Brilliant Point From The Education Forum.

[Ben Holmes]

> To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> supports this conclusion.

> From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct
> more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting
> points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory
> than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to
> avoid.

Perhaps this is why DVP denies that there was a large wound in the
back of JFK's head?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> > supports this conclusion.

This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly. There is a reason autopsies are performed rather than polling casual observers.

> > From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct
> > more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting
> > points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory
> > than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to
> > avoid.

This poster should try to put a case up for consideration. Nobody here could.

> Perhaps this is why DVP denies that there was a large wound in the
> back of JFK's head?

Perhaps he doesn`t have your childish mentality.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
>> > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
>> > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
>> > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
>> > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
>> > supports this conclusion.
>
> This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly. There is a
> reason autopsies are performed rather than polling casual observers.

Lie, and tell everyone that the autopsy did not state that there was a
large wound in the back of the head, devoid of scalp and bone.

Better yet, tell us what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of
the head.

Cite for your answer, or be proven a liar.

>> > From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct
>> > more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting
>> > points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory
>> > than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to
>> > avoid.
>
> This poster should try to put a case up for consideration. Nobody here could.

You've demonstrated yourself to be a liar in this very post.

What's another lie?

>> Perhaps this is why DVP denies that there was a large wound in the
>> back of JFK's head?
>
> Perhaps he doesn`t have your childish mentality.

Nah... he's simply a liar like you.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> >> > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> >> > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> >> > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> >> > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> >> > supports this conclusion.
> >
> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly. There is a
> > reason autopsies are performed rather than polling casual observers.
>
>
> Lie, and tell everyone that the autopsy did not state that there was a
> large wound in the back of the head, devoid of scalp and bone.

So?

> Better yet, tell us what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of
> the head.

Has what to do with what?

> Cite for your answer, or be proven a liar.
>
>
> >> > From this straightforward conclusion you are forced try and construct
> >> > more plausible theory for JFK's death. There are other starting
> >> > points but this one pretty starkly demonstrates that a better theory
> >> > than Warren's is required and one that concludes Conspiracy is hard to
> >> > avoid.
> >
> > This poster should try to put a case up for consideration. Nobody here could.
>
>
> You've demonstrated yourself to be a liar in this very post.
>
> What's another lie?

All you have is ad hominem and empty claims. Bluff and bluster. Shifting of the burden. You have nothing of substance to offer.

> >> Perhaps this is why DVP denies that there was a large wound in the
> >> back of JFK's head?
> >
> > Perhaps he doesn`t have your childish mentality.
>
>
> Nah... he's simply a liar like you.

I think my assessment was correct.

[David Von Pein]

So do I.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1045.html

[Ben Holmes]

What assessment, David?

Can you **QUOTE** Puddy saying that there was no large BOH wound?

We know **YOU** believe this, despite the evidence... and despite your
complete inability to back up your slimy lie...

[BT George]

Let beb quote where the AR said there was a "large" wound in the BOH. Nothing in the language about the exit wound being "Chiefly parietal, but extending *somewhat* into the frontal and occipital regions" indicates a *large* hole anywhere in the BOH.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Ben tries to play Fetch the Stick with DVP who calmly links to a previous discussion Ben claims never occurred. Well played, David.

Why does this need to be repeated over and over, Ben? Why? Click on the link and re-read what would essentially be the same conversation if DVP did engage you on this again.

You know what would be new?

Ben posting his case and explaining the how and the why behind all of the things he keeps asking others to explain to him. Make your case, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, Chuckles. No-where on his website does Puddy answer
the question of a large wound on the back of JFK's head.

NO-WHERE!

And amusingly, you couldn't help DVP out by quoting where Puddy said that
there was no large BOH wound.

How can David claim to agree with an "assessment" Puddles never made?

Why is that, Chuckles? Don't you *like* David Von Pein? Don't you WANT
to help him out?

> Why does this need to be repeated over and over, Ben?

Because it's never been answered. Believers have been noticeably silent
(except for DVP, who *proudly* proclaims that there was no large BOH
wound) about this issue.

David is simply lying, and you and Puddles are pretending that everyone
already knows where you stand on this issue.

