 |
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name)
You're right. My real name is Henry (Hank) Sienzant. Always has been.> You are missing the point, Seinzant. (not his real name)
Learn to spell, Ralph.
> I did not mean to
> imply that Oswald wasn't shot. He as shortly after he appeared to be shot.
contrary.
> And how could he not be shot when Parkland doctors worked on him and
> declared him dead. So, he was definitely shot and killed.
> But none of what
> you said establishes that he was shot in the garage. The autopsy couldn't
> distinguish whether he was shot at 11:21 or a few minutes later.
> Same for
> the second autopsy.
either.
> His wife, his (pretend) mother, and his (pretend)
> brother saw him dead, but ditto.
guy who was their younger brother and youngest child. Let's hear your
evidence -- not your assertions or opinions or interpretations, your
evidence -- that he had a "pretend brother" and a "pretend mother".
> And no one who witnessed the spectacle
> saw any blood or any trauma. >>>
and he was wearing a sweater, how much blood would you expect? The trauma
is described in the autopsy report.
> They didn't even see Oswald being removed
> from the garage. Leastways, none of the cameramen saw it since their
> cameras didn't see it.
taken from the garage in an ambulance live on TV.
> And Jack Ruby was framed and manipulated into
> thinking that he shot Oswald.
claims. Assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.
> He didn't know he shot Oswald until he was
> told he shot Oswald. And you left out the fact that he was also sentenced:
> to death.
and heard the evidence raised by both the prosecution and defense. They
found him guilty of murder.
> And it's quite bizarre when you consider that the victim was
> someone that the State was going to try to put to death.
>
> And Oswald WAS on the steps during the shooting, and that has been proven
> beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt. My appearance on InfoWars was a
> huge success.
press clippings. The only thing you've proven is you have no idea how to
assess evidence.
> Truth is rising, Sienzant, and you can't stop it.
Hank
Ralph Cinque:
Hmmm. So, your name really is Hank Sienzant, huh? But, I asked you if you were the Hank Sienzant who was the VP for Customer Relations with Enhanced Retail Solutions, and you said no. And that was after I found a communication between you and another member of Education Forum in which you said that you worked in the video game marketing business, which is what ERS does. Very weird.
http://pages.omkt.co/archive/bWVzc2FnZV8xNjQyMzk2XzkwXzEwMjZfNDU2OTg=?type=103&channel=1
But, moving on:
It cannot be assumed that Oswald was shot when he appeared to be shot, for the following reasons:
1) there was no blood and no trauma, to him or his clothing. When you consider what could be shown in a shooting hoax, no more than that was shown in this case. So, unless you are going to argue that shooting hoaxes are impossible, period, then you have to admit that this could be one.
2) the damage from the shot was instantaneous, and that damage was devastating; it was catastrophic. But, after the shot, Oswald crumpled forward and down, and then he veered backwards, and then he went up on his toes like a ballerina, and then he went straight down like a freight elevator at the TSBD. That's a lot of activity for a guy with a burst aorta. It is medically impossible.
3) the speed by which Oswald was evacuated from the garage, and the fact that no cameraman captured the sight of two men carrying another stricken man makes the claim that he was shot very suspicious.
I pointed out that neither autopsy could distinguish between Oswald being shot at 11:21 or shortly thereafter, and therefore YOU can't use the autopsy to establish that he was shot at 11:21.
And regarding the "pretend" brother and "pretend mother" John Armstrong's 1000 page book HARVEY AND LEE can answer all your questions. But, the thing is: you have to read it.
www.harveyandlee.net
And just so you know: you can't dismiss a thousand page book with a wisecrack.
How much blood would I expect? Well, since they claim that Oswald left an extensive blood stain on the floor of the jail office, which you can see below, I'd say quite a lot. All of the blood left on the floor had to come out the whole in Oswald's body and pass through his sweater.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/10/that-is-reportedly-blood-from-oswalds.html
And what is wrong with you, Hank? I said that no one saw Oswald being carried into the jail office after the shooting, even though it would have been hard for eyes and cameras to miss it. And you cite him being loaded into the ambulance minutes later? What does one have to do with the other?
And the point is that Jack Ruby had no direct knowledge or memory of having shot Oswald. His own lawyer said so on television the day it happened, after speaking to him. Ruby didn't know he shot Oswald until Dallas Police told him that he shot Oswald. And it was depicted exactly that way in the RUBY AND OSWALD television movie, which starred Jim Leavelle. So, the story has always been that Ruby shot Oswald with no awareness of doing so, and I propose, as an alternative, that he had no awareness of it because he didn't do it.
And no: it wasn't vigilante justice. Vigilante justice is when you exterminate someone who murdered an innocent or innocents, and it's the innocence of the victim or victims AND YOUR LOVE FOR THEM that creates the outrage which demands immediate retribution. None of that applied to Oswald, the most hated man in America.
You haven't gotten any smarter, Hank, but on the bright side, I am making you famous.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.