Forums

Full Version: Henry Sienzant Steps In It Again...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:
Quote:Multiple witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. Not the courthouse, not the overpass. The Knoll.
Well, let's see who is wrong, shall we?

(a) Numerous witnesses (about 10) came forward on 11/22/63 to say they saw a shooter or a rifle, in the Depository immediately before, during, or immediately after the assassination.
- No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say they saw a shooter on the Grassy Knoll.
No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw a cop park his motorcycle in front of the TSBD and run into the building.

No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Zapruder filming the assassination.

No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Chaney speed forward to communicate with Chief Curry.

No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they saw Clint Hill run up to the Presidential limo, and jump on.

No witnesses came forward on 11/22/63 to say that they found a Mannlicher Carcano on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

However, NUMEROUS witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. I guess we've seen who was wrong...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:(b) Within 30 minutes of the assassination, three expended rifle shells were found at the Depository window from where a shooter was seen earlier.
- No shells were found on the Grassy Knoll.
No knife was found that O.J. Simpson used to murder two people. Therefore, according to Henry's logic, there was no knife... and Simpson couldn't have used a knife to murder anyone.

Poor logic, of course...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:© Within 45 minutes of the assassination, a rifle was found in the Depository on the same floor as the witnesses saw the rifle or the gunman during the shooting.
- No weapon was found on the Grassy Knoll."
No knife was found that O.J. Simpson used to murder two people. Therefore, according to Henry's logic, there was no knife... and Simpson couldn't have used a knife to murder anyone.

The same poor logic mentioned earlier...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:(d) Film and photos show the shells and rifle in the Depository on 11/22/63.
- No film or photos shows shells or a weapon on the Grassy Knoll.
And since no film or photo shows the bag on the 6th floor, Henry must admit that the bag was not relevant evidence.

Again, simply poor logic on his part.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:(e) Within about two hours of the shooting, a nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland Hospital. This bullet could be eventually traced to having been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
- No bullet was ever recovered that points to a Grassy Knoll shooter.
Nor were all the bullets found. Even Henry would be forced to admit that bullets are not regularly EXPECTED to be found.

Again, simply poor logic on Henry's part...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:[F} Later that evening, the Secret Service found two large fragments in the Presidential limo. Those two large fragments could be eventually traced to having been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
- No fragments were found in the limousine that could be determined to have come from a Grassy Knoll shooter.
Since there wasn't any search of the limo by a real investigation - this is fairly meaningless. Henry doesn't know what was or was not found in the limo.

We do know that the chain of custody on much of the major evidence in this case is lacking.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:[G} The autopsists that night, with the body in front of them, and the HSCA pathology panel, in a review of the extant autopsy materials, determined that the bullets that struck the President came from above and behind the level of the President. The Depository's sixth floor window was above and behind the President. - The autopsists and the HSCA review panel determined there was no evidence of any shot or shots striking the President from the right front. The Grassy Knoll was to the President's right front during the shooting.
We also know that there was quite a bit of evidence for a shot to JFK's right temple... indeed, even from the medical panels... Henry also knows for a fact that the HSCA, as merely one example; flat lied about the medical evidence... and until Henry can explain these official lies, he's basing his opinions on a faulty foundation.
Henry Sienzant Wrote:(h) Most of the witnesses thought all the shots came from ONE location, and one location only. Some thought all the shots came from the Depository, others said the overpass, and others said the fence area known as the Grassy Knoll. Very few witnesses (Jean Hill for one) said the shots sounded like they were coming from two locations. This means any reconstruction of the event that suggests shots came from multiple locations is rejecting the overwhelming majority of the witness testimony on the source of the shots.
This is perhaps the silliest of all factoids that come from the WCR Supporters... The evidence can best be explained, most credibly be explained... as shots from multiple directions. What Henry is forced to do is to simply disregard over half of the witnesses.

