Description: Overwhelming an interlocutor with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. This is especially disingenuous when the interlocutor is not allowed to interrupt and address the arguments, as in formal debate or in writing. To the spectator unfamiliar with this strategy, the interlocutor’s inability to accurately respond to all the claims in the given time is fallaciously seen as a “win” for the Gish Galloper or appears to lend credibility to the arguments made when in fact it does not.

Logical Form:

Person 1 presents weak arguments A, B, C, D, E... without Person 2 being given the opportunity to address each argument.

Example #1: The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education in the 1990s. Dr. Scott coined the term based on the behavior of creationist Duane Gish in formal debates. Dr. Scott states:

“On the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, ‘Wait a minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?’ or something similar, and show that their ‘model’ is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist Gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.”

Example #2: In a 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama, Romney overwhelmed Obama with many arguments of questionable strength, resulting in many referring to Romney’s strategy as an example of the Gish Gallop. 

Exception: The two key characteristics of the Gish Gallop are 1) the number of arguments in uninterrupted succession and 2) the lack of strength of the arguments presented. The number of arguments presented is problematic when the interlocutor doesn’t have a reasonable amount of time (or space if in writing and limited by characters) to respond. The strength of the arguments is debatable, so in the case of Romney and Obama, it can be argued that Romney was making strong arguments, in which case Romney’s crime was simply presenting too many of these arguments at once.

Fun Fact: A thousand bad arguments don’t add up to a single good argument, although many people interpret numerous bad arguments as “strong evidence” (e.g., “they can’t all be wrong” - Yes, they can all be wrong.)

== UNQUOTE ==

You are also making a series of assertions in the above, offering no proof of any of them, and asking me to prove you wrong. That's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to establish your assertions are true, not just put them in the form of a question and ask me to disprove them. 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

== QUOTE ==

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.

Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.

Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.

Nick: How do you figure?

Jack: Can you prove that I don't?

Nick: No.

Jack: Then I do.

Explanation: Jack made a claim that requires justification. Nick asked for the evidence, but Jack shifted the burden of proof to Nick. When Nick was unable to refute Jack's (unfalsifiable) claim, Jack claimed victory.

== UNQUOTE ==

All the best,

Hank

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

And the postal money order that supposedly paid for the rifle was never deposited. No bank stamps on the money order. Then there are other suspicious details concerning that money order including the serial number on it and when it had to have been issued compared to when it was supposed to have been used. Then you have the fact that the person who comes forward with the money order is the wrong person. It's some guy at the National Archives. If I send a money order to someone, it would receive banking stamps on it when it passed through the banking system and was deposited, and it most certainly would not magically transfer itself out of the hands of the bank and into the hands of someone at the national archives.

Arguing with these people is a waste of time, Jim.

Kleins paperwork says they shipped the rifle to Oswald's PO Box. You often order stuff and get it for free? 

Your claims about the money order are unproven, and we both know it. You're assuming the bank had to stamp the money order, but the rules quoted in another thread don't say that. The Kleins stamp on the money order identifies both the bank it was deposited to and the account it was deposited to. What more do you need to track it back? 

Hank

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

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. 

        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Correct quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...