John McAdams has passed on

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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 ==

[David G. Healy]

16 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

      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.

Edited April 28, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Hank Sienzant]

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

 

[Cliff Varnell]

7 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

 

6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

You won't get any fake debate out of me, Hank, only instruction.

Your inability to address anything in the First Day Evidence File other than Hosty's notes tells us everything about your intellectual bankruptcy.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[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

[Hank Sienzant]

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

 

 

[Hank Sienzant]

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. 

[Cliff Varnell]

23 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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.- produce it.

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.

Bullet holes in JFK's clothes 4 inches below the bottom of the collars are consistent with the contemporaneous written notes on the back wound by Bennett, Burkley, Jenkins, O'Neill, Sibert and Robinson.

Dr. Ronald Jones and Dr. Charles Carrico wrote contemporaneous notes describing a throat entrance wound -- consistent with the shallow back wound which was too low to associate with the throat wound.

The damage in the authenticated cervical x-ray is consistent with a throat shot from the front.

The First Day Evidence File stands on it's own.

 

Quote

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? 

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

Quote

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

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.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

29 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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. 

He didn't say anything about "the time of the shooting" - - more Joe Zircon fiction.

It's a crime to lie to the FBI.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

HS: That's not what the autopsists concluded. That's also not what the HSCA forensic panel concluded.

 

1. Hank, what is the date on the autopsy report?

2. Hank, what is the date on the supplementary report?

3. What happened to Humes' first draft of the report?

4. What happened to his notes?

5. What happened to Finck's notes? 

Now to show this is not Gish Gallop.  Here are the answers Hank does not want to admit to:

1. There is none.

2. 12/6 and its handwritten.  If this is so, then why do Humes and Boswell say the date was around 11/25? (Horne Vol. 3, p. 777,  Now what was the day Kennedy was buried Hank? Ibid, p. 788)

3. Burned

4. Burned

5. Stolen.

With this kind of evidence trail, just what conclusions are you talking about Hank?  

Also, the autopsy the HSCA agreed to differs markedly from the one in 1963.  Ever hear of the Clark Panel? To the point that certain fragment trails were gone in 1968. So what conclusions are you agreeing to? The 1963 or the 1979 ones?

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by James DiEugenio