The Truth That WCR Believers Run From... #15

[Ben Holmes]

Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?

Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing
a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row
from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting
at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description
of the man who shot Tippit. From the statements of eyewitnesses the
police dispatcher reported the suspect was wearing a white jacket
(discarded at the Texaco station) and a white T-shirt, yet the man
pointed out by Brewer to Captain Westbrook was wearing a long-sleeved,
dark brown shirt.

Does anyone sense a conflict between how all the witnesses described
the murderer and the actual person arrested? Will any honest believer
publicly acknowledge this?

I know it requires absolutely basic thinking skills to recognize that
Oswald wasn't wearing a white shirt, and that he simply didn't fit the
mass of eyewitness descriptions.

Amusingly, the suspect in a white shirt **WAS** arrested at the
theater... as the website "Kennedyandking.com" notes: Bernard Haire,
owner of a hobby shop two doors from the theater, walked out the rear
of his shop shortly before 2:00 PM and saw police cars backed up to
Madison Street. He watched as the police escorted a man from the rear
of the Texas Theater wearing a "white pullover shirt." They placed the
man in a squad car and drove away. He noticed the man was very "flush"
in the face as though he had been in a struggle. Haire's description
of this man-"white shirt" with a "flush face"-is consistent with
witness statements of Tippit's killer before, during and after the
shooting. For 25 years Mr. Haire and other witnesses thought they had
witnessed the arrest of Oswald behind the Texas Theater in the alley.
When told Oswald was brought out the front of the theater Haire asked
"Then who was the person I saw police take out the rear of the
theater, put in a police car, and drive off?"

No wonder the witness list from the theater disappeared... there were
24 witnesses there who might have been able to clear Oswald (perhaps
able to testify that Oswald arrived at the theater too early to have
shot Tippit?) or to have seen multiple arrests. Either scenario plays
havoc with the Warren Commission's theory.

So far, I've shown how the Warren Commission lied about the evidence
for at *least* two assassins - I've shown how there was some
hanky-panky going on during Oswald's arrest - and shown how evidence
is missing in this case.

Once it's been demonstrated that evidence was lied about - and
evidence simply "disappeared" in this case - the Warren Commission is
finished.

It then is no longer the "default" position by which everything else
needs to be judged. And unless believers can credibly explain the
facts I've thus far presented - they've lost.

For you cannot use lies as the foundation of anything at all.

And while Chuckles, Chickenshit, and Davy Von Penis can be forgiven
for not answering these facts due to their ignorance of the case -
Huckster Sienzant knows these facts... and provably runs from them.

What a coward!!

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?
Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing
a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row
from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting
at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description
of the man who shot Tippit.

Hilarious! Brewer was *NOT* a witness to the Tipping shooting, and he was *NOT* identifying the man he thought shot Tippit.

He was pointing out the man he saw acting suspiciously immediately outside the shoe store he worked at.

Your attempt to get Brewer’s identification of Oswald as that man thrown out falls flat.

Here’s how Brewer described the suspiciously acting man:
== quote ==

Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.
Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?
Mr. BREWER - Six three.
Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
…
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and she called the police, and we went----Butch went to the front exit, and I went down by the stage to the back exit and stood there until the police came.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - Well, just before they came. they turned the house lights on, and I looked out from the curtains and saw the man.
== unquote ==

You point out Oswald was dressed that way, so Brewer’s identification is *NOT* invalid based on the clothing. Moreover, we don't know how much of the identification was based on the clothing versus the face — 10%, 90%, or somewhere in between. Clearly, Oswald looked like the man Brewer saw. Brewer pointed him out.

Post by Ben Holmes
From the statements of eyewitnesses the
police dispatcher reported the suspect was wearing a white jacket
(discarded at the Texaco station) and a white T-shirt, yet the man
pointed out by Brewer to Captain Westbrook was wearing a long-sleeved,
dark brown shirt.

Because that’s what the man acting suspiciously was wearing when Brewer saw him.
Thanks for conceding Brewer pointed out the right guy — the guy he saw.

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense a conflict between how all the witnesses described
the murderer and the actual person arrested? Will any honest believer
publicly acknowledge this?

Sure — the Tippit witnesses were all over the map in terms of the jacket color and style.
That doesn't invalidate Brewer pointing out Oswald as the man he saw acting suspiciously in the least.

And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.
Curious, that, don't you think if Oswald wasn't guilty of anything?
How did Oswald come into possession of the weapon that could be linked to the shells the gunman was seen discarding after shooting Tippit?

Post by Ben Holmes
I know it requires absolutely basic thinking skills to recognize that
Oswald wasn't wearing a white shirt, and that he simply didn't fit the
mass of eyewitness descriptions.

He was wearing a white T-shirt, which could be all that was visible under a zipper jacket with a shirt not buttoned to the collar. And again, we don't know how much of the identification of Oswald was based on the clothing versus the face — 10%, 90%, or somewhere in between. For example, Markham said:
== quote ==

Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just--
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize him from his clothing?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had on a light short jacket, dark trousers. I looked at his clothing, but I looked at his face, too.
…
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
== unquote ==

Post by Ben Holmes
Amusingly, the suspect in a white shirt **WAS** arrested at the
theater... as the website "Kennedyandking.com" notes: Bernard Haire,
owner of a hobby shop two doors from the theater, walked out the rear
of his shop shortly before 2:00 PM and saw police cars backed up to
Madison Street.

According to Marrs, Haire pointed himself out in photographs in front of the theatre at the time of Oswald’s arrest. He only mentions recalling seeing one arrest, not two. Ergo, he saw Oswald’s arrest in front of the theatre, and nearly two decades later, simply remembered it as at the back of the theatre.

That makes more sense than Haire forgetting one arrest entirely, doesn't it?

Also, where is the arrest documents for this other man? Where are the arresting officers? Where are the witnesses from inside or outside the theatre that saw two arrests?

There’s nothing that corroborates Haire’s decades later recollection.

Nothing.

Post by Ben Holmes
He watched as the police escorted a man from the rear
of the Texas Theater wearing a "white pullover shirt." They placed the
man in a squad car and drove away. He noticed the man was very "flush"
in the face as though he had been in a struggle. Haire's description
of this man-"white shirt" with a "flush face"-is consistent with
witness statements of Tippit's killer before, during and after the
shooting.

Except Haire identified himself in photos taken at the time Oswald wasrought from the theatre in the front of the theatre.

Post by Ben Holmes
For 25 years Mr. Haire and other witnesses thought they had

What OTHER WITNESSES???