Very poor logic indeed!
Henry Sienzant Wrote:(i) Several witnesses described the assassination location in terms like "an echo chamber". One witness said he had noticed a similarity of sound coming from the Depository and the overpass in the past. For instance, Lee Bowers spoke in his testimony of:
Quote:Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
When believers cannot discredit the eyewitness testimony, they end up believing anything they can that supports their faith. Henry knows that no cross-examination of Mr. Bowers was ever made, and he knows that the Warren Commission had a habit of prepping their witnesses before the testimony - so that witnesses knew what was expected of them to say.

If Mr. Bowers were correct, this would mean that ALL OF THE EARWITNESSES would be equally 'confused' as to the location of the shots.

Mr. Bowers also stated that "I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle they [/b][the FBI][b] reminded me that I wasn’t an expert and I had to agree.

But this is the sort of statement that Henry would absolutely despise... he too would tell Mr. Bowers that he wasn't an expert, and could not have accurately judged that the second & third shots couldn't have been fired from the same rifle.

Yet Henry trusts Mr. Bowers judgement ON HIS HEARING ... even as he disputes Mr. Bowers judgement ON HIS HEARING.

Sounds just a tad hypocritical to me...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:From the evidence, we learn there's no physical evidence of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And there's no eyewitness to a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. And there's no film or photographic evidence of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. We also learn that some eyewitnesses spoke of the apparent confusion of the sounds that could happen in Dealey Plaza.
And from the evidence, we learn that the majority of people thought that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll, and that someone flashing Secret Service credentials was there, although he couldn't have been a real SS agent, and that smoke was seen from that area.

In other areas where we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, such as a bullet transiting JFK's body, Henry has absolutely no qualms at all with the lack of physical evidence.

Once again, sounds a tad hypocritical to me...
Henry Sienzant Wrote:How I put this together: The witnesses who thought a shot came from the Grassy Knoll were mistaken as to the source of the sound. And anyone who thinks shots came from multiple locations must agree, because very few witnesses thought shots came from multiple locations. Most of the "Grassy Knoll" witnesses thought ALL the shots came from there, which means they were mistaken whether you think shots came from multiple locations or you think all the shots came from the Depository.
No Henry... ALL the witnesses except for the few who thought the sounds came from both directions were mistaken. YOU QUOTED MR. BOWERS ON THAT VERY ISSUE - yet it's clear that you really didn't believe him.

Logic doesn't seem to be your forte... does it?
Henry solves another mystery, " No fragments were found in the limousine that could be determined to have come from a Grassy Knoll shooter."

Gee, could that be because the bullet was traveling away from the limo?
Lee Abbott Wrote:Henry solves another mystery, " No fragments were found in the limousine that could be determined to have come from a Grassy Knoll shooter."

Gee, could that be because the bullet was traveling away from the limo?
An excellent point - but I would not give to believers the accuracy of the actual search. People tend to forget that the limo was the scene of the crime, AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE DALLAS POLICE.

In other words, we now have no chain of custody on anything found in the limo.

Had the limo been seized by the police there at Parkland - and undergone a search by people who were not a part of the conspiracy, who knows what might have been found, or not found?
Lee,

Ben Holmes Wrote:However, NUMEROUS witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. I guess we've seen who was wrong...
Yes, but almost ALL of them thought ALL of the shots came from the Knoll...! Which is clearly WRONG.....!

How many more times does this have to be emphasised to you ......?
Ben Holmes Wrote:And from the evidence, we learn that the majority of people thought that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll...
Absolute delusional nonsense and utter tripe.
Patrick C Wrote:Lee,
Ben Holmes Wrote:However, NUMEROUS witnesses questioned THAT DAY corroborate hearing gunfire from the Grassy Knoll. I guess we've seen who was wrong...
Yes, but almost ALL of them thought ALL of the shots came from the Knoll...! Which is clearly WRONG.....!

How many more times does this have to be emphasised to you ......?
Based on what?

What is the proof that the Grassy Knoll witnesses were all wrong?

Indeed, the last government investigation - the HSCA, accepted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter... that makes you wrong, doesn't it?

On what ballistics, medical, or other expertise are you contradicting the HSCA's expert panels?
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:And from the evidence, we learn that the majority of people thought that the shots had come from the Grassy Knoll...
Absolute delusional nonsense and utter tripe.
Then one could wonder why you prove quite the coward and refuse to address that evidence?