> Why? Click on the link and re-read what would essentially be the same
> conversation if DVP did engage you on this again.

You mean, of course, that DVP would run from my statements like he did
before.

Just as you're doing right now.

Why can't you publicly acknowledge the FACT that there was a large wound
on the back of JFK's head?

Why can't you or Puddy tell me what part of the Occipital is *NOT* in the
back of the head?

David has already acknowledged that a wound can be in the Occipital/Parietal
and depending on the size - CAN BE **ENTIRELY** ON THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

David just can't admit that it's impossible - with the description of
"occipital/parietal" to **NOT** be - at least in part - in the back of the
head.

Neither will you or Puddy. You're cowards... and cannot cite for your
faith.

> You know what would be new?
>
> Ben posting his case and explaining the how and the why behind all of the
> things he keeps asking others to explain to him. Make your case, Ben.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

And I suspect that **YOU** won't publicly cross DVP and admit that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head.

Which means that **ALL** of you deny the Autopsy Report.

Yet refuse to do so publicly.

What cowards!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

KA-BOOM

> How can David claim to agree with an "assessment" Puddles never made?
>
> Why is that, Chuckles? Don't you *like* David Von Pein? Don't you WANT
> to help him out?

After all these years you'd of thunk these .johnites would of had some of this figured out. First class imbeciles...

>
> > Why does this need to be repeated over and over, Ben?
>
>
> Because it's never been answered. Believers have been noticeably silent
> (except for DVP, who *proudly* proclaims that there was no large BOH
> wound) about this issue.
>
> David is simply lying, and you and Puddles are pretending that everyone
> already knows where you stand on this issue.
>
>
> > Why? Click on the link and re-read what would essentially be the same
> > conversation if DVP did engage you on this again.
>
>
> You mean, of course, that DVP would run from my statements like he did
> before.
>
> Just as you're doing right now.

cha-ching!

> Why can't you publicly acknowledge the FACT that there was a large wound
> on the back of JFK's head?
>
> Why can't you or Puddy tell me what part of the Occipital is *NOT* in the
> back of the head?
>
> David has already acknowledged that a wound can be in the Occipital/Parietal
> and depending on the size - CAN BE **ENTIRELY** ON THE BACK OF THE HEAD.
>
> David just can't admit that it's impossible - with the description of
> "occipital/parietal" to **NOT** be - at least in part - in the back of the
> head.

I hope the lawyers here abouts have given up their licenses... sheeeeeesh!

> Neither will you or Puddy. You're cowards... and cannot cite for your
> faith.
>
>
> > You know what would be new?
> >
> > Ben posting his case and explaining the how and the why behind all of the
> > things he keeps asking others to explain to him. Make your case, Ben.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
> And I suspect that **YOU** won't publicly cross DVP and admit that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head.
>
> Which means that **ALL** of you deny the Autopsy Report.
>
> Yet refuse to do so publicly.
>
> What cowards!

Amen!

[Bud]

A little "hide the ball", a little misdirection, a little misrepresentation, a little strawman, some moving of the goalposts and Ben will get this conversation on track, if he has to talk to himself to do it.

This is the pertinent exchange...

Ben: "Lie, and tell everyone that the autopsy did not state that there was a large wound in the back of the head, devoid of scalp and bone."

Me: "So?"

Ben: "Better yet, tell us what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head."

Me: "Has what to do with what?"

What actually happened was that Ben said some things, I said "What about them?" (characterization, Ben is not beneath misdirecting to a non-issue when discussions go against him) and Ben had nothing.

> > Why does this need to be repeated over and over, Ben?
>
>
> Because it's never been answered. Believers have been noticeably silent
> (except for DVP, who *proudly* proclaims that there was no large BOH
> wound) about this issue.
>
> David is simply lying, and you and Puddles are pretending that everyone
> already knows where you stand on this issue.

You brought the issue up. Go somewhere with it. "Some guy on the Education Forum thinks this" (another characterization) isn`t worth anyone`s time. You do something with it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 03:58:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> A little "hide the ball"...