Post by Ben Holmes
witnessed the arrest of Oswald behind the Texas Theater in the alley.
When told Oswald was brought out the front of the theater Haire asked
"Then who was the person I saw police take out the rear of the
theater, put in a police car, and drive off?"

Nobody. It’s called a false memory. He witnessed the arrest of Oswald, and simply misremembered some details after the passage of so many years.

Is this such a strange explanation that you can comfortably reject it out of hand?

Post by Ben Holmes
No wonder the witness list from the theater disappeared... there were
24 witnesses there who might have been able to clear Oswald (perhaps
able to testify that Oswald arrived at the theater too early to have
shot Tippit?) or to have seen multiple arrests. Either scenario plays
havoc with the Warren Commission's theory.

Ah, so only *speculation *about what other witnesses might have said. I thought you deal in evidence, not speculation. That’s been your claim in the past.

Post by Ben Holmes
So far, I've shown how the Warren Commission lied about the evidence
for at *least* two assassins - I've shown how there was some
hanky-panky going on during Oswald's arrest - and shown how evidence
is missing in this case.

No, regarding Oswald’s arrest, you are putting more credence in a witness’s recollection from more than a decade after the fact, than the photos putting him in front of the theatre when Oswald was brought out.

Post by Ben Holmes
Once it's been demonstrated that evidence was lied about - and
evidence simply "disappeared" in this case - the Warren Commission is
finished.

Was a list ever made of the witnesses in the theatre?
Why is that pertinent?
Oswald was booked - we know he was arrested.
Since when do we need witnesses to an arrest?

Post by Ben Holmes
It then is no longer the "default" position by which everything else
needs to be judged. And unless believers can credibly explain the
facts I've thus far presented - they've lost.

I've explained Haire’s decades-later recollection by citing the evidence of the photos putting him in front of the theatre at the time of Oswald’s arrest. That’s the arrest Haire witnessed.

Post by Ben Holmes
For you cannot use lies as the foundation of anything at all.

So stop trying. You falsely compared Brewer’s identification to the Tippit witnesses, instead of to the man he saw acting suspiciously. You utilized a decades-later recollection instead of photos that put Haire in the front of the theatre.

Post by Ben Holmes
And while Chuckles, Chickenshit, and Davy Von Penis can be forgiven
for not answering these facts due to their ignorance of the case -
Huckster Sienzant knows these facts... and provably runs from them.
What a coward!!

And there’s the ad hominem instead of facts. You claimed otherwise here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2IVMfMWgcYw/m/PyZHWzIsAAAJ

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
Loading Image...

SMH

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

Yes. He said he saw it in Oswald’s hand when he first saw it:
== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered, "He's got a gun."
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

The revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald by business records. Do you think Officer McDonald just happened to be in possession of Oswald’s revolver at the time of the encounter in the theatre?

If not, where do you think the weapon came from?

Please offer a reasonable explanation that a commonplace jury of 12 will accept.

Especially when the jury hears various statements from LEOs that Oswald admitted in custody to punching an officer and purchasing the revolver.

Go ahead, we’ll wait.

I

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:58:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

In other words, you lied.

You can go ahead and admit it, Huckster...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

Gil just proved you a iiar, that's what.

Not that we needed any further proof.

Amusingly, YOU CAN'T EVEN ADMIT that you got caught lying.

Post by Hank Sienzant
The revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald by business records.

An assumption on your part, with nothing to cite... And has *NOTHING*
to do with your lie.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Do you think Officer McDonald just happened to be in possession of
Oswald’s revolver at the time of the encounter in the theatre?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Post by Hank Sienzant
If not, where do you think the weapon came from?

No need to answer logical fallacies, you merely point'em out, and move
on.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Please offer a reasonable explanation that a commonplace jury of 12 will accept.

Already have - and most of America accepts a conspiracy in this case.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Especially when the jury...

The jury has already been polled.

You lose!

Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Said the coward who can't answer this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:58:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

In other words, you lied.

No, I reached the reasonable conclusion. Sorry if you don't have a better explanation for his Brewer saw a gun in Oswald’s hand.

Post by Ben Holmes
You can go ahead and admit it, Huckster...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

Gil just proved you a iiar, that's what.

No, that’s not what transpired. If Oswald didn't pull the weapon, how did it get in his hand when Brewer first saw it?

Post by Ben Holmes
Not that we needed any further proof.
Amusingly, YOU CAN'T EVEN ADMIT that you got caught lying.

Because I didn't.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
The revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald by business records.

An assumption on your part, with nothing to cite... And has *NOTHING*
to do with your lie.

The revolver taken from Oswald’s hand is traceable to Oswald, and you think this doesn't eliminate anyone but Oswald pulling the weapon in the theatre? Did someone else have possession of the revolver and put it in Oswald’s hand? Where’s your explanation for how the weapon got in Oswald’s hand?

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Do you think Officer McDonald just happened to be in possession of
Oswald’s revolver at the time of the encounter in the theatre?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Can you answer the question? I did not think so.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
If not, where do you think the weapon came from?

No need to answer logical fallacies, you merely point'em out, and move
on.

Run, Ben, Run. Reaching a reasonable conclusion is apparently verboten in Conspiracyville. Offering a good explanation is apparently not acceptable there either.

You reject the explanation on the table, but offer nothing better. Explain why.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Please offer a reasonable explanation that a commonplace jury of 12 will accept.

Already have - and most of America accepts a conspiracy in this case.

No, you didn't — how did the revolver get into Oswald’s hand when seen by Brewer?
You didn't explain this at all.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Especially when the jury...

The jury has already been polled.

No, show where they concluded Oswald didn't pull the weapon.

Post by Ben Holmes
You lose!

Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Ben couldn't wait to change the subject.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:44:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:58:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

In other words, you lied.

No, I reached the reasonable conclusion.

You stated your "conclusion" as a fact.

That's a lie.

Live with it.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
You can go ahead and admit it, Huckster...

Or lie and run away... as you've done.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

Gil just proved you a iiar, that's what.

No...

Yes.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Not that we needed any further proof.
Amusingly, YOU CAN'T EVEN ADMIT that you got caught lying.

Because I didn't.

Then cite for your claim.

But you can't.

You lied.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
The revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald by business records.

An assumption on your part, with nothing to cite... And has *NOTHING*
to do with your lie.

The revolver taken from Oswald’s hand...

Even if true, has **NOTHING** to do with your lie.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Do you think Officer McDonald just happened to be in possession of
Oswald’s revolver at the time of the encounter in the theatre?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Huckster couldn't do it.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
If not, where do you think the weapon came from?