On what basis do you differentiate a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?

How many more times need the question be asked before you gather up enough courage to answer it?

Do you really think it's fair to run from such evidence, then make the assertion that such evidence is "absolute delusional nonsense and utter tripe?"
Ben Holmes Wrote:On what basis do you differentiate a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?

What on earth are you talking about? I have not mentioned the railyard as a source of a shot!

Ben Holmes Wrote:How many more times need the question be asked before you gather up enough courage to answer it?

"Courage" what has courage got to do with ! You think an amateur blog on the web is a measure of a person's courage Ben? [ad hominem deleted]

The fact is Ben that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear. Period. There is NO disputing that.

There were a significant number of people who thought ALL the shots came from the front - but we know they were mistaken because we KNOW 2 shots came from the rear.

If you want to delude yourself - that is your prerogative - the problem is it is no foundation for a meaningful debate - because you are just making stuff up.

In any case the witness testimony is not the best evidence as we all know. The medical reports shows two shots from the rear and that is the best evidence.
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:On what basis do you differentiate a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?
What on earth are you talking about? I have not mentioned the railyard as a source of a shot!
Nor did I.

I asked you on what basis do you DIFFERENTIATE a rifle shot heard coming from the "Railroad Yards" if the Grassy Knoll is in the same direction?

My wording was quite precise, and implied no such assertion ... I NEVER stated or implied that YOU had mentioned the railyard as a source of the shot.

But, coward that you are, you're simply using every single means at your disposal to avoid answering the question.

You've evaded several times now, and there's nothing one can say other than that your cowardice is stopping you from answering...

I rather suspect that you're smart enough to know that the moment you give the only possible answer to the question, you will have demolished your own implied claims (even if you aren't quite sure where I'm headed with this.)
Patrick C Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:How many more times need the question be asked before you gather up enough courage to answer it?
"Courage" what has courage got to do with ! You think an amateur blog on the web is a measure of a person's courage Ben? [ad hominem deleted]
Yep... you're a coward, Patrick.

I've repeatedly asked the same question, and you've repeatedly evaded answering. Can you name any other reason for refusing to answer other than cowardice?

Did you fail to understand the question?

Was I not clear enough?

Then allow me to make it even MORE clear.

Imagine standing at the entrance to the TSBD... imagine that you heard shots, and you stated that it was your impression that they came from the direction of the railroad yards adjacent to the TSBD building. I'm asking you if there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that you could differentiate the railroad yards from the Grassy Knoll.

Now, your cowardice is such that I really don't expect an answer - but I remain hopeful, so I'll give you the opportunity for yet another chance to prove your character...
Patrick C Wrote:The fact is Ben that the majority of witnesses thought the shots came from the rear. Period. There is NO disputing that.
Then why are you refusing to answer the question that bears on that issue?

I actually already know the answer... you refuse to answer because while you might not see the exact point I'm about to make, you suspect it has to do with the earwitnesses that you refuse to debate.
Patrick C Wrote:There were a significant number of people who thought ALL the shots came from the front - but we know they were mistaken because we KNOW 2 shots came from the rear.
Nope... we don't "know" that. Indeed, the HSCA found that shots had come from the Grassy Knoll, and didn't rule out even more locations.
Patrick C Wrote:If you want to delude yourself - that is your prerogative - the problem is it is no foundation for a meaningful debate - because you are just making stuff up.
YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, Patrick... I defy you to produce something that I've just 'made up'.

I don't think you've quite thought it through... you don't want to be called a liar, yet you keep making statements THAT YOU CANNOT SUPPORT.
Patrick C Wrote:In any case the witness testimony is not the best evidence as we all know. The medical reports shows two shots from the rear and that is the best evidence.
The medical reports show a shot from the front - and totally undisputed by the autopsy, which never even knew about that bullet wound in the throat.

I'm fully aware that you despise the eyewitness reports, you cannot even name a SINGLE eyewitness whom you accept in all their 1963-64 statements & testimony...

That fact reveals it all... Big Grin