Deception by Omission

[Gil Jesus]

"The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.....carried the rifle into the Depository Building concealed in the bag."
( Report, pg. 137 )

One witness saw Oswald enter the building that morning and testified that Oswald's hands were empty.

Loading Image...

The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.

And this is what you Lone Nutters call the truth.

SMH

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus
"The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.....carried the rifle into the Depository Building concealed in the bag."
( Report, pg. 137 )
One witness saw Oswald enter the building that morning and testified that Oswald's hands were empty.

The one witness that saw Oswald enter the building was Buell Wesley Frazier. He said Oswald had a long package with him.

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dougherty_-osw-hands-empty.gif
The Commission simply ignored this witness,

They questioned him, they didn`t ignore him.

Post by Gil Jesus
suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.

An idiot thinks all the information that was included in the final report was "suppressed". Luckily what an idiot thinks doesn`t matter.

Post by Gil Jesus
And this is what you Lone Nutters call the truth.

If it is not true then why are you tying yourself into knots trying to look at it incorrectly?

Post by Gil Jesus
SMH

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
The one witness that saw Oswald enter the building was Buell Wesley Frazier.

Cite it.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
The one witness that saw Oswald enter the building was Buell Wesley Frazier. He said Oswald had a long package with him.

First of all, they ignored what Dougherty SAID about Oswald entering the building and having nothing in his hands. That NEVER made it to the report.

Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.
You're ASSUMING that because:
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).

Prove me wrong. Cite where Frazier said specifically that:
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.

Volume and page, please.

Thirdly, Frazier ( your eyewitness ) said in this video ( that I'm sure you'll refuse to look at ) that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
The one witness that saw Oswald enter the building was Buell Wesley Frazier. He said Oswald had a long package with him.

First of all, they ignored what Dougherty SAID

No, stupid, they just didn`t give the information the same weight you do because they looked at it correctly. Nothing he said ruled out Oswald having a package when he saw him, and nothing required Oswald to have a package when Dougherty saw him, as the door Frazier saw Oswald go into was not the door Dougherty saw Oswald come into the room from..

Post by Gil Jesus
about Oswald entering the building and having nothing in his hands.

Dougherty did not see Oswald enter the building, he saw him enter the room he was in. If you check the layout of the first floor of the TSBD you`ll see that there is a corridor between the two doors (the one Frazier saw him enter and the one Dougherty saw him enter the room through).

Post by Gil Jesus
That NEVER made it to the report.

You assume some great significance. Perhaps they did not.

Post by Gil Jesus
Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.

Because I can think. If Frazier said he saw Oswald wearing a hat, he wouldn`t say "I saw Oswald enter the building, and he was still wearing the hat". He would only mention it if the situation changed, and Oswald was no longer wearing the hat.

Post by Gil Jesus
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).

Why are cherry picking fragments out of context? He said...

"Right. The last time I saw him I was right in this area coming across these railroad tracks and I just happened to glance up and see him going through the door there and shut the door."

He saw him go in the building.
You think you are a lawyer and I am on the stand, but you are just an idiot who fancies himself a lawyer.

Post by Gil Jesus
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.

If you look at what I actually wrote, you`d see a period between the two thoughts.

"The one witness that saw Oswald enter the building was Buell Wesley Frazier. He said Oswald had a long package with him."

Both of those things are true.

So one, you were wrong to say Douherty saw Oswald come into the building, Frazier saw him go in.

Two, how does it help your idea if Oswald went into the building without the package? It would only explain Doughtery not seeing it in Oswald`s hands if he ditched it outside.

Post by Gil Jesus
Volume and page, please.
Thirdly, Frazier ( your eyewitness ) said in this video ( that I'm sure you'll refuse to look at ) that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.

He never looked inside.

Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 11:12:46 -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 Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:42:38 -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
"The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.....carried the rifle into the Depository Building concealed in the bag."
( Report, pg. 137 )
One witness saw Oswald enter the building that morning and testified that Oswald's hands were empty.