No need to answer logical fallacies, you merely point'em out, and move
on.

Huckster ran again...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Please offer a reasonable explanation that a commonplace jury of 12 will accept.

Already have - and most of America accepts a conspiracy in this case.

No, you didn't...

A CONSPIRACY TOOK JFK'S LIFE... this entire series shows this.

Amusingly, I'm providing a scenario that **YOU CAN'T REPLICATE!!**

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Especially when the jury...

The jury has already been polled.

No...

You can lie, moron - but polls have been conducted many times on the
issue of the JFK assassination...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
You lose!

Post by Hank Sienzant
Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Ben couldn't wait to change the subject.

Huckster couldn't wait to snip this, and run away:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Huckster knows he lost.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered, "He's got a gun."
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

So you lied. You said, "Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer."
Brewer said he saw the gun in Oswald's hand and the gun was pointed in the air. When you pull a gun on someone, you aim it AT them.
Oswald never pulled a gun on MacDonald.
And Brewer never said he saw Oswald PULL the gun from his waistband.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

So you're intepretation of what happened is bullshit, as usual.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 09:36:54 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered, "He's got a gun."
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

So you lied. You said, "Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer."
Brewer said he saw the gun in Oswald's hand and the gun was pointed in the air. When you pull a gun on someone, you aim it AT them.
Oswald never pulled a gun on MacDonald.
And Brewer never said he saw Oswald PULL the gun from his waistband.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

So you're intepretation of what happened is bullshit, as usual.

Yep... Huckster Sienzant is a brazen liar. With luck, he'll be gone
on Feb. 22 too...

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered, "He's got a gun."
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

So you lied. You said, "Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer."
Brewer said he saw the gun in Oswald's hand and the gun was pointed in the air. When you pull a gun on someone, you aim it AT them.
Oswald never pulled a gun on MacDonald.
And Brewer never said he saw Oswald PULL the gun from his waistband.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

So you're intepretation of what happened is bullshit, as usual.

See if you can follow my logic. Let me know where I lose you:
Gil, where’d the gun come from? One of the officers? Or Oswald?
Since it was in Oswald’s hand, and purchased by Oswald, my conclusion is it came from somewhere on Oswald, most likely Heldon place by his belt, but where he secured it isn’t important, is it?

Since it started in his possession, and ended up in his hand, I conclude he pulled it out.

Did I lose you along the way?

I believe this conclusion is strengthened by Oswald’s admission in custody that his took his revolver to the theatre — he didn’t feel like he could deny that, since numerous cops had to wrestle it from his hand.

Please explain where you think the gun came from, and why. Walk me through your logic on this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:03:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

Did Brewer see Oswald pull a revolver?

You said he did.

The FACTS say that he didn't.

You lied.

What statement was it where I lost you?

And... lest anyone forget that you're not just a liar, but a coward
too, here's the post you keep running from:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?

== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
Mr. BELIN - When you say he was----
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered, "He's got a gun."
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

So what?

So you lied. You said, "Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer."
Brewer said he saw the gun in Oswald's hand and the gun was pointed in the air. When you pull a gun on someone, you aim it AT them.
Oswald never pulled a gun on MacDonald.
And Brewer never said he saw Oswald PULL the gun from his waistband.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

So you're intepretation of what happened is bullshit, as usual.

Well, let's look at the testimony of another witness if my logic in the prior post doesn't satisfy you (but please explain where you think the gun came from that Brewer saw in Oswald's hand- don't duck that).
== quote ==
Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right center aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect.
And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL - Did he cock his fist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL - Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. McDONALD - His left fist.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol.
Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol?
Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol.
Mr. BALL - And which of your hands?
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
== unquote ==

That also explains why Oswald wasn't pointing the pistol at McDonald... McDonald grabbed hold of it and pushed it away.
Ball in your court, Gil.

We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.

Go ahead...

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?

George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.

Loading Image...

Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.

McDonald testified:

“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )

Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.

Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?

McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )

But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )

Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?

And why did McDonald lie ?

Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?

McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )
Which means it was planted.

That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured, who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.

And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?

Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.

McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 04:45:52 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png
Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.
“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?
And why did McDonald lie ?
Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?
McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )
Which means it was planted.
That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured, who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.
And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?
Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.
McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

Of course, Brewer did not say what Huckster claimed he said.

Huckster Sienzant is forced to rely on lies to support his faith. He
clearly doesn't have facts.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png
Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.

Gil Jesus: We follow then evidence.

Also Gil Jesus: All the evidence that implicates Oswald is planted, forged, manufactured, coerced, ect.

Children playing childish games with the evidence is what he really means by following the evidence.

Post by Gil Jesus
“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?
And why did McDonald lie ?
Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?
McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )
Which means it was planted.
That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured, who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.
And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?
Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.
McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png
Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.

Logical fallacies deleted.

Post by Gil Jesus
“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?
And why did McDonald lie ?
Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?
McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )
Which means it was planted.
That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured, who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.
And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?
Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.
McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

Notice these facts that Chickenshit was unable to refute...

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png

1. When did Applin first come forward with this claim? Your page is undated, but I believe Golz started looking into the Kennedy assassination in the mid-70s - a decade after the assassination.
2. How did a revolver traceable to Oswald just happen to be in the officer’s possession?
3. What’s the evidence for that?
4. Isn’t your theory based on one years-later claim of a uncorroborated witness?
5. Couldn’t your excuse be used to get everyone ever convicted off?
6. What did Applin say in his Warren Commission testimony?
7. Did the conspirators forge Applin’s signature on this affidavit, when he says nothing about the weapon coming from the Officer’s holster?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/applin1.htm
“As the officer started to shake him down, and when he did, this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once.”
8. McDonald searched two other patrons in the theatre before approaching Oswald. Please explain why the police didn’t plant a weapon on either of them, or attempt to frame either or boththem. 9. Please explain why Oswald was the only one that threw a punch at the officer, and drew a gun on the officer and had to be subdued by multiple policemen. Please explain why the person they decided to frame just happened to have a weapon traceable to the shells discarded by the gunman seen reloading after shooting Tippit, and please explain why this guy they settled on asTippit’s killer and decided to frame for that just happened to work at the TSBD and could be framed for the assassination as well. Boy, that was really convenient, huh?

Your theory makes no sense on so many levels.

Post by Gil Jesus
Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.