And Puddy is still TERRIFIED to say...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
>> >> > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
>> >> > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
>> >> > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
>> >> > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
>> >> > supports this conclusion.
>> >
>> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly. There is a
>> > reason autopsies are performed rather than polling casual observers.
>>
>> Lie, and tell everyone that the autopsy did not state that there was a
>> large wound in the back of the head, devoid of scalp and bone.
>
> So?

You clearly tried to imply that it's incorrect to consider a large
wound at the back of JFK's head.

Why?

Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that there was a large wound in
the BACK of JFK's head. The same one described by the Autopsy Report.

>> Better yet, tell us what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of
>> the head.
>
> Has what to do with what?

Your distinct implication that there was no large wound in the back of
JFK's head.

Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?

**TERRIFIED** of being specific.

>> Cite for your answer, or be proven a liar.

And clearly, you **ARE** a liar. Willing to imply something that
you're unwilling to publicly state.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> > > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> > > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> > > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> > > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> > > supports this conclusion.
>
> This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)

Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 11:41:57 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> >> >> > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> >> >> > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> >> >> > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> >> >> > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> >> >> > supports this conclusion.
> >> >
> >> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly. There is a
> >> > reason autopsies are performed rather than polling casual observers.
> >>
> >> Lie, and tell everyone that the autopsy did not state that there was a
> >> large wound in the back of the head, devoid of scalp and bone.
> >
> > So?
>
>
> You clearly tried to imply that it's incorrect to consider a large
> wound at the back of JFK's head.

Strawman.

> Why?

You brought this up, why?

> Let's hear you publicly acknowledge that there was a large wound in
> the BACK of JFK's head. The same one described by the Autopsy Report.

What do I know about conducting autopsies? Or you, for that matter.

If they described a wound in the Autopsy Report it apparently didn`t feel it conflicted with their findings that Kennedy was shot twice from behind.

If you want to make the case that it does conflict with the Autopsy Report, then make that case.

> >> Better yet, tell us what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of
> >> the head.
> >
> > Has what to do with what?
>
>
> Your distinct implication that there was no large wound in the back of
> JFK's head.

I`m not responsible for what you imagine I`ve implied.

> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
>
> **TERRIFIED** of being specific.

You brought this up. Go somewhere with it and stop trying to shift the burden.

>
> >> Cite for your answer, or be proven a liar.
>
>
> And clearly, you **ARE** a liar. Willing to imply something that
> you're unwilling to publicly state.

Hot air.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Boris, ya did them in AGAIN! Great job!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> > > > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> > > > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> > > > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> > > > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> > > > supports this conclusion.
> >
> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
>
> And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)

Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
> >
> > And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)

Oh, wait! Here's Chuck now! And...oh, he just...ignored all this. Shit!

>
> Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.

That is indeed the conclusion. And so it must be what happened. Now let's all go look up Circular Logic together.

> >
> > Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.

I love the sound of crickets in the morning.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 7:28:54 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
> > >
> > > And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)
>
> Oh, wait! Here's Chuck now! And...oh, he just...ignored all this. Shit!
>
> >
> > Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.
>
> That is indeed the conclusion. And so it must be what happened. Now let's all go look up Circular Logic together.

Keep trying Boris the Truther. Somebody might buy it.

>
> > >
> > > Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.

Straw. The autopsy says JFK was shot in the head one time, from above and behind.

>
> I love the sound of crickets in the morning.

As if you've never received an answer, or I should say an answer to your liking.

It's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang to jump right back in and discuss the same stuff we've discussed endlessly the past year.

And no case from our greasy little Truther.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 5:15:42 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
>>>>> the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
>>>>> he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
>>>>> some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
>>>>> honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
>>>>> supports this conclusion.
>>>
>>> This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
>>
>> And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy
>> report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck
>> is oddly nowhere to be found!)
>
> Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one
> shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.

Yep... Chuckles DISBELIEVES what the experts SAID was the evidence, and only
wants to hear the opinions.

In Chuckleworld, opinion, as long as its the RIGHT opinion, trumps the
actual evidence.

>> Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO
>> wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect
>> more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.

There's none to be found. Chuckles knows more than the experts.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:49:29 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
> > > >
> > > > And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)
> >
> > Oh, wait! Here's Chuck now! And...oh, he just...ignored all this. Shit!

Still does. And always will. Because he doesn't like experts.

