Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams has passed on


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

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

Those aren't contemporaneous accounts -- therefore irrelevant.

56 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

I'm not sure you understand the problem.

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

56 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Your opinion does not outweigh theirs.

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

56 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

You have no expertise in the subject and your opinion of the wounds isn't worthwhile.

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

56 minutes ago, Hank Sienzant said:

 

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. 

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

Those are the opinions that count.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

Well, that's not what the photographic experts working for the HSCA concluded. Why are your claims so often unsourced or from non-experts while I cite the actual expert conclusions?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm

"...A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown that exist in photographs today with marks shown on the photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

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

 

The point is Oswald told many different stories in custody and to reporters. I've posted links to the source materials. You hand-wave away the detailed posts -- providing quotes from the experts -- I've posted, suggesting they are less than honest, but if I simply dismissed the claims made here by others, you would dismiss those as well. 

You don't point out any errors in my posts, you apparently don't like that they are long, detailed, and cite the actual evidence. That was essentially your only real criticism of them. 

All the best,

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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

     Why did Jackie Kennedy immediately crawl onto the trunk? 

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

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

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

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

Wow. So, let's see, I'm either ignorant or lying, but, to quote Richard Booth from a post on the 21st:

== QUOTE ==

McAdams' legacy will always be that of the guy who called those who disagreed with him "crackpots" and "buffs" while doing away with facts he didn't want to address by calling them "factoids" which was a clever way of denoting some facts as less-factual, or perhaps relevant, than others. This style works very well when preaching to the choir, or perhaps persuading a person on the fence who is easily persuaded by less than scholarly methods. That is John McAdams. He was all about below-the-belt discourse and rarely if ever about being intellectually honest, much less carrying on in a respectful manner. I talk about all of this because I believe it's important to examine the ways in which people communicate to get across their message, as one thing I have learned in my life is that it's very often not what you say, but how you say it. 

== UNQUOTE ==

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

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

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

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

Here's the frames in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh heck, here's the map:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank

 

Edited by Hank Sienzant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

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

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

No, Joe Zircon was the alias. Hank Sienzant is my real name. Your suspicions aren't evidence. 

Nor is your opinion that Ben Holmes calling me names is a spanking. I cite the evidence, or ask Ben to make his case and cite the evidence, and he immediately goes into name-calling mode. Pretty much all Ben does is ask begged questions on Alt.Conspiracy.JFK, and then try to shift the burden of proof and ask others to disprove his assertions. He's personally responsible for pretty much making that forum a desolate area. 

All the best,

Hank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hank Sienzant said:

Well, that's not what the photographic experts working for the HSCA concluded. Why are your claims so often unsourced or from non-experts while I cite the actual expert conclusions?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm

"...A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown that exist in photographs today with marks shown on the photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs."  

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

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

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

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2021 at 6:17 AM, 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 ==

Wasn't the rifle that was found a Mauser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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

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

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

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

 


It is comical and, he is not the only Warren Commission, lone assassin supporter who does this. One second the WC is credible but, the HSCA is debunked, next minute the HSCA is a credible source where the Warren Commission is deficient. 🤷‍♂️☺️
With such adept skills in selecting evidence, they would have made great Warren Commission members, with such loyalty to the cause. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

And now you say you don't want to engage anymore and claim I'm spreading 'disinformation', but you cite nothing wrong with my posts specifically, nor do you post any contrary evidence.

 

More of your incessant bunk, Hank.  What I cited was your denial of the obvious evidence that the fatal bullet knocked JFK's head violently backward, blasting a fragment of his occipital skull backward, behind the limo, where it struck a cop.

Based on basic Newtonian physics, that bullet could not have been fired from the TSBD behind the limo.  It was fired from a position in front and to the right of the limo-- the Grassy Knoll.

57 years of this kind of Warren Commission Report "Lone Nut" bunk about Oswald in the TSBD is enough for one lifetime.

You should take your WCR disinformation to a less scholarly forum.

If ignorance is your problem, I see no evidence that you are genuinely interested in learning anything.  You are in perpetual broadcast mode, while ignoring the rebuttals people have posted in response to your "firehose of falsehoods."

Hence, I conclude that you are simply dishonest-- like the late John McAdams and the many WCR promoters in our mainstream and social media since 1964.

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

You should take your WCR disinformation to a less scholarly forum.

This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This "scholarly" forum should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

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

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

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

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Malignant Nature of Pseudo-Debate

by E. Martin Schotz

Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise—that there is uncertainly to be resolved—seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions—the media, the universities and the government—once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This "scholarly" forwhop habitually pretend um should be able to easily refute Hank's assertions. Instead, they want to chase him off. Or perhaps they are brewing up a scheme to try and get rid of him like they did Von Pein. Why not just debate him? A debate is more informative than and echo chamber.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

FOR THE ABOVE POST, HANK SAID I WAS LACKING IN REFERENCES.  THIS IS HOW HE GOT AWAY FROM REPLYING. THIS IS ALL JFK 101. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR DECADES ON END.  IT IS NOT A GISH GALLOP. THAT IS JUST AN AVOIDANCE TECHNIQUE. 

BUT THIS INFO STRIKES AT THE HEART OF THE ALLEGED CONCLUSIONS FOR HUMES' AUTOPSY REPORT.  IT SHOWS THAT THE REPORT AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY WERE EVOLVING DOCUMENTS NOT BASED ON RAW DATA COLLECTED THAT NIGHT. I MEAN JUST LOOK AT THE RYDBERG DRAWINGS COMPARED TO THE AUTOPSY FACE SHEET.

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...