On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:26:53?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.
They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177
You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.
Give us corroborating evidence that the rifle was in, "its normal hiding place in the Paine garage" before November 22nd.
Are you suggesting that Oswald knew in March of 1963 that Kennedy would be coming to Dallas ?
ROFLMAO
Name the people who saw the rifle in the garage prior to November 22nd.
You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.
That would require speculation, Hank. You're the expert on that.
This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.
Speaking of someone who will always, "ignore or discount the hard evidence you can't explain", maybe you'd like to take a stab at this one:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:00:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:26:53?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177
Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”
Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? It appears not.
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:00:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:26:53?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>> They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.
They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177
Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”
Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.
I understand Gil stated they suppressed his testimony, then claimed they cited it.
I also understand you deleted ...
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:00:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:26:53?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>> They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.
They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177
Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”
Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.
Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.
So Hank's full of shit, as usual.
Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.
Hank's ASSUMING that because:
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).
Hank can prove me wrong. All he has to do is cite where Frazier said specifically that:
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.
Volume and page, please.
Thirdly, Frazier ( the Lone Nutters' eyewitness that Oswald took the rifle to work that day ) said in this video ( that I'm sure they'll refuse to look at )
that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.
https://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 11:24:32?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 7:00:43?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:26:53?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>>> They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.
They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177
Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”
stated.
Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.
No...
I explained to you ...
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 7:49:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 11:58:37?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
No reason to explain yourself - honest people caught what you said the first time around.Anybody who leaves this life believing the Warren Commission's lies and having fought to support those lies, will
And explaining it to a liar is an exercise in futility.
If believers could prove us wrong - they'd cite the evidence. But they can't... the evidence supports conspiracy.
stand before the Judge with the blood of John F. Kennedy on their hands.
Like the German citizens who turned their neighbors into the Nazis during WW II, these people are collaborators with traitors.
Having spent their lives trying to suppress the truth, they are as guilty as the people who pulled the triggers and those who covered it up.
Therefore, the blood of JFK will be on their hands as well.
You guys have your own little worlds going on.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?
That's all they know.
Huckster can't handle the truth...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:58:32 -0800, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster can't handle the truth...
None of them can.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:50:17?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?That's all they know.
That you guys are ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 104:06:41 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,170 |