> >
> > >
> > > Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.
> >
> > That is indeed the conclusion. And so it must be what happened. Now let's all go look up Circular Logic together.
>
> Keep trying Boris the Truther. Somebody might buy it.

No, no, no. I said look up "Circular Logic." This is just Appeal to Repetition.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.
>
> Straw. The autopsy says JFK was shot in the head one time, from above and behind.
> >
> > I love the sound of crickets in the morning.
>
> As if you've never received an answer, or I should say an answer to your liking.

Saying "somebody might buy it" and calling something a "straw" which isn't a straw aren't answers that I'd consider being to my liking, no.

>
> It's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang

That's not a thing.

>
> And no case from our greasy little Truther.

I really must stop debating you, Chuck. Every time I do I feel like I've just committed rape.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:37:00 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:49:29 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
> > > > >
> > > > > And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)
> > >
> > > Oh, wait! Here's Chuck now! And...oh, he just...ignored all this. Shit!
>
> Still does. And always will. Because he doesn't like experts.

James Fetzer, "Mr. Healy," Alex Jones...Boris loves his experts.

>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yet the conclusion JFK was hit in the head from above and behind by one shot still stands. Dunning-Kruger, indeed.
> > >
> > > That is indeed the conclusion. And so it must be what happened. Now let's all go look up Circular Logic together.
> >
> > Keep trying Boris the Truther. Somebody might buy it.
>
> No, no, no. I said look up "Circular Logic." This is just Appeal to Repetition.

Your entire shtick is an Appeal to Repetition., but when the autopsy conclusions are verified by the HSCA and other investigations, this is not Circular Logic or an Appeal to Repetition.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.
> >
> > Straw. The autopsy says JFK was shot in the head one time, from above and behind.
> > >
> > > I love the sound of crickets in the morning.
> >
> > As if you've never received an answer, or I should say an answer to your liking.
>
> Saying "somebody might buy it" and calling something a "straw" which isn't a straw aren't answers that I'd consider being to my liking, no.

It's "straw" asshole, because the autopsy doctors DID say they was a wound in the back of his head, you fucking moron. He was shot in the back of the head. Read the report.

>
> >
> > It's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang
>
> That's not a thing.

It is a thing.

>
> >
> > And no case from our greasy little Truther.
>
> I really must stop debating you, Chuck. Every time I do I feel like I've just committed rape.

Sheep tremble at your presence.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > > >
> > > > > > And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)
> > > >
> > > > Oh, wait! Here's Chuck now! And...oh, he just...ignored all this. Shit!
> >
> > Still does. And always will. Because he doesn't like experts.
>
> James Fetzer, "Mr. Healy," Alex Jones...Boris loves his experts.

Strawman, unless you can find any of those people cited here:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

or here:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

No, you're just appealing to ridicule, because you're stuck **forcing** yourself to disagree with every single expert who witnessed the BOH wound. Every.
Single.
One.
And it's uncomfortable for you, since "Dunning-Kruger" is such an overused tool in your arsenal, that now you are forced to figure out a way to make your disagreement with EVERY SINGLE MEDICAL EXPERT something that's somehow not Dunning-Kruger. Quite the conundrum! And you don't even have the autopsy report to fall back on, because in fact, even the autopsy report indicates a large BOH wound...that is, unless you can pull up the famous BOH photo and show us all that even the parietal area is not visible in that photo, much less the occiptial.

And now you will say, "And yet the autopsy report concluded..." which isn't relevant here, because we're not discussing bullets. We're discussing a large head wound. Indeed, there are such things are large entry wounds. Did you know that? Especially when kinetic force produces a blowout of the skull. So you can fully admit that the extensive BOH damage exists while STILL ARGUING that it was an entry wound. Then at least you could cling to your fairy tale faith without having to call EVERY SINGLE MEDICAL EXPERT mistaken.

But you can't even do that much. And why? Because of that goddamn photo, Chuck. That one little photo of the back of Kennedy's head. Fucked you for life, didn't it? That, and this...

https://images.app.goo.gl/ikx3v8zVPT5aCtxp6

That x-ray which, despite attempts to cover up extensive damage, still failed to cover up the fragments which map a trajectory so damning it shrivels your little Midwest dick to the size of a grain of rice. Look where the larger fragments are. Look were the smaller ones are. Now be a good boy, Chucky, and tell us all that you truly believe in SCIENCE like you claim, and show us the exact moment when that same SCIENCE betrays you and sticks it up your ass.