But this one is traceable specifically to Oswald. How’d that happen?
Why’d Oswald admit in custody he brought his revolver to the theatre, and punched an officer?
What happened to Oswald’s revolver, if this one is planted?
Why bother to utilize a drop gun if the suspect is armed, and admitting to that?

Post by Gil Jesus
“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.

Based on your decades as a police officer?

Post by Gil Jesus
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.

Cite for this.
Show this is what police *always* do.
Show that McDonald, who was there, and testified under oath, do what you are claiming he didn’t do.

Post by Gil Jesus
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.

Except Oswald admitted in custody he punched an officer and brought his weapon to the theatre.
For example, this FBI report says this:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0319a.htm
“Oswald admitted to carrying this pistol to this movie…”
Was the FBI just willing to go along with this supposed police frame-up of an innocent Oswald?

Post by Gil Jesus
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband ?

Hilarious! Why didn’t Oswald claim this in custody?
At the time of the encounter in the theatre, the police were looking for a cop-killer.
Why would a cop try to put a pistol into the possession of a suspected cop-killer?
How did the pistol wind up in Oswald’s hand, as Brewer, Applin, and McDonald all state?

Post by Gil Jesus
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )

No, he said Oswald reached for it.
== quote ==
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun--
== unquote ==

And Oswald then punched the officer (Applin, Brewer, McDonald) and the struggle ensued.
But it was Oswald’s revolver, traceable to him, and he admittedly took it to the theatre.
And he assaulted a policeman attempting to search him. The other two guys submitted to a search with attempting to assassinate McDonald. Why do you suppose Oswald reacted differently

You’ve conjectured a frame-up, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

Post by Gil Jesus
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.

See above. That’s what McDonald said.

Post by Gil Jesus
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?

Reaching for it and punching an officer in the face doesn’t display an intent to use it in your world?
Do the police have to wait until the suspect is actively shooting before they attempt to disarm him?
If not, when should they first attempt to disarm the person suspected of shooting a policeman?

Post by Gil Jesus
And why did McDonald lie ?

You haven’t shown he did.

Post by Gil Jesus
Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.

Applin — your witness - testified to hearing a click.
With two hands on the action, the revolver’s chamber couldn’t revolve. Perhaps that was the click Applin and McDonald heard.

Post by Gil Jesus
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?
McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )

This is what McDonald surmised from the click he heard and felt, but what he testified to is different:
== quote ==
Mr. McDONALD - It felt like something had grazed across my hand. I felt movement there. And that was the only movement I felt. And I heard a snap. I didn't know what it was at the time.
Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. **To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.**
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Which means it was planted.

Which means nothing of the sort.

Post by Gil Jesus
That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured,

This guy was lying about being injured in the struggle with Oswald?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0271a.htm

Post by Gil Jesus
who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.

Sorry, no, he testified that the cyclinder could have made the sound he heard. Right?

Post by Gil Jesus
And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?

You haven’t established any of this. You ignore the contrary evidence and just use suppositions and conjecture to reach the conclusions you want to reach.

Post by Gil Jesus
Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.

And Westbrook just happened to have a weapon traceable to Oswald on him?

And somehow the FBI went along with this frame-up?

If the police and the FBI were going to lie about what Oswald was saying in custody, why did they not say Oswald admitted shooting Tippit in custody? And the President?

Post by Gil Jesus
McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.

No, your theories are.

Post by Gil Jesus
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

By “him” you mean Gil Jesus?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 07:50:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png

1. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

2. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

3. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

4. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

5. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

6. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

7. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

8. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Your lie makes no sense on so many levels.

Post by Gil Jesus
Ever hear of the term "drop gun" ? Probably not.
A “drop gun” was a weapon that was usually planted on someone by police, or at the scene of a crime in order to implicate that person of a crime.
The gun itself would be one that could not be traced back to the cop who planted it.
“It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not.” ( 3 H 303 )
Natural ? No, that’s not the way it’s done.
You don't shake down a suspect beginning at his waist. You always start at the shoulders and work down.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald’s waist. ( 3 H 300 )
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
“..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn’t get it out. ” ( Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39 )
Why not ? Why did he not display an intent to use it ?
And why did McDonald lie ?
Why did McDonald also lie about getting the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the cartridge's primer ? The FBI found that the hammer would have had to have been cocked all the way back in order for the firing pin to hit the primer. ( 3 H 463 ) That would have caused an enormous amount of pain for McDonald.
Why did no one report his screams of agony ? Why is there no record of his receiving medical attention for his injury ?
McDonald also lied about the gun misfiring. The FBI found that the mark on one of the unfired rounds was not made by the weapon's firing pin. ( 3 H 460 )
That's your star witness, Hank. The liar McDonald who lied about being injured,
who lied about the gun misfiring and who was probably the one who planted the fake mark on the cartridge
to try to support his story.
And if they planted the mark on the cartridge, how do you know they didn't plant the weapon ?
Who would have handed McDonald a weapon to plant on Oswald ?
That's easy. Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald’s commanding officer in another division. ( 7 H 112 )
So they were well acquainted with each other. And Westbrook was CIA.
McDonald's whole version of events is debunked by the evidence and testimony.
Anyone who believes him believes in unicorns and sugar-plum-fairies.

Let's not forget that in addition to Huckster being a proven liar,
he's also a proven coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 07:50:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png

1. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Post by Ben Holmes
2. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Same answer.

Post by Ben Holmes
3. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Ditto.

Post by Ben Holmes
4. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Likewise.

Post by Ben Holmes
5. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

As above.

Post by Ben Holmes
6. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

What Brewer testified to.

Post by Ben Holmes
7. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Duh.

Post by Ben Holmes
8. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Too evident to everyone but a WC critic.

Post by Ben Holmes
Your lie makes no sense on so many levels.

What lie?

Brewer testified to Oswald seeing the weapon in Oswald’s hand. If he didn’t pull it after punching McDonald, where did it come from? McDonald said Oswald pulled the gun. Applin said he first saw the gun in Oswald’s hand on 11/22/63.

The revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald. It’s Oswald’s weapon, the one he admitted to the FBI taking to the theatre.

Seems right to me.

Still waiting for for a better answer.

Or continue to quibble over the reasonable conclusion you have no better response to.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Brewer never said he saw Oswald pull the gun from his waistband or anywhere else. He testified that saw the gun in Oswald's hand.
YOU said he saw Oswald pull the gun and that's a lie. His testimony proves it.

He testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif

I don't know how much clearer that can be for you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 09:27:23 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Brewer never said he saw Oswald pull the gun from his waistband or anywhere else. He testified that saw the gun in Oswald's hand.
YOU said he saw Oswald pull the gun and that's a lie. His testimony proves it.
He testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know how much clearer that can be for you.

