Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by John CorbettWhy is it you believe a witness could be mistaken about the shooter
being one floor below the top but that same witness couldn't be mistaken
about how wide open the window was that he was shooting from?
Why multiple witnesses could be mistaken about some men being one floor
below the shooter but multiple witnesses not wrong about the shooter's
window being wide open?
Multiple witnesses may be wrong about multiple things.
Yes, we agree. Multiple witnesses may be wrong about multiple things.
I ask you, then, how do we determine what witnesses are right about what
things? Is there any methodology you use to determine what is correct and
There are aeveral different methods.
You can cross-check what they say over several interviews.
And if they said different things, or added something, or forgot
something, Don Willis will tell you that's evidence they were reached and
convinced to lie. CTs use any change in a statement to allege
conspiracy.
Post by Anthony MarshYou can reexamine them to ask them to clarify what they said.
And if they said different things, or added something, or forgot
something, Don Willis will tell you that's evidence they were reached and
convinced to lie. CTs use any change in a statement to allege
conspiracy.
You sre not authorized to claim what another poster rould say.
I'm telling you what Don Willis has said. Not what he 'rould' say.
I'm pretty sure I'm 'authorized' to sum up his argument.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshYou can crosscheck their account against the physical evidence.
Aha! Finally. The physical evidence is what is the ultimate arbiter of
what is true and what is false. And that's why conspiracy theorists
No, I did not say that. Physical evidence can be planted.
You need to show it was, not just suggest it might have been. Right now,
the evidence is the evidence. And it points to Oswald, and Oswald alone.
Your argument that the evidence could be planted goes nowhere, because you
don't have any evidence was planted, nor do you offer any reason for
evidence to be planted.
Post by Anthony MarshIt is just another clue to be examined.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)everywhere try to exclude the physical evidence.
False. It is dishonest tc claim that ALL are guilty if SOME are guilty.
You're here arguing the physical evidence could be planted. As I said,
conspiracy theorists must argue that, because the evidence points to
Oswald and Oswald alone.
Post by Anthony MarshI don't claime that ALL WC defenders are morons.
No, just whoever you're arguing with at the moment.
Post by Anthony MarshI know from personal experience that some did get a high school or
college education.
I have neither. Bobby Kennedy got shot, and I dropped out.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshYou can interview others they have talked to and see if there are any
gaps or discrepancies.
There are always going to be gaps and discrepancies between two witnesses.
Even differences in several statements by the same person.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Major and minor ones. And if they said different things, or added
something, or forgot something, Don Willis will tell you that's evidence
they were reached and convinced to lie. CTs use any change in a statement
to allege conspiracy.
Not ALL of them.
Pretty much all. Enough to say this is what CTs do.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshHave you read Loftus yet?
I've been pointing Don to Loftus for, like, forever. He ignores it every
time.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)what is wrong? Or is it, like many CTs, as simple as "If it points to a
conspiracy, it's right. If it points to Oswald, it's wrong"?
WHAT is wrong? What do you want to know?
Do you mean what is wrong about YOU?
And there's the logical fallacy of an ad hominem. Tony has no evidence, so
he's always going to go for the logical fallacy at some point.
So you can't answer my questions or you are afraid to.
Your question "Do you mean what is wrong about YOU?" is the LOGICAL
FALLACY of a loaded question and ad hominem. It doesn't get an answer for
those reasons.
Post by Anthony MarshHow long did it take you to admit all your aliases>
Another ad hominem. And another loaded question. You've got the logical
fallacies down pat. Too bad you don't have any evidence to talk about.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshI can't remember the name of that diagnosis.
I haven't studied psychology since college.
More ad hominem. Attack me, Tony. all you want. It shows you cannot argue
t=e evidence.
I attack you because that is the only thing you understand.
Thank you for that admission, that you attack me. The reason you offer, I
regret to inform you, is still undocumented.
Post by Anthony MarshYou can't answer simple questions.
Not the loaded questions and ad hominems you employ, no.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshMany things can point to Oswald, but they may not be conclusive.
Consilience. Look it up if you don't know what it means. When a lot of
things from different disciplines all point to the same conclusion, that
conclusion is strengthened.
Only if those pieces have been proven to be true.
You haven't shown any of them are not true. You've conjectured the
evidence might be planted, and witnesses might be wrong, and the like, but
you've cited nothing.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshAnd maybe they point to Oswald because he was framed.
Tell us how that happened without enlarging the conspiracy to bizarre
proportions. Try to cite the evidence for each of your assertions, and not
Logical fallacy of Reductio ad Absurdum. That seems to be your favorite.
Nice try, but reducing an argument to an absurdity is not a logical
fallacy. It's the very antithesis of one.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)rely on speculation. Go ahead, we'll wait for your responses. Guaranteed
- How did the conspirators know Oswald ordered a rifle?
DEMhernschildt, who saw the rifle and teased Oswald about missing Walker.
How did the conspirators know what Demohrenschildt knew? Your answer is no
answer at all. Remember, I also asked you to cite the evidence for each of
your assertions as well.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they get him to bring it to the depository on the day of the
assassination?
They didn't have to. They could have stolen it from the Paines garage.
Try to remember I didn't ask for your unproven conjectures about what
could have happened. I specifically ruled that out here: "Tell us how that
happened without enlarging the conspiracy to bizarre proportions. Try to
cite the evidence for each of your assertions, and not rely on
speculation."