Now, ready for these again, asshole? Here we go...

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

You can keep ignoring these testimonials all day long. You don't even have to click on the links. But it doesn't matter. They're still there. They exist. Primary source accounts from experts and witnesses who were there. Who all saw the same thing. Who corroborate. Consilience. Fact. And there's nothing you can do about it. Nothing. They'll be there tomorrow. And the next day. And when you trot out your stale and irrelevant talking points, they'll be there still. And all you can do is say "somebuddy mite buy it", like it makes a difference who does or doesn't.

Now run, you feckless, factless, fecal fuck. You're a joke with no defense. And your every denial of the facts just inspires me to dig deeper, and learn more. In that sense, I do appreciate how stupid you are. But let's be honest, it's a little stale now. So do go away like you did before. No one would begrudge you a leave of absence. And when come back, bring some good, solid facts with you, okay? I shouldn't be telling my enemies how to thwart me, but it really would be the ultimate revenge against us. It's only two dozen medical experts, the autopsy report, and science that you need to disprove. It's not that much. It shouldn't be hard. The WC couldn't do it. Maybe you can? Come on, kick our ass.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Yawn.

You've had your rant, potty-mouth. More "Stuff Gary Aguilar doesn't like about the autopsy report." Big deal. Feel better? You don't think I've read this before? You don't think I've seen these pictures before? People pointing to different spots on their heads as far as where the wounds are? People with different drawings placing the wounds in different spots? You don't think this has been endlessly addressed before?


Your ass can't be kicked, Black Knight from Monty Python, because you are the judge and jury of what you believe. I can no more convince you the autopsy report is correct than I can convince every Somali Muslim in Minneapolis to convert to Judaism.

So let's say JFK had a large hole in the back of his head and ignore your drawings and witnesses being in conflict with the autopsy report, and let's ignore the Parkland witnesses from the 1988 Nova program, and let's ignore the autopsy summary and the HSCA medical conclusions about the autopsy and on and on and on.

Now go somewhere with your "JFK had a large wound in the back of his head" theory.

C'mon, Truther. You're challenging. Put something up for consideration that doesn't embarrass yourself even more than you've already been embarrassed.

Wait...who am I kidding?

You will N-E-V-E-R state what you think happened and give us details.

Fortunately, you don't matter one iota. You are literally termite shit in the universe of JFK research, and what must make it even more galling for you is that you're debating lowly ME at what is--without a doubt--the worst JFK discussion board on the internet.

You desperately reset from the fringe to talk about the freaky looking sh!t you see and avoid at all costs putting up what you believe happened. Today it's the head wound, tomorrow it's MK Ultra and RFK and Sirhan wasn't close enough for the fatal shot, the next day it's Karyn Kupcinet or Dorothy Kilgallen, and this is followed by Silverstein the Jew in cahoots with the FDNY to "pull" WTC7, which was barely mentioned at the 911 museum. Hmm. Freaky. And this continues on an endless loop for you to stew in and obsess over, constantly re-posting the same drivel, over and over.

Better for you to not write something and be thought the fool than to write something and remove all doubt.

[Ben Holmes]

It's amusing how often a spanking elicits a yawn from Chuckles.

> You've had your rant, potty-mouth. More "Stuff Gary Aguilar doesn't like
> about the autopsy report." Big deal. Feel better? You don't think I've
> read this before? You don't think I've seen these pictures before? People
> pointing to different spots on their heads as far as where the wounds are?
> People with different drawings placing the wounds in different spots?
> You don't think this has been endlessly addressed before?

No, it hasn't been. And you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote the explanation
previously given.

Because no credible answer has EVER been offered.

Just a multitude of 'they couldn't see the wound with JFK laying on his
back...' or 'they were all mistaken' ... you can't offer a credible explanation,
because it doesn't exist.

And no, it doesn't have to be accepted by me, I'm more than happy to put
anything you offer to a public poll, and accept the results of the poll.

Are you?

> Your ass can't be