Huckster's an inveterate liar. He's been caught red-handed, and can't
admit that he's posting his conclusions as facts.

This is quite revealing however... when believers are forced to
CONSTANTLY lie about the evidence, and CONSTANTLY employ logical
fallicies, it tells the thoughtful reader where the truth lies.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Brewer never said he saw Oswald pull the gun from his waistband or anywhere else. He testified that saw the gun in Oswald's hand.
YOU said he saw Oswald pull the gun and that's a lie. His testimony proves it.
He testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know how much clearer that can be for you.

Define “pull the gun”.

How long does that action take, in your estimation? An hour? A minute? A second?

Which interval comes closest to the time it takes?

In that interval, how did the gun get in Oswald’s hand if Oswald himself didn’t pull it?

Please explain this, then we can move on to all the other points I made in support of this that you are currently ignoring.

I apply reasoning to the testimony. You apply game-playing to find reasons to get Oswald off.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:24:52 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Brewer never said he saw Oswald pull the gun from his waistband or anywhere else. He testified that saw the gun in Oswald's hand.
YOU said he saw Oswald pull the gun and that's a lie. His testimony proves it.
He testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know how much clearer that can be for you.

Define “pull the gun”.

No, **YOU** need to show Brewer saying that.

But you can't. You lied.

Just as you're lying about this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 6:34:18 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ

That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.
In fact, he testified that he never saw WHERE the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif

I don't know why I have to keep repeating it.

Post by Hank Sienzant
I apply reasoning to the testimony. You apply game-playing to find reasons to get Oswald off.

I post links to official documents and testimony, i.e., evidence.
When I don't post the link, I cite the volume and page.

I don't "play games."

You're the one "game-playing" by posting your "reasoning" and interpretations.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your "reasoning" and interpretations are not evidence.
That's why you're always wrong.

And like all Lone Nutters, when your reasoning, speculations and interpretations come up against official document and testimony, YOU LOSE.
Not only do you lose, but you look foolish in the process, leaving yourselves open to being called liars.

The evidence is clear, while Brewer testified he saw the gun in Oswald's hand after he hit McDonald, he never saw Oswald "pull a revolver on that officer".
At the very least, you're mistaken. At the very most you're a liar.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

You have everyone involved in this to be liars, so what difference does it make what they said?

The right question to ask would be "Why did Brewer leave his workplace in the middle of a work day?".

Post by Gil Jesus
In fact, he testified that he never saw WHERE the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know why I have to keep repeating it.

Post by Hank Sienzant
I apply reasoning to the testimony. You apply game-playing to find reasons to get Oswald off.

I post links to official documents and testimony, i.e., evidence.
When I don't post the link, I cite the volume and page.
I don't "play games."

It`s all you. It is what you are doing right now, playing childish games.

Post by Gil Jesus
You're the one "game-playing" by posting your "reasoning" and interpretations.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your "reasoning" and interpretations are not evidence.
That's why you're always wrong.
And like all Lone Nutters, when your reasoning, speculations and interpretations come up against official document and testimony, YOU LOSE.
Not only do you lose, but you look foolish in the process, leaving yourselves open to being called liars.
The evidence is clear, while Brewer testified he saw the gun in Oswald's hand after he hit McDonald, he never saw Oswald "pull a revolver on that officer".

What is the counter idea, that Oswald was walking around the theater with the gun in his hand?

No, even more stupid than that, the DPD magically put the gun in his hand.

Now you can list all the evidence you have for that occurring.

Post by Gil Jesus
At the very least, you're mistaken. At the very most you're a liar.

You`re an idiot.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
You have everyone involved in this to be liars, so what difference does it make what they said?
The right question to ask would be "Why did Brewer leave his workplace in the middle of a work day?".
It`s all you. It is what you are doing right now, playing childish games.
What is the counter idea, that Oswald was walking around the theater with the gun in his hand?
No, even more stupid than that, the DPD magically put the gun in his hand.
Now you can list all the evidence you have for that occurring.
You`re an idiot.

Says the guy who claimed the gunsack was 41 inches.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/rT_ERTztAgAJ

Says the guy who posted, "If you don't like the testing, ignore the results".
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pytkVff8uXQ/m/B6P3xXfCAAAJ

"Says the guy who predicted THAT NATIONAL GUARDSMEN WOULD BE DEPLOYED TO RETAIL STORES TO PREVENT LOOTING :
"There won`t be goods for honest people and the store will close because there is no money to be made. I suppose at some point they will deploy the National Guard to the stores."

Says the guy who predicted THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY PEOPLE'S UTILITY BILLS.
"They have stopped shutting off people who don`t pay their utility bills, so people will stop paying, so when this is over the government will have to step in and pay this backlog."

Says the guy who predicted THAT HOSPITALS WOULD FILL UP WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS
"Hospital beds will fill up with people in this country illegally."
It's all here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/KIFD_yUlBQAJ

Says the guy who predicted THAT THE VIRUS WOULD DESTROY MANKIND
"It seems possible to me that we could ping pong this virus back and forth among the populace until there are few, if any left."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/XQrzTkj3AgAJ

Says the guy who posts no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
It's obvious to any lurker that "Bud" is not here to debate the evidence.
He's a troll.

This is the asshole who calls me an idiot.
ROFLMAO

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
No, even more stupid than that, the DPD magically put the gun in his hand.
Now you can list all the evidence you have for that occurring.

It's already been posted in this thread.
Look it up you lazy asshole.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
No, even more stupid than that, the DPD magically put the gun in his hand.
Now you can list all the evidence you have for that occurring.

It's already been posted in this thread.

You have none, all you have is imagination.

List all your witnesses who said they saw the police put a gun in Oswald`s hand.

Post by Gil Jesus
Look it up you lazy asshole.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:08:04 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 03:25:28 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

Post by Gil Jesus
In fact, he testified that he never saw WHERE the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know why I have to keep repeating it.

Because you have yet to make a valid argument against Oswald pulling the weapon.

You even refuse to define what you’re arguing against.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
I apply reasoning to the testimony. You apply game-playing to find reasons to get Oswald off.

I post links to official documents and testimony, i.e., evidence.
When I don't post the link, I cite the volume and page.
I don't "play games."

You are quibbling over what it means to “pull a weapon” and whether the gun appearing in Oswald’s hand isn’t sufficient to conclude Oswald pulled the gun. You want to bog the conversation down in semantics — define what pulling the gun means to you, and tell us why Brewer seeing the gun in Oswald’s hand is insufficient to determine who pulled the gun — instead of reaching reasonable conclusions and moving the conversation forward.

