John McAdams has passed on

[Hank Sienzant]

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 ==

[Cliff Varnell]

15 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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 ==

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

 

 

 

 

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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.

 

 

[Hank Sienzant]

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. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

50 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

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."

Quote

What facts am I pretending don't exist?

See above.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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'. 

 

 

 

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

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

They are more contemporaneous than the recollections you cite from 1978.

So?

Quote

A draft was prepared the Sunday after the autopsy and it was typed up the same day - on 11/24/63.

The autopsy report used a moveable cranial landmark -- the mastoid process -- for a back wound they put in two different locations: T2 (just above the upper margin of the scapula) and a location below the mastoid process consistent with C7/T1.

Non-contemporaneous report which registered three different violations of autopsy protocol.

Quote

You ignore the autopsy doctors' conclusions and reference a recollection by non-medical personnel 15 years after the event.

You have quite the propensity to make things up. 

I cited the First Day Evidence of the T3 back wound -- repeatedly.

This isn't a debate -- it's a tutorial for slow students.

Quote

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. 

I have no idea what you're talking about --do you?

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Andrej Stancak]

The problem with the official version is that it is sufficient to identify just one glaring problem and the whole theory crumbles. For me this problem is that Lee Oswald could not enter the second floor lunchroom by a route involving the stairwell on the north of the building.

First, he could be seen through the narrow door window on the door leading to the lunchroom from the stairwell platform from one location, and that location was just in front of the last step on the stairs exiting to the second floor. While this was possible, there is always a history to any action: Roy Truly was steps ahead of Officer Baker and Truly would have to see Lee crossing the door and the door would still be open. However, Truly did not see any movements of the doors or anyone on the platform or in the door.

Second, it takes about 3-4 seconds to cross the distance of the platform between the door at the exit from the stairs and the door leading to the lunchroom vestibule. Lee Oswald would be still on the final steps of those stairs when Baker and Truly would just start ascending through the stairs leading from the first floor; this means these two men had to hear Lee's steps either on the stairs or on the platform, or both. However, they did not. The stairs were old and creaky. Even Buell Wesley Frazier flagged up the problem of no one hearing Lee's steps in his recent interview on Quorum Radio. Vicki Adams confirmed the noise problem to Barry Ernest, and Barry was able to test the stairs himself back in 1969.

Third, Miss Garner placed herself very close to the stairwell on the fourth floor during the critical moments after the shooting. Miss Garner took this post within seconds after Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles disappeared in the stairwell. Thus, not only there was a brief overlap of the time when the girls were on stairs and Lee was allegedly starting his descend (Lee could be at the stairwell around 30 seconds after the last shot), but Miss Garner covered the remaining time of Lee Oswald's alleged descent. It is even worst than that: to connect the exit from stairs leading from the fifth to the fourth floor with the entrance to the stairs leading from the fourth to the third floor, Lee would have to walk on the fourth-floor platform and could therefore be seen by anyone on the fourth floor, especially by Miss Garner who monitored that space.

Lee Oswald could enter the second floor lunchroom and be seen by Officer Baker at one specific time point while he was in the small vestibule leading to the lunchroom, however, he would have to arrive from the hallway of the second floor. And that space is connected with the first floor via the front stairs. 

The timing problem was never properly addressed in official investigations and so the timing problem as if did not exist for those believing in the official version. And those who wonder how could the timing problem be resolved are considered to be fools. 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Andrej Stancak

[W. Niederhut]

28 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The problem with the official version is that it is sufficient to identify just one glaring problem and the whole theory crumbles. For me this problem is that Lee Oswald could not enter the second floor lunchroom by a route involving the stairwell on the north of the building.

Exactly right, Andrej.  All I will add to your comment is that there are many facts, "glaring problems," with the WCR/Lone Nut theory.  Any one of them is sufficient, logically, to invalidate the WCR theory.

By definition, a valid theory is a coherent, explanatory framework for all of the known facts.

[James DiEugenio]

Devastating reviews on the book McAdams wrote on the JFK case.

Mantik's review is especially corruscating.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mcadams-john-jfk-assassination-logic-how-to-think-about-claims-of-conspiracy-1

[James DiEugenio]

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.

The date on the supplementary report is handwritten as 12/6.  I won't go into all the problems that creates for the official fantasy.  But Doug Horne does a nice job showing how it does in his book.

 

 

Hank actually tries to recycle Harry Holmes.  Stunning.  The family writes a letter of apology for his deceptions and the FBI finds out there were no other names on the part he disposed of, and Hank says, well, we should still listen to him. 

Whew. The ends justifies the means. Who's next Hank, Jerry Ford?

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by James DiEugenio