Is Dougherty a credible witness in your view.?

He was a 40-year-old unmarried male still living at home with his parents. Here is some of his testimony:
== quote ==
Mr. BALL - Did you ever leave the United States during the War?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was stationed, oh, for about a year up in Indiana up there---Seymour, Ind.
Mr. BALL - Then where did you go from there in the service?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I stayed there until I got discharged.
Mr. BALL - You didn't ever go outside the country to Europe?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, no.
Mr. BALL - Or to the South Seas?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You stayed in this country all the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Now, did you ever have any difficulty with your speech?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You never had any?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
…
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, jobs were pretty scarce about the time I got out of the service, so I just went from place to place and applied and put my application in, so I started over here at the Texas School Book Depository and put my application in there and I got it through the Suburban Employment Agency, and I been working there ever since.
Mr. BALL - And that was when--in 1940, was it, you started to work at the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - September 17, 1940.
Mr. BALL - 1940 what?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see, I have been with them 11 years--that would be---
Mr. BALL - That would be 1952, wouldn't it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes--that's 1952.
Mr. BALL - 1952?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; that's right, to be exact.
Mr. BALL - What did you do between the time you got out of the service and 1952?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't do anything to be frank with you.
Mr. BALL - You didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You didn't work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, no.
Mr. BALL - You stayed at home?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you live with your father and mother?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Have you ever been married?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - And you still live with your father and mother?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
…
Mr. BALL - And how long do you take for lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, from 12 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL - Forty-five minutes?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you always take a full hour?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I usually do.
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/dougherty_-osw-hands-empty.gif
The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

Post by Gil Jesus
And this is what you Lone Nutters call the truth.

You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

Post by Gil Jesus
SMH

You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.

This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.

I established the evidence puts Oswald’s rifle on the sixth floor a month ago. You ignored it.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/SaQW0WP-yA4/m/E79t_2eWBQAJ

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Post by Hank Sienzant
You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

Give us corroborating evidence that the rifle was in, "its normal hiding place in the Paine garage" before November 22nd.
Are you suggesting that Oswald knew in March of 1963 that Kennedy would be coming to Dallas ?
ROFLMAO
Name the people who saw the rifle in the garage prior to November 22nd.

Post by Hank Sienzant
You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.

That would require speculation, Hank. You're the expert on that.

Post by Hank Sienzant
This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.

Speaking of someone who will always, "ignore or discount the hard evidence you can't explain", maybe you'd like to take a stab at this one:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

Give us corroborating evidence that the rifle was in, "its normal hiding place in the Paine garage" before November 22nd.

Sure. It had to be somewhere, right?

I trust you don’t have problems with that statement. A surplus WWII rifle didn’t spring into existence on 11/22/63.

If it wasn’t in the Paine garage before 11/22/63, then why did Marina admit to the police on the afternoon of 11/22/63 that Oswald owned a rifle and it was in the blanket in the garage?
== quote ==
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion.
== unquote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
Are you suggesting that Oswald knew in March of 1963 that Kennedy would be coming to Dallas ?
ROFLMAO

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? It appears not. I suggest you research “straw man argument logical fallacy” and get back to me.

Post by Gil Jesus
Name the people who saw the rifle in the garage prior to November 22nd.

Marina actions and admission to the police on the afternoon of 11/22/63 is enough.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.

That would require speculation, Hank. You're the expert on that.

Ok. It grew legs and went for a walk. Or the long package Oswald was seen with that morning carrying to the Depository contained the rifle. Those are the only two theories I got. What about you? How do you think it got there?

You You have a serious hole in your reconstruction of the event you can’t fill with evidence, so you think you can just ignore it? It was found on the sixth floor, wasn’t it? How’d it get there, Gil, if Oswald didn’t bring it in?

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.

No, Gil. That would be a change of subject, another logical fallacy by you. It’s also called a red herring.
“A red herring fallacy is an attempt to redirect a conversation away from its original topic. A red herring is used by introducing an irrelevant piece of information that distracts the reader or listener. This can be intentional or unintentional.

