Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


07-08-2016, 03:17 PM #1
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:1) what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the throat? It wasn't found in his body (full body x-rays were done in Bethesda) and it wasn't the bullet found in Parkland, so where'd it go?

Simple - Drs' Humes & Boswell took it out in the pre-autopsy autopsy conducted between 1840 to 2000. You are, of course, free to tell us what was being done between those times... (As of yet, no believer has EVER addressed what was happening to the body between these times... why is that?)

Henry Sienzant Wrote:2) Why didn't it exit out the back of JFK's neck? You supposedly have a hunting round that's designed to kill animals by mushrooming, and leaving the animal with a massive wound, but instead JFK supposedly suffers, in your theory, only a small entry wound and nothing else to write home about ... and then the bullet vanishes. You're got atypical hunting round #1 here.

Again you're speculating. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER based on evidence that it's a "hunting round" - yet you assert it. You have no idea at all what the weapon was, or the bullet velocity - yet you're willing to argue the trajectory of that bullet.

Henry Sienzant Wrote:3) That still leaves the second bullet without an explanation. Since one bullet struck JFK and is unaccounted for, the second bullet can't be linked to any wound involved in the assassination unless you're going to argue this bullet caused one or more (or all) of Connally's wounds, and did so without mushrooming. This gets you closer to a solution, because you can then argue that's why this bullet was found near or on Connally's stretcher in that hallway one floor removed from the operating rooms. But conspiracy theorists uniformly reject that notion that the bullet came from Connally's stretcher, so I don't know if you want to go against the conspiracy theorist gameplan.

There's no evidence that the bullet found at Parkland had anything at all to do with the assassination. In a hospital that virtually daily admitted shooting victims - it wouldn't be particularly amazing to find a bullet on any particular day. It's an entirely reasonable supposition that the FBI realized it would be easier to swap in a bullet that could be provably shown to have been fired from CE399 - than to explain a coincidence that many people might feel was evidence for a conspiracy..

Henry Sienzant Wrote:4) If we reject that, then I think we're left with the theory that this extra bullet was planted in Parkland by a conspirator who dropped it on the stretcher on the wrong floor, nowhere near the President or Governor, or it was a bullet that fell out of another shooting victim on 11/22/63. There's no evidence of another shooting victim being admitted to the hospital on 11/22/63 near the time of the assassination, and you still be left with the atypical hunting round issue to explain - where the bullet somehow falls out of this other victim and still has a pointed tip somehow.

Again with the "planted" argument!!!

Time and time again, critics have schooled believers on this topic - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT A BULLET WAS PLANTED. There is, however; evidence for a swapped bullet.

But it's certainly true that before much of this evidence came out, critics presumed a planted bullet... critics, however; are willing to follow the evidence - believers seem stuck in 1964.

Henry again presumes that there was no shooting victim admitted on 11/22/63 - yet cannot present the name of ANYONE other than JFK & Connally who were admitted on 11/22/63. He is, in other words, merely speculating as to the evidence he needs.

Desperate to avoid any possibility of a bullet swap...

Henry Sienzant Wrote:5) If we go back to point 3 (the bullet caused one or more of Connally's wounds), now you've got additional issues, like dumb-dumb conspirators hoping to frame a supposed lone-nut shooting only from behind with military surplus ammo (designed NOT to mushroom), but shooting JFK from both the front and back with hunting rounds. If the goal is to kill the President and frame Oswald, why would conspirators have a plan to shoot JFK with the wrong ammo, and why would they plan to shoot him from two directions? Doesn't that plan make it harder to frame Oswald?

No critic has EVER made the argument that the bullet found at Parkland was necessarily involved in the wounding of Gov. Connally to the best of my knowledge. This is merely a strawman argument.

And a logical fallacy such as this coming from Henry Sienzant is not really surprising... for someone who likes to point out logical fallacies, he uses a great number of them himself.

Henry argues that in shooting the President from multiple directions, the conspirators make it difficult to frame a single patsy.

Yet clearly, that's simply untrue. Newspaper reports from 11/22 talk about a wound in the temple - the earliest reports from Parkland speak of a bullet striking JFK FROM THE FRONT... yet these PROVABLE incidents didn't stop the Warren Commission from pinning the crime on Oswald... so why would Henry argue against something that can be proven to be wrong?

Henry Sienzant Wrote:6) You ignored this point the last time I asked it, so I'll remind you of this question: You separately conjectured a poison dart (flechette) struck JFK in the throat. So which of these is your actual theory, the bullet, the dart, or is it your theory that both struck JFK?

This is a rather silly conjecture on the part of some critics... with absolutely ZERO evidence behind it. But unlike believers, who rarely if ever contradict other believers - critics are more than happy to correct other critics if they are speculating without evidence.