Post by Gil Jesus
You're the one "game-playing" by posting your "reasoning" and interpretations.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your "reasoning" and interpretations are not evidence.
That's why you're always wrong.
And like all Lone Nutters, when your reasoning, speculations and interpretations come up against official document and testimony, YOU LOSE.
Not only do you lose, but you look foolish in the process, leaving yourselves open to being called liars.
The evidence is clear, while Brewer testified he saw the gun in Oswald's hand after he hit McDonald,

Aha!

Where’d that weapon come from?

Post by Gil Jesus
he never saw Oswald "pull a revolver on that officer".
At the very least, you're mistaken. At the very most you're a liar.

Yet, there it was, a weapon traceable to Oswald in Oswald’s hand, within seconds of Oswald punching McDonald in the face. Explain where the gun came from, if Oswald didn’t pull it from his belt.

Your inability or refusal to reach conclusions supported by the evidence reflects poorly on you.
Not on me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:41:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

No jackass!! Because **YOU** provably run away.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!



Here's what you deleted, proving that **YOU** refuse to "discuss
further...":

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:41:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

No jackass!! Because **YOU** provably run away.

Right now, you’re the one provably running away and refusing to move the conversation forward by claiming Oswald didn’t “pull a gun”, but refusing to define what you mean by “pull a gun”.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:14:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:41:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

No jackass!! Because **YOU** provably run away.

Right now, you’re the one provably running...

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:14:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:41:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

No jackass!! Because **YOU** provably run away.

Right now, you’re the one provably running...

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

And there’s the change of subject — red herring logical fallacy — that Ben is renowned for.
As if we needed more evidence Ben is running away.

Right now, you’re the one provably running away and refusing to move the conversation forward by claiming Oswald didn’t “pull a gun”, but refusing to define what you mean by “pull a gun”.

Ben couldn’t stick to the subject if his life depended on it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:52:41 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:41:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:23:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.

Define what you mean by “pull a weapon”. Then we can discuss further.

No, that will never happen.

Because you don’t want to move the conversation forward?

No jackass!! Because **YOU** provably run away.

Right now, you’re the one provably running...

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 02:19:12 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Define “pull the gun”.

No, YOU define it, YOU said it.
"And don't forget, BREWER SAW OSWALD punch Officer McDonald and PULL A REVOLVER ON THAT OFFICER."'
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/vi8nx6srKsQ/m/DD7_PGQsAQAJ
That's a lie. Brewer never testified that he saw Oswald pull a weapon.
In fact, he testified that he never saw WHERE the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
I don't know why I have to keep repeating it.

I apply reasoning to the testimony. You apply game-playing to find reasons to get Oswald off.

I post links to official documents and testimony, i.e., evidence.
When I don't post the link, I cite the volume and page.
I don't "play games."
You're the one "game-playing" by posting your "reasoning" and interpretations.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but your "reasoning" and interpretations are not evidence.
That's why you're always wrong.
And like all Lone Nutters, when your reasoning, speculations and interpretations come up against official document and testimony, YOU LOSE.
Not only do you lose, but you look foolish in the process, leaving yourselves open to being called liars.
The evidence is clear, while Brewer testified he saw the gun in Oswald's hand after he hit McDonald, he never saw Oswald "pull a revolver on that officer".
At the very least, you're mistaken. At the very most you're a liar.

No, it's crystal clear that Huckster's a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:41:17 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 07:50:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
We'll await your reconstruction of the event and how Brewer saw a gun in Oswald's hand that Oswald didn't pull from his waist.
Go ahead...

You're the "more knowledgeable" one and I have to keep explaining things to you ?
George Applin told reporter Earl Golz that he thought the gun came from the officer's holster.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png

1. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Brewer’s testimony: “McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.”

Sorry moron - this does *NOT* say what you claimed.

Lied, didn't you?

Post by Ben Holmes
2. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Same answer.

Lied, didn't you?

Post by Ben Holmes
3. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Ditto.

Still lied, didn't you?

Post by Ben Holmes
4. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Likewise.

Likewise a liar, aren't you?

Post by Ben Holmes
5. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

As above.

Nothing has changed, you're still a liar.

Post by Ben Holmes
6. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

What Brewer testified to.

And you're not embarrassed to blatantly lie again, are you?

Post by Ben Holmes
7. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Duh.

Still waiting for a credible answer...

Post by Ben Holmes
8. What is the testimony or hearsay or ANYTHING that led you to claim
that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

Too evident to everyone but a WC critic.

Your SPECULATION cannot be posted as evidence.

Your CONCLUSIONS aren't evidence.

Your lying simply shows that you know it's not possible to support
your faith without these lies, logical fallacies, and cowardice.

Post by Ben Holmes
Your lie makes no sense on so many levels.

What lie?

Pretending to be a moron won't save you, Huckster.

Brewer testified to Oswald seeing the weapon in Oswald’s hand.

That would be an historically correct, and suppoortable statement.

But that's **NOT** what you claimed, is it?

The fact that you feel the need to pretend otherwise simply
illustrates that you're an inveterate liar.

If he didn’t pull it after punching McDonald, where did it come from?

'

Gil already offered another possibility that was supported by what an
eyewitness thought at the time.

Pretend that you didn't understand that.

McDonald...

Nothing McDonald said is applicable to Brewer, unless you're offering
hearsay evidence of what McDonald claimed that Brewer said.

You've been unable to quote Brewer saying what you claimed he said.

Lied, didn't you?

And, just to highlight your cowardice again:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:56:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

...

Well, let's look at the testimony of another witness...

Did another witness say that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?

If you were honest, you'd be forced to say "No."

But you aren't honest - and judging by the following, you're also a
coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:56:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

...

Well, let's look at the testimony of another witness...

Did another witness say that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?
If you were honest, you'd be forced to say "No."

The old legal trope...

Defense attorney: "Did you see my client bite off the victim`s nose?"

Witness: "No."

Defense attorney: "Ah-ha, you admit you did not see my client bite off the victim`s nose!"

Witness: "No, but I did see him spit it out."

Post by Ben Holmes
But you aren't honest - and judging by the following, you're also a
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:56:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

...

Well, let's look at the testimony of another witness...

Did another witness say that Brewer saw Oswald pull a revolver?
If you were honest, you'd be forced to say "No."

The old legal trope...

Has nothing to do with the lie that Huckster told.