As a result, one can divert others’ attention away from the original discussion topic or avoid answering a difficult question.”

You can’t explain why you are relying on a poor witness like Dougherty, why you’re ignoring better witnesses like Wesley Frazier and Marina Oswald, or ignoring the fact that Oswald’s rifle was found on the sixth floor shortly after the assassination.

Your boat has holes in it and is taking on water. Either patch the holes, or bail.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.


WHAT A MORON!!!

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? It appears not.

You clearly don't. You use them all the time...


Here's what terrifies you:

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 Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

I understand Gil stated they suppressed his testimony, then claimed they cited it.

You seem to have a problem understanding those are two contrary claims by Gil.

I also understand you deleted and ignored most of my points, including Marina saying “yes” and leading the police to the blanket in the Paine garage when asked if Oswald owned a rifle.

Post by Ben Holmes
WHAT A MORON!!!

Post by Hank Sienzant
Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? It appears not.

You clearly don't. You use them all the time...

No, you do. Above is the logical fallacy of ad hominem. You deleted my points and called me a moron.

Below is the red herring logical fallacy, where you try to change the subject to divert attention from Gil’s misuse of Dougherty’s testimony - a man who clearly had issues with speech, contradicting himself repeatedly.

The Commission’s report acknowledged that, kindly calling Dougherty a confused witness.

I understand why you would want to bail on the discussion of Dougherty that Gil brought up.
What I don’t understand is why you would think anyone would be convinced by your logical fallacies of attacking the messenger and changing the subject. Or by your deleting my points, which you did above and more is certain to follow.

Post by Ben Holmes
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, 29 Jan 2024 08:15:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

I understand Gil stated they suppressed his testimony, then claimed they cited it.

No, you clearly *DON'T* understand. WHAT A MORON!!!

You aren't even *trying* to understand what Gil writes...

Post by Hank Sienzant
I also understand you deleted ...

Happy to do so again. Since your cowardice is shown right here:

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 Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.

So Hank's full of shit, as usual.

Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.

Hank's ASSUMING that because:
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).

Hank can prove me wrong. All he has to do is cite where Frazier said specifically that:

a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.

Volume and page, please.

Thirdly, Frazier ( the Lone Nutters' eyewitness that Oswald took the rifle to work that day ) said in this video ( that I'm sure they'll refuse to look at )
that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.
http://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:24:31 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.

No reason to explain yourself - honest people caught what you said the
first time around.

And explaining it to a liar is an exercise in futility.

Post by Gil Jesus
So Hank's full of shit, as usual.

Absolutely!

Post by Gil Jesus
Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.
Volume and page, please.
Thirdly, Frazier ( the Lone Nutters' eyewitness that Oswald took the rifle to work that day ) said in this video ( that I'm sure they'll refuse to look at )
that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.
http://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4

If believers could prove us wrong - they'd cite the evidence. But
they can't... the evidence supports conspiracy.

[Gil Jesus]

No reason to explain yourself - honest people caught what you said the first time around.
And explaining it to a liar is an exercise in futility.
If believers could prove us wrong - they'd cite the evidence. But they can't... the evidence supports conspiracy.

Anybody who leaves this life believing the Warren Commission's lies and having fought to support those lies, will
stand before the Judge with the blood of John F. Kennedy on their hands.

Like the German citizens who turned their neighbors into the Nazis during WW II, these people are collaborators with traitors.
Having spent their lives trying to suppress the truth, they are as guilty as the people who pulled the triggers and those who covered it up.
Therefore, the blood of JFK will be on their hands as well.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

No reason to explain yourself - honest people caught what you said the first time around.
And explaining it to a liar is an exercise in futility.
If believers could prove us wrong - they'd cite the evidence. But they can't... the evidence supports conspiracy.