The EVIDENCE shows that (as shown elsewhere in this forum) JFK was struck from the front by an assassin hidden in the 'grassy knoll' on the other side of Elm. The trajectory can be shown by simply drawing a line connecting JFK's throat wound with the hole in the windshield.

07-10-2016, 12:41 AM #2
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Ben Holmes Wrote:Time and time again, critics have schooled believers on this topic - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT A BULLET WAS PLANTED. There is, however; evidence for a swapped bullet.

But it's certainly true that before much of this evidence came out, critics presumed a planted bullet... critics, however; are willing to follow the evidence - believers seem stuck in 1964.
Planting a bullet whilst JC was in surgery would have made no sense and could have complicated things immensely for obvious reasons....

I have always accepted that a swap out at a later stage makes far more sense within the realms of a conspiracy scenario involving a second rearward shooter who struck JC directly. This cannot be ruled out. Do I think it happened, no, but that is merely an informed opinion.

The notion that the anterior neck would is an entry I find very difficult to accept, but I do accept that the windshield could have deflected the bullet from ahead strike to a neck strike, the issue I have is what happened to the back entry bullet......

This projectile is going to penetrate....and it ain't going to fall out during chest massage - I have done my homework on this.....unless the bullet was a dud....but here is the "kicker" as you Americans would say.....supposing that back shot was a dud......would it not drop more than 1ft over 65 yards if it was an intended head shot.....?

If it was not a dud....it WILL exit....

07-10-2016, 04:43 AM #3
Garry Puffer
Member
***
Posts: 80 Threads:5 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Patrick C Wrote:The notion that the anterior neck would is an entry I find very difficult to accept....

Your opinion is well-known and noted, but as far as I know you have never explained the evidence that causes you to believe this. There is evidence that Dr. Perry's testimony on the matter was coerced. Henry lied about what Dr. Perry said at the Parkland press conference, which shows Henry's desperation.

From what I can tell, your opinion is based on begging the question i.e., "the anterior throat wound could not be an entrance wound because Oswald was not firing from the front."

I believe you have also stated that an exit wound can be smaller than an entrance wound, yet have provided no citations for such a belief, which goes against the best ballistics opinion. If you want to override the tests done with the Carcano, you need to have some evidence for it.

I know you need the throat wound to be an exit, but from every angle it just does not appear to be so. Would you please clarify exactly why you cannot accept the evidence that it was an entrance wound? But please don't ask us where the bullet went. That is not an argument for your position. As you have often stated, a bullet does not have to travel in a straight line through the body. Your argument in that regard had to do with muscles, so imagine how well it would work for bone.


.gif   pufflogo2.gif (Size: 12.61 KB / Downloads: 109)

07-10-2016, 03:08 PM #4
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:Time and time again, critics have schooled believers on this topic - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT A BULLET WAS PLANTED. There is, however; evidence for a swapped bullet.

But it's certainly true that before much of this evidence came out, critics presumed a planted bullet... critics, however; are willing to follow the evidence - believers seem stuck in 1964.
Planting a bullet whilst JC was in surgery would have made no sense and could have complicated things immensely for obvious reasons....

I have always accepted that a swap out at a later stage makes far more sense within the realms of a conspiracy scenario involving a second rearward shooter who struck JC directly. This cannot be ruled out. Do I think it happened, no, but that is merely an informed opinion.

Informed based on WHAT evidence?

You, of all people, are well aware for the tremendous body of evidence that the bullet was swapped out... so on what is your "informed opinion" being based on?

Patrick C Wrote:The notion that the anterior neck would is an entry I find very difficult to accept, but I do accept that the windshield could have deflected the bullet from ahead strike to a neck strike, the issue I have is what happened to the back entry bullet......

This projectile is going to penetrate....and it ain't going to fall out during chest massage - I have done my homework on this.....unless the bullet was a dud....but here is the "kicker" as you Americans would say.....supposing that back shot was a dud......would it not drop more than 1ft over 65 yards if it was an intended head shot.....?

If it was not a dud....it WILL exit....
You are, of course, basing this opinion on speculation ... speculation on what type of bullet, what velocity, etc... Why were the prosectors forbidden from dissecting the path of this bullet?

Until you can provide a credible reason for this military order - you're not going to go anywhere...

07-10-2016, 03:32 PM #5
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Ben Holmes Wrote:You, of all people, are well aware for the tremendous body of evidence that the bullet was swapped out... so on what is your "informed opinion" being based on?
Based on....how about around 400 books, 50 interviews,countless discussions with fellow researchers -some lawyers and about 30 years work......off and on.....I could not possible document that here though.

