Is Hank Sienzant Historically Stupid For Arguing With Gil About Oswald Being Historically Guilty?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

[Gil Jesus]

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.

No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".

There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.

I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness.
I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.

History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.

And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.

These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
No, my argument is based on:

1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.

When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness.
I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.

Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be in over their heads here.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be in over their heads here.

I agree.
The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of the authorities making that case.

Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.

Take a criminal case where:

The police were corrupt
Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".
The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )
There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of discovery
There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and waived those rights.
Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found
The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day
The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day
Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect
The police lineups were unfair
The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested
The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for tampering
The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they found
The witnesses were threatened and harassed
Key witnesses were ignored
FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said

Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a suspect's guilt ?
REALLY

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be in over their heads here.

I agree.
The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of the authorities making that case.
Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.
The police were corrupt
Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".
The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )
There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of discovery
There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and waived those rights.
Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found
The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day
The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day
Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect
The police lineups were unfair
The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested
The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for tampering
The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they found
The witnesses were threatened and harassed
Key witnesses were ignored
FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said
Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a suspect's guilt ?
REALLY

Nobody.

Now establish all the above applies to Oswald in the JFK assassination.

Go ahead, we’ll wait.

But I won’t hold my breath.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:02:51 -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 Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be in over their heads here.

I agree.
The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of the authorities making that case.
Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.
The police were corrupt
Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".
The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )
There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of discovery
There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and waived those rights.

There is Johnston’s notes and his testimony. We already established this claim by you doesn’t apply to Oswald as recently as today

I established that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/_V0xpyMjewQ/m/39xGLFLmAAAJ

So more stuff you simply don’t understand.

Post by Gil Jesus
Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found
The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day
The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day
Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect
The police lineups were unfair
The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested
The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for tampering
The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they found
The witnesses were threatened and harassed
Key witnesses were ignored
FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said
Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a suspect's guilt ?
REALLY

When are you going to attempt to establish your Gish Gallop begged question list above?

You haven’t shown any of the above applies to the case under discussion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:11:09 -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?

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".

Yet Gil continues to try to historically acquit Oswald.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 04:13:52 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".

Yet Gil continues to try to historically acquit Oswald.

This is, of course, simply a blatant lie. Why do you think you can
convince anyone with lies?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."

Sure there is. Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK. Even the always entertaining Toilet/Flags thinks Oswald is historically guilty of at least SHOOTING at JFK's motorcade, so he's one level less stupid than you. Granted, it's a low bar, but Toilet clears it.

Post by Gil Jesus
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.

Wrong per usual. Civil cases have a much lower standard of guilt. The plaintiff only needs to prove the defendant acted negligently with a fifty-one percent degree of certainty. Ask OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochrane Jesus.

Post by Gil Jesus
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.

You made up the phrase "historically guilty," not me, and then demanded I provide a definition for two words you insisted needed to be rolled into a conjoined term. I pointed out your logical fallacy was called Argumentum ad Dictionarium.

Post by Gil Jesus
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.

You made up the term, moron. I was simply using two words with economy to describe the idea that history--broadly--has settled on the conclusion that your hero Oswald killed two people on 11/22/63. There is no other idea on the table to compare the Oswald Alone narrative to. Hell, you don't even know (or care) what happened that day.

Post by Gil Jesus
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness.
I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.

Our official US history as gathered, collated, displayed, etc. by the National Archives disagrees. John F Kennedy's library disagrees.

Post by Gil Jesus
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.

The stupid runs deep with you. Oswald isn't CRIMINALLY GUILTY, Johnny Cochrane. He is HISTORICALLY GUILTY.

Post by Gil Jesus
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.

On 11/22/63?

Post by Gil Jesus
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.

Begging the question.

Post by Gil Jesus
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.

By not just blowing him away in the Texas Theatre when he pulled on a cop? By reading him his rights?

Post by Gil Jesus
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.

Not up to your standards, eh Johnny Cochrane?

Post by Gil Jesus
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Which ones?

Post by Gil Jesus
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.

Totally innocent that day? Toilet thinks he fired at the motorcade from the grassy knoll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 20:37:58 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."

Sure there is.

Then explain why you can't cite for this wacky claim of yours.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 02:19:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!

Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness.
I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.

I could not have said it better... thanks Gil...