Anybody who leaves this life believing the Warren Commission's lies and having fought to support those lies, will
stand before the Judge with the blood of John F. Kennedy on their hands.
Like the German citizens who turned their neighbors into the Nazis during WW II, these people are collaborators with traitors.
Having spent their lives trying to suppress the truth, they are as guilty as the people who pulled the triggers and those who covered it up.
Therefore, the blood of JFK will be on their hands as well.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Gil Jesus

No reason to explain yourself - honest people caught what you said the first time around.
And explaining it to a liar is an exercise in futility.
If believers could prove us wrong - they'd cite the evidence. But they can't... the evidence supports conspiracy.

Anybody who leaves this life believing the Warren Commission's lies and having fought to support those lies, will
stand before the Judge with the blood of John F. Kennedy on their hands.
Like the German citizens who turned their neighbors into the Nazis during WW II, these people are collaborators with traitors.
Having spent their lives trying to suppress the truth, they are as guilty as the people who pulled the triggers and those who covered it up.
Therefore, the blood of JFK will be on their hands as well.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise
statement was a logical fallacy?

[Gil Jesus]

Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?

That's all they know.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:50:15 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?

That's all they know.

It amuses me that Huckster Sienzant first pointed out the many
differing logical fallacies, while pretending that he could never see
his own, or those of fellow believers.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?

That's all they know.

That you guys are heroic truth seekers is not the default, it is merely your delusion.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Gil Jesus

Did you notice, Gil - that the only response to your clear and concise statement was a logical fallacy?

That's all they know.

That you guys are ...

Logical fallacy deleted. Cowardice revealed:

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 Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.

No, they kindly called him a confused witness, pointing out some of the issues, instead of calling him mentally defective. That confusion and unreliability extends to all of his testimony, including the parts you like.

Are you suggesting that a guy who says he served overseas during the war and never left the US during the war is a reliable witness? That a guy who says he took 45 minutes and a full hour for lunch is going to make a good impression on the witness stand? That a guy who didn’t have a job for seven years after serving in WWII and was unmarried and still lived at home at the age of forty didn’t have issues that would make him a questionable witness?

Don’t you think this guy would make a terrible person to call to the witness stand — I mean, you are all about admissibility, so why would you want the jury to hear what he said?

They would be shaking their head at your witness.

Post by Gil Jesus
So Hank's full of shit, as usual.

Tsk, tsk, Gil.

Post by Gil Jesus
Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).

So did Oswald walk into the building with the package or did Scottie beam him up to the Enterprise, Gil?
What a bizarre point to quibble over. Clearly, Oswald entered the building with the package.

Post by Gil Jesus
Hank can prove me wrong.

Hank doesn’t need to do that. You need to prove yourself right. Anything else is shifting the burden of proof, another logical fallacy by you. Start by putting your scenario in the table.

Post by Gil Jesus
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.
Volume and page, please.
Thirdly, Frazier ( the Lone Nutters' eyewitness that Oswald took the rifle to work that day ) said in this video ( that I'm sure they'll refuse to look at )
that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.
http://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4

How many decades later? Does Frazier want to be known as the guy who transported Kennedy’s killer and his weapon to the building where the killer fired from? He has every incentive in the world to deny the rifle. But you still have some explaining to do, Gil. How did Oswald’s rifle get into the building, and where was Oswald’s rifle if not in the Paine garage before 11/22/63?

I think you need to cite the evidence for both of those things, Gil.

Volume and page, please.

Once we hear your fully fleshed-out scenario, we can compare it to the only one on the table currently and see which one has the most evidence in support.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:04:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.

No...

Notice that when it's explicitly pointed out how Huckster failed to
understand - he STILL refuses to admit that he lied.

Of course, we also know Huckster to be 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 Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 06:14:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Gil initially said: “The Commission simply ignored this witness, suppressed his testimony and omitted it from its Report.”
Gil now says: “They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?”

Huckster demonstrates that he can't understand what Gil quite plainly
stated.