My opinion is that the evidence that supports Oswald shooting Kennedy alone FAR outweighs the evidence to the contrary. I am sure as I can be that had there been a conspiracy and a separate cover up, you could not keep a lid on that. Now some would argue the lid has not been kept on, but I would say there is little to go on - a total absence of additional non MC ammunition, metal, fragments, pieces etc.....

No other weapon found anywhere in the Plaza and or in buildings nearby.....only the ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous and preposterous.......Mauser story......laughing off my chair...

07-10-2016, 03:38 PM #6
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Ben Holmes Wrote:You are, of course, basing this opinion on speculation ... speculation on what type of bullet, what velocity, etc...

The rifle was seen poking out the window as the shots started and stayed there for the duration of the assassination as the sounds were heard by the bystanders....of which the VAST majority stated 3 or 2 or 3 shots......

It is therefore highly likely that the shot that struck JFK came from the SE corner window up on floor 6 of the TSBD and therefor had an entry velocity of some 2000 ft per sec....and unless that bullet strikes the spine (which it did not) it will indeed exit soft tissue other than by virtue of some bizarre and almost impossible reason ....

Yes there is conjecture there, but it is certainly extremely well reasoned and sound IMO.

07-10-2016, 09:00 PM #7
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:You, of all people, are well aware for the tremendous body of evidence that the bullet was swapped out... so on what is your "informed opinion" being based on?
Based on....how about around 400 books, 50 interviews,countless discussions with fellow researchers -some lawyers and about 30 years work......off and on.....I could not possible document that here though.
I'm willing to bet you cannot name five books that deal with this topic... nor a single "interview".

So yep... I'd certainly agree that you can't document it... but, quite clearly, you could if it were true. For example, you could list the people you interviewed, and it would be very quickly possible to determine if any of them COULD POSSIBLY HAVE AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION relating to this topic. Or likewise, you could simply list the books that provide evidence on this topic.

Patrick C Wrote:My opinion is that the evidence that supports Oswald shooting Kennedy alone FAR outweighs the evidence to the contrary. I am sure as I can be that had there been a conspiracy and a separate cover up, you could not keep a lid on that. Now some would argue the lid has not been kept on, but I would say there is little to go on - a total absence of additional non MC ammunition, metal, fragments, pieces etc.....

No other weapon found anywhere in the Plaza and or in buildings nearby.....only the ridiculous, absurd, ludicrous and preposterous.......Mauser story......laughing off my chair...

Someone Would Have Talked

07-10-2016, 10:23 PM #8
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:You are, of course, basing this opinion on speculation ... speculation on what type of bullet, what velocity, etc...
The rifle was seen poking out the window as the shots started and stayed there for the duration of the assassination as the sounds were heard by the bystanders....of which the VAST majority stated 3 or 2 or 3 shots......

It is therefore highly likely that the shot that struck JFK came from the SE corner window up on floor 6 of the TSBD and therefor had an entry velocity of some 2000 ft per sec....and unless that bullet strikes the spine (which it did not) it will indeed exit soft tissue other than by virtue of some bizarre and almost impossible reason ....

Yes there is conjecture there, but it is certainly extremely well reasoned and sound IMO.
Nothing you said shows that the bullet that struck JFK's back was a 6.5mm traveling at around 2,000 fps. As I stated, you are, of course, basing your opinion on speculation.

Care to try again, Patrick?

Show the evidence, for example, that there wasn't another shooter shooting from behind...

Oh, you don't have any evidence... :lol:

But I'm sure you're well aware of testimony & statements putting a shooter in the Southwestern side of the TSBD...

The FACTS THAT WE HAVE simply don't support transit, and it takes quite a bit of faith to believe that a bullet struck JFK in the back (particularly since the evidence shows a T3/T4 location) and exited the throat. Witnesses at the autopsy didn't believe it.

07-11-2016, 12:33 PM #9
Lee Abbott
Member
***
Posts: 83 Threads:6 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Joseph Stalin, definitely not the greatest man in history said, "In elections it doesn't matter who gets the most votes, it's who does the counting."

Ergo, if the authorities only recorded statements from those that said a certain number of shots, or switched the number, that considerably changes the ballgame... Henry is astute enough to realize this if he wanted to.

07-11-2016, 01:40 PM #10
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 951 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Henry Sienzant Questions The Frontal Bullet...
Lee Abbott Wrote:Joseph Stalin, definitely not the greatest man in history said, "In elections it doesn't matter who gets the most votes, it's who does the counting."

Ergo, if the authorities only recorded statements from those that said a certain number of shots, or switched the number, that considerably changes the ballgame... Henry is astute enough to realize this if he wanted to.
This fact undoubtedly influences believers to deny that there was any official intimidation of eyewitnesses. They are, of course, lying when they do so.

The evidence of eyewitness intimidation run all through this case, and cannot be explained by supporters of the Warren Commission.







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)