Don't you remember I asked for evidence and not conjecture or speculation?
Post by Anthony MarshYou keep loading your question with unproven asserions.
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- Failing that, how did they get him to bring curtain rods to the depository
on 11/22/63?
No one ever claimed that anyone tricked Oswald into grabbing the curtain
rods.
You have claimed he brought curtain rods, not a rifle, to the Depository.
Don't you remember your own arguments?
You have claimed the package seen was too small to contain a rifle. My
point it that it was awfully convenient for the conspiracy for Oswald to
have brought a long package to the Depository on the same day the
President was shot and Oswald's rifle and a paper bag bearing his print
and large enough to contain his rifle was found in the Depository. Don't
you think? Was this all just a coincidence? Or do you have some
explanation for Oswald being a long sack to the Depository that day? Try
to also remeber, when you're offering us your explanation (AND the
evidence!), that Oswald DENIED in custody having any long package, and
claimed he only had his lunch.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they obtain the rifle and get the weapon to the Depository, if
Oswald didn't bring it?
Sneaking into the Paines garage.
Yes. I asked for the evidence of that. It appears you have none.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they get the shells to plant at the window, or did the real
shooter use Oswald's weapon?
Correct.
ok, you got one answer correct.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How How did the conspirators get Oswald's fresh prints are on that box as
if he sat on that box within the last 24 hours?
Oswald worked in that building and was filling orders in the morning.
On that box at that window? Is this just another miraculous coincidence
that happened to fall in the conspirators favor? Any evidence he was
filling a order at that window on that box? Was it for Rolling Readers
(the small boxes used as an apparent rifle rest), perchance?
Post by Anthony MarshHis fingerprints could be everywhere.
And he just happened to sit on that box in the Sniper's nest in the
previous 24 hours? Is that your final answer?
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they get Oswald's curtain rod bag into the sniper's nest corner?
Or did they?
It had his print on it. It was either Oswald's curtain rod bag or Oswald's
rifle bag. Choose one. Or, as a CT, go for some unreasonable answer.
J.C.Day's assistant, R. L. Studebaker, testified that's where he picked it
up. Remember I said "Tell us how that happened without enlarging the
conspiracy to bizarre proportions"?
Search on sack to find what Studebaler claimed:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/studebak.htm
Was Studebaker lying? Mistaken? What?
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they get Oswald the job at the Depository? Was Ruth Paine part of
the conspiracy?
No, they x\could have framed him anywhere.
Tough to frame a guy who got a job at the other Texas School Book
Depository that was blocks from the motorcade route. Remember I said to
avoid conjecture and offer evidence? So far you're batting zero on the
evidence, and 1.000 on the conjecture. Exactly as I expected.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)- How did they get the motorcade to go past the Depository? Were Secret
Service agents part of the conspiracy?
I reject those theories, like Connally luring JFK to Dallas.
So answer the question,. Was it just a coincidence the motorcade went past
the Depository? If not, how did they get the motorcade to go past the
Depository? Or was Oswald and the President brought close enough by the
conspirators? If the latter, how'd they do it?
Post by Anthony MarshJFK needed Texas and Dallas was an important trip.
Not an answer to my question.
Post by Anthony MarshDid you know they had a luncheon perpared for him at the trade Mart?
Yes, but the Secret Service had a choice of different sites, and the site
chosen pretty much dictated the route.
Post by Anthony MarshThe motorcade could have gone there firectly from the airport, but he
campaign wanted JFK to be seen by crowds so they needed a motorcade
through the heart of Dallas.
And if the site of the luncheon was elsewhere, the route would have been
different. How'd the conspirators arrange to get JFK within range of
Oswald's rifle? Try answering the question I asked.
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)Post by Anthony MarshOswald was a loner, but certain people knew about him and could use him
as the fallguy.
Name these people, show us the evidence he was used by them as a fall guy.
CIA.
Not an answer. "CIA" is meaningless. And in the absence of evidence,
borders on the absurd.
Post by Anthony MarshSilly trick. You are trying to call me a liar.
There's no need. All I need do is point out the total lack of any evidence
presented by you to substaniteate any of your claims.
Post by Anthony MarshAgainst newsgroup rules. You have no right to tell me what I must be
thinking.
Straw man argument. I pointed out the lack of evidence to support your
assertions. "show us the evidence he was used by them as a fall guy. There
isn't any, and we both know it. "
Post by Anthony MarshPost by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)It's all conjecture, speculation, and innuendo.
Yes, you do all those. So what?
This post alone refutes your claim. The only one offering evidence (for
example, the testimony of Studebaker) is me. The only one who has
repeatedly offered conjecture, speculation and innuendo is you.
Post by Anthony MarshI am the only one posting evidence. You never post files, documents.
See Studebaker's testimony above, which establishes your claim is untrue.
Post by Anthony MarshI try to ignore YOU, but I can't ignore your attacks on the truth.
And there's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a begged question. That's where you
imbed in your statement the very point you must prove. Above you claim I'm
making "attacks on the truth".
Then, by all means, cite the evidence that establishes I'm wrong. Please.
Your empty assertions with no evidence in support, your speculations, and
your conjecture, and your logical fallacies are just not sufficient to to
establish that.
Cite some evidence. Prove me wrong.
Go ahead, we're waiting.
Hank