Firstly, Hank knows damned well what I was talking about. The Commission ignored Dougherty's testimony that he saw Oswald enter the building without anything in his hands,

I explained to you that Dougherty didn`t see Oswald enter the building and you continue to lie about this.

Post by Gil Jesus
it suppressed it and omitted it from its report. Hank tried to use Dougherty's "issues with his speech" as an excuse to paint him as unreliable, but as I pointed out, they had
no problem with his "reliability" when it came to using OTHER parts of his testimony.
So Hank's full of shit, as usual.
Secondly, Frazier NEVER testified that he saw Oswald enter the building with a package.

Frazier said he was carrying a package. Frazier saw him go in the building.

Post by Gil Jesus
a. ) he saw Oswald walking toward the building with the package,
b. ) he saw Oswald standing "at the door" ( 2 H 229 ), and
c. ) "glanced up" to see the door closing after Oswald had gone through it ( ibid. ).

You continue to lie about this even after I quoted his testimony...

"Right. The last time I saw him I was right in this area coming across these railroad tracks and I just happened to glance up and see him going through the door there and shut the door."

He saw him go through the door and enter the building.

Post by Gil Jesus
a. ) he saw Oswald enter the building with a package, or
b.) that he saw the package in Oswald's hand as he entered the building.
Volume and page, please.
Thirdly, Frazier ( the Lone Nutters' eyewitness that Oswald took the rifle to work that day ) said in this video ( that I'm sure they'll refuse to look at )
that "there was no gun" in the package he saw.

Frazier never looked inside the package.

Post by Gil Jesus
http://youtu.be/4olEc4xdVB4

[Ben Holmes]

I explained to you ...

Explain this:

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 Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:00:40 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

Give us corroborating evidence that the rifle was in, "its normal hiding place in the Paine garage" before November 22nd.
Are you suggesting that Oswald knew in March of 1963 that Kennedy would be coming to Dallas ?
ROFLMAO
Name the people who saw the rifle in the garage prior to November 22nd.

This is, of course, speculation piled on top of more speculation.
There's *NO* evidence proving a rifle was ever in the garage.

Post by Gil Jesus

You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.

That would require speculation, Hank. You're the expert on that.

This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 04:00:40 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
They discounted Dougherty’s testimony because he clearly had issues with his speech.

They didn't have a problem citing his testimony in their Report, though did they ?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=177

Post by Hank Sienzant
You seem to be ignoring a large piece of the puzzle. Oswald’s rifle was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage and was recovered from the TSBD shortly after the assassination.

Give us corroborating evidence that the rifle was in, "its normal hiding place in the Paine garage" before November 22nd.
Are you suggesting that Oswald knew in March of 1963 that Kennedy would be coming to Dallas ?
ROFLMAO
Name the people who saw the rifle in the garage prior to November 22nd.

This is, of course, speculation piled on top of more speculation.
There's *NO* evidence proving a rifle was ever in the garage.

There is evidence there was one.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
You should be shaking your head at Dougherty’s testimony, and your own inability to explain how Oswald’s rifle got to the sixth floor, if Oswald didn’t bring it in on the morning of the assassination.

That would require speculation, Hank. You're the expert on that.

Post by Hank Sienzant
This is why you get no traction with your arguments: They rely on poor witnesses and ignore better witnesses and ignore or discount the hard evidence you can’t explain.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:29:35 -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 Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:26:52 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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 Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:26:52 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
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 can’t deal with the evidence being discussed, so he ignores it, and attempts to change the subject.

Psst, Ben? Can I share a secret everyone but you appears to know?

Nobody is fooled by your trolling.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:18:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:26:52 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
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 can’t deal with the evidence being discussed...

Huckster can't handle the truth...

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster can't handle the truth...

None of them can.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster can't handle the truth...

None of them can.

True... there's very little difference between 'em all. Chuckles is
the most ignorant of the case evidence, but Chickenshit trails
narrowly behind.

Huckster knows the most, and thus has to show the most dishonesty &
cowardice.