Henry Sienzant Demonstrates How To Lie...

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-11-2016, 01:31 PM

Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

Lee Abbott · 10-11-2016, 06:15 PM

(10-11-2016, 01:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

In fairness, Mr. Hankie is really a baseball expert and knows very lillte about Dallas. Recently, for example, he felt it was necessary to announce a base on balls with the bases loaded counts as an RBI for the batter.... I'd guess that everyone over 10 knows that, other than Mr. Hankie's loyal folowers of Dale, De Bozo, Mogul and similar simpletons.

Patrick C · 10-13-2016, 04:27 PM

(10-11-2016, 01:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

Actually Lee, I have corrected you many times on matters of fact and evidence over the years. That is an apt summary of YOUR rather than my approach on this subject.

So you are the maker upper here old boy!

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-13-2016, 04:53 PM

(10-13-2016, 04:27 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
(10-11-2016, 01:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

Actually Lee, I have corrected you many times on matters of fact and evidence over the years. That is an apt summary of YOUR rather than my approach on this subject.

So you are the maker upper here old boy!

Amusingly, Patrick has nothing to say about Henry's lie.

He refuses to defend it, and he refuses to publicly chastise Henry for lying.

But that's what believers do... they support each other.

Patrick C · 10-14-2016, 12:19 PM

(10-11-2016, 06:15 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote:
(10-11-2016, 01:31 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:
Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.

More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.

Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?

Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".

Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...

This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.

Lie about it.

In fairness, Mr. Hankie is really a baseball expert and knows very lillte about Dallas. Recently, for example, he felt it was necessary to announce a base on balls with the bases loaded counts as an RBI for the batter.... I'd guess that everyone over 10 knows that, other than Mr. Hankie's loyal folowers of Dale, De Bozo, Mogul and similar simpletons.

Quote:"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)..."

The statement is essentially true - however depends on the definition of "credible" in terms of how the witnesses were seen.

IMO the WC should have made more reference to those who thought the shots came from the front, but clearly it is obvious from a logical perspective that as almost all of those witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the front, that they were simply wrong - perfectly understandable.

The commission did not find evidence of another assassin - that is a simplle fact of life. IF there was evidence, it was not presented to the staffers - who by all accounts really did look for a conspiracy.

They were simply left with the rather boring conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin and had no choice other than to conclude that one bullet caused the non fatal wounds of Kennedy and Connally - namely the single bullet fact - the most logical, plausible and reasonable scenario to explain those wounds.

Oswald fired two shots approx 5.2 seconds apart - easily doable for an ex marine - even I could do that with a bit o luck. There was no shot between those two. Either there were only two or there was an early missed shot - and that is what the witness testimony strongly suggests - one of those scenarios is right. Or put another way - as close to the historical truth as we will get and non of this whack job 5, 6 or 7 shot balderdash that seems to be the domain of the pro conspiracy extremists to the near exclusion of sensible alternatives.

Ben Holmes Wrote:"Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this"

What absolute hogwash.

The majority of witnesses thought the shots - ALL the shots came from above and behind. And why would they not - bacause we KNOW that two shots came from the rear as we have TWO rear entry wounds in JFK.

Altgens 6 demonstrates this majority conclusion rather well - that some 10 persons are looking to the rear as the president goes by - why would they not be looking at the president......? Simple, because they were distracted by a shot they had heard fired from the TSBD 6th floor.

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-14-2016, 02:29 PM

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Quote:"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)..."

The statement is essentially true - however depends on the definition of "credible" in terms of how the witnesses were seen.

You're lying again, Patrick. It cannot be "essentially true" because you know that there's a tremendous body of eyewitness & earwitness testimony which DID put shots in another place.

You've even been caught lying about this fact earlier, when you claimed that the majority of the witnesses DOCUMENTED on 11/22 & 11/23 put the shots as coming from the TSBD.

You would have no reason to lie about that fact unless you understood just how damaging it was that the majority of witnesses in those first two days - before any intimidation had coalesced to convince witnesses that there was a lone assassin in the TSBD.

Your INTENTIONAL lie on this topic shows an awareness of just how weak your case is.

You've not shown even a SINGLE Grassy Knoll witness 'un-credible'. Why is that, Patrick?

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: IMO the WC should have made more reference to those who thought the shots came from the front, but clearly it is obvious from a logical perspective that as almost all of those witnesses thought ALL the shots came from the front, that they were simply wrong - perfectly understandable.

I realize that you're desperate not to admit that the Warren Commission simply lied... but that's a fact.

And you've been caught lying to defend the Commission... (and to denigrate Mark Lane)

When you have to lie about the evidence, instead of explaining it - then you've simply demonstrated a vast dishonesty and awareness of the weakness of your case.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The commission did not find evidence of another assassin - that is a simplle fact of life. IF there was evidence, it was not presented to the staffers - who by all accounts really did look for a conspiracy.

Once again, you're lying.

They did indeed find "evidence" of another assassin, it was in the testimony of the many people who pointed to the Grassy Knoll.

This evidence is still there, and you can't make it disappear.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: They were simply left with the rather boring conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin and had no choice other than to conclude that one bullet caused the non fatal wounds of Kennedy and Connally - namely the single bullet fact - the most logical, plausible and reasonable scenario to explain those wounds.

Actually, and you're well aware of this fact, they HAD to create the SBT... without which they HAD TO come to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Oswald fired two shots approx 5.2 seconds apart - easily doable for an ex marine - even I could do that with a bit o luck. There was no shot between those two. Either there were only two or there was an early missed shot - and that is what the witness testimony strongly suggests - one of those scenarios is right. Or put another way - as close to the historical truth as we will get and non of this whack job 5, 6 or 7 shot balderdash that seems to be the domain of the pro conspiracy extremists to the near exclusion of sensible alternatives.

So the Warren Commission simply failed... according to you.

Yet you refuse to list the evidence ... all you have are your naked statements.

And since you've repeatedly proven yourself a liar, why would anyone believe you, Patrick?

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:"Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this"

What absolute hogwash.

You would be expected to deny this.

Yet you refuse to offer any citations to show that the large numbers of Grassy Knoll witnesses weren't credible.

Or weren't evidence.

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: The majority of witnesses thought the shots - ALL the shots came from above and behind. And why would they not - bacause we KNOW that two shots came from the rear as we have TWO rear entry wounds in JFK.

Let's go back to those witnesses first documented in the first two days...

What did they say?

CITE FOR IT!!!

(But you won't... you're a coward, and quite dishonest)

(10-14-2016, 12:19 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Altgens 6 demonstrates this majority conclusion rather well - that some 10 persons are looking to the rear as the president goes by - why would they not be looking at the president......? Simple, because they were distracted by a shot they had heard fired from the TSBD 6th floor.

You're afraid to cite their actual statements as documented in the first two days...

There's a reason for that, isn't there?

Mark ran from this as well...

Patrick C · 10-15-2016, 02:37 PM

Why would they NOT be looking at the president and instead be looking to the rear and or above rear....?

Because they heard aloud bang.....DUH!

***Ben Holmes*** · 10-16-2016, 04:23 PM

(10-15-2016, 02:37 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Why would they NOT be looking at the president and instead be looking to the rear and or above rear....?

Because they heard aloud bang.....DUH!

Document your claim that the majority of the witnesses who were in print in the first two days pointed to the TSBD.

The truth demonstrates that you're a liar... doesn't it?