And amusingly, you can't admit that he lied.

Or show that Brewer said what Huckster claimed he'd said...

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
But you aren't honest - and judging by the following, you're also a
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

Chickenshit is provably not just a liar, but also a coward:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
"No, but I did see him spit it out."

And all this time I had you pegged as someone who swallowed.
Boy was i wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 04:37:29 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.

You sure about that Hank ? He saw Oswald pull a revolver ?
Because he testified that he never saw where the gun came from.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-never-saw-where-gun-came-from.gif
SMH

This is one of the basic problems - you have to fact check EVERY
SINGLE STATEMENT made by a believer - they CONSTANTLY lie.

Or run away... such as this example:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?
Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing
a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row
from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting
at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description
of the man who shot Tippit.

Hilarious! Brewer was *NOT* a witness to the Tipping shooting, and he was *NOT* identifying the man he thought shot Tippit.

Molesting your own mother again, aren't you? You'll be COMPLETELY
unable to point to anything I said that supports what you just
claimed.

And lest we forget:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Post by Hank Sienzant
He was pointing out the man he saw acting suspiciously immediately outside the shoe store he worked at.

That's correct. You get a brownie point.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Your attempt to get Brewer’s identification of Oswald as that man thrown out falls flat.
== quote ==
Mr. BREWER - He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all.
Mr. BELIN - How tall are you, by the way?
Mr. BREWER - Six three.
Mr. BELIN - So you say he was about 5'9"?
Mr. BREWER - About 5'9".
Mr. BELIN - And about 150?
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
…
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and she called the police, and we went----Butch went to the front exit, and I went down by the stage to the back exit and stood there until the police came.
Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?
Mr. BREWER - Well, just before they came. they turned the house lights on, and I looked out from the curtains and saw the man.
== unquote ==
You point out Oswald was dressed that way, so Brewer’s
identification is *NOT* invalid based on the clothing.

You're too much a coward to address the previous posts where I quite
convincingly showed that the assassin wore a white shirt.

This *IS* a series... each post is related to the one before it.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Moreover, we don't know how much of the identification was based on
the clothing versus the face — 10%, 90%, or somewhere in between.
Clearly, Oswald looked like the man Brewer saw. Brewer pointed him
out.

You clearly missed the point.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
From the statements of eyewitnesses the
police dispatcher reported the suspect was wearing a white jacket
(discarded at the Texaco station) and a white T-shirt, yet the man
pointed out by Brewer to Captain Westbrook was wearing a long-sleeved,
dark brown shirt.

Because that’s what the man acting suspiciously was wearing when Brewer saw him.
Thanks for conceding Brewer pointed out the right guy — the guy he saw.

Thanks for pointing out that the description does NOT match the
previously cited for descriptions that you were too much a coward to
address.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense a conflict between how all the witnesses described
the murderer and the actual person arrested? Will any honest believer
publicly acknowledge this?

Sure...

You're lying. You still haven't addressed this.

Post by Hank Sienzant
— the Tippit witnesses were all over the map in terms of the jacket color and style.
That doesn't invalidate Brewer pointing out Oswald as the man he saw acting suspiciously in the least.

You're clearly too stupid to be able to follow what I'm posting.

You are clearly too stupid to figure out that I'm talking about the
JFK assassin - Tippit is nowhere to be seen in these posts at this
time.

But that's what your cowardice will lead you to... you refused to
address the previous posts... all related to this one...

Post by Hank Sienzant
And don't forget, Brewer saw Oswald punch Officer McDonald AND pull a revolver on that officer.
Curious, that, don't you think if Oswald wasn't guilty of anything?
How did Oswald come into possession of the weapon that could be linked to the shells the gunman was seen discarding after shooting Tippit?

Sorry stupid - you don't get to change the topic. This is *MY* post.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
I know it requires absolutely basic thinking skills to recognize that
Oswald wasn't wearing a white shirt, and that he simply didn't fit the
mass of eyewitness descriptions.

He was wearing a white T-shirt,

Meaningless.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Amusingly, the suspect in a white shirt **WAS** arrested at the
theater... as the website "Kennedyandking.com" notes: Bernard Haire,
owner of a hobby shop two doors from the theater, walked out the rear
of his shop shortly before 2:00 PM and saw police cars backed up to
Madison Street.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
He watched as the police escorted a man from the rear
of the Texas Theater wearing a "white pullover shirt." They placed the
man in a squad car and drove away. He noticed the man was very "flush"
in the face as though he had been in a struggle. Haire's description
of this man-"white shirt" with a "flush face"-is consistent with
witness statements of Tippit's killer before, during and after the
shooting.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
For 25 years Mr. Haire and other witnesses thought they had

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
witnessed the arrest of Oswald behind the Texas Theater in the alley.
When told Oswald was brought out the front of the theater Haire asked
"Then who was the person I saw police take out the rear of the
theater, put in a police car, and drive off?"

Logical fallacy rejected.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
No wonder the witness list from the theater disappeared... there were
24 witnesses there who might have been able to clear Oswald (perhaps
able to testify that Oswald arrived at the theater too early to have
shot Tippit?) or to have seen multiple arrests. Either scenario plays
havoc with the Warren Commission's theory.

Ah, so only *speculation*...

You admit that the witness list disappeared - yet offer no credible
idea why it did.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
So far, I've shown how the Warren Commission lied about the evidence
for at *least* two assassins - I've shown how there was some
hanky-panky going on during Oswald's arrest - and shown how evidence
is missing in this case.

No

Yes. And the proof is that you've been running away from these posts,
and refusing to even *try* to refute them.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Once it's been demonstrated that evidence was lied about - and
evidence simply "disappeared" in this case - the Warren Commission is
finished.

Was a list ever made of the witnesses in the theatre?

Yes. And you know this.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Why is that pertinent?

Are you a moron?

Post by Hank Sienzant
Oswald was booked - we know he was arrested.
Since when do we need witnesses to an arrest?

Since when do we need witnesses who could testify that Oswald had been
there since 1pm?

**YOU** don't. But the truth doesn't care about your feelings...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
It then is no longer the "default" position by which everything else
needs to be judged. And unless believers can credibly explain the
facts I've thus far presented - they've lost.

I've explained Haire’s decades-later recollection by citing the evidence...

No stupid... you've cited **NOTHING** in this post.

Stop lying!

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
For you cannot use lies as the foundation of anything at all.

So stop trying.

You've shown **NOTHING** I've stated to be a lie based on citing
evidence contrary to it.

Post by Hank Sienzant
You falsely compared Brewer’s identification to the Tippit witnesses...

There you go, molesting your own grandmother again...

I posted several posts before this one - AND CONNECTED TO THIS ONE,
that make it crystal clear what I'm speaking of.

You simply assume - then call *YOUR* assumption "false."

I agree.

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
And while Chuckles, Chickenshit, and Davy Von Penis can be forgiven
for not answering these facts due to their ignorance of the case -
Huckster Sienzant knows these facts... and provably runs from them.
What a coward!!

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2IVMfMWgcYw/m/PyZHWzIsAAAJ

Here's what I said in your above cite:

*******************************************************
We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
believers refuse to address them.

Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.

This tells the tale.

Watch - as not a SINGLE response will reference the clothing
descriptions...
*******************************************************

And amusingly, I was correct.

Run coward... RUN!

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?
Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing
a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row
from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting
at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description
of the man who shot Tippit.

Hilarious! Brewer was *NOT* a witness to the Tippit [hs] shooting, and he was *NOT* identifying the man he thought shot Tippit.

Molesting your own mother again, aren't you? You'll be COMPLETELY
unable to point to anything I said that supports what you just
claimed.

You were talking about how Brewer’s man didn't match the man in the Tippit shooting:
“Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description of the man who shot **T I P P I T **.” [emphasis added]

I pointed out Brewer was not a witness to that man; he correctly identified the man he saw acting suspiciously.

Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the

Ben couldn't wait to change the subject once more.

More later.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:54:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?
Johnny Brewer peeked through the curtains and pointed to a man wearing
a long-sleeved brown shirt and told Westbrook, "The man in the 4th row
from the back in the middle aisle is the man." But the suspect sitting
at the rear of the semi-darkened theater did not fit the description
of the man who shot Tippit.

Hilarious! Brewer was *NOT* a witness to the Tippit [hs] shooting, and he was *NOT* identifying the man he thought shot Tippit.

Molesting your own mother again, aren't you? You'll be COMPLETELY
unable to point to anything I said that supports what you just
claimed.

Notice that when challenged to point to anything I said that supports
Still molesting your grandmother?


Here's what the coward snipped without response:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Cowards run, that's what cowards do - no-one will ever see Huckster
answering this - as he has no answer. He'd be embarrassed by his
fellow believers if he could tell the truth.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?

The description of the Tippit killer compared to the description of Oswald at the time of his arrest.
Loading Image...

Brewer testified that he heard the police yell out, "kill the President will you" ?
Loading Image...

Hanky Panky and the other nutters are at a loss when it comes to explain why police would suspect a man with a handgun in a theater guilty of assassinating the President.
The fact is that whoever they arrested for any crime WAS the guilty party. That's they way they did business.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?

The description of the Tippit killer compared to the description of Oswald at the time of his arrest.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/brewer.jpg
Brewer testified that he heard the police yell out, "kill the President will you" ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-kill-the-president-will-you.gif

Some points here, and you will reject all:
1. The remark could have been misheard, it could have been “kill a policeman will you" ?
2. Even before Oswald’s arrest, there was chatter on the police radio between the dispatcher and at least one cop that the physical descriptions of the President’s assassin and Tippit’s shooter were quite similar, and it was reasonable to think the same person could have committed both. The last murder of a policeman in Dallas happen in the 1950’s, and here you have the assassination of the President and the murder of a cop happening within 45 minutes of each other — it’s reasonable to think they might be performed by the same person.
3. It turns out that Oswald was arrested with the same weapon that the shells in evidence recovered at the scene of the Tippit murder were traceable to.
4. It likewise turns out that Oswald’s rifle, ordered and shipped from Klein’s to Oswal’s PO Box,, and established to be in his possession by photographic and other evidence, was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository from where numerous witnesses saw a gunman of a weapon protruding from an upper floor window.

All that was just a coincidence, right?

Post by Gil Jesus
Hanky Panky and the other nutters are at a loss when it comes to explain why police would suspect a man with a handgun in a theater guilty of assassinating the President.

Not at all. See above points one and two.

Post by Gil Jesus
The fact is that whoever they arrested for any crime WAS the guilty party. That's they way they did business.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Right, the Dallas police were in the business of framing Presidential assassins and have a long history of that. Have you checked into what they did in the John Wilkes Booth case?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:47:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Does anyone sense any pattern of evidence here? Is there any believer
willing to say the words "white shirt?" Is there a *SINGLE* honest
believer who will publicly admit what the evidence here shows? Can
*any* believer admit that Oswald doesn't fit this description?

The description of the Tippit killer compared to the description of Oswald at the time of his arrest.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/brewer.jpg
Brewer testified that he heard the police yell out, "kill the President will you" ?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/brewer-kill-the-president-will-you.gif

1. The remark could have been misheard, it could have been “kill a policeman will you" ?

There you go again... speculating away the evidence you can't face.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

2. Even before Oswald’s arrest, there was chatter on the police
radio between the dispatcher and at least one cop that the physical
descriptions of the President’s assassin and Tippit’s shooter were
quite similar,

Cite it.

and it was reasonable to think the same person could have committed
both. The last murder of a policeman in Dallas happen in the 1950’s,

When was the previous murder?

and here you have the assassination of the President and the murder
of a cop happening within 45 minutes of each other — it’s reasonable
to think they might be performed by the same person.

How about the previous murder? Was that *also* reasonable?

3. It turns out that Oswald was arrested with the same weapon that
the shells in evidence recovered at the scene of the Tippit murder
were traceable to.

You can't support this with evidence that followed any chain of
custody.

4. It likewise turns out that Oswald’s rifle,

Can you name this logical fallacy?

ordered and shipped from Klein’s to Oswal’s PO Box,,

Can you name this logical fallacy?

and established to be in his possession by photographic and other
evidence,

You know the question...

was discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository from where
numerous witnesses saw a gunman

Two people, not one.

And neither fitting the clothing description of Oswald.

of a weapon protruding from an upper floor window.
All that was just a coincidence, right?

Nope. But frames never are...

Post by Gil Jesus
Hanky Panky and the other nutters are at a loss when it comes to explain why police would suspect a man with a handgun in a theater guilty of assassinating the President.

Not at all. See above points one and two.

Notice that Huckster won't tell you about the previous murder...

Post by Gil Jesus
The fact is that whoever they arrested for any crime WAS the guilty party. That's they way they did business.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Right, the Dallas police were in the business of framing Presidential assassins and have a long history of that. Have you checked into what they did in the John Wilkes Booth case?

You're too much of a coward and liar to name this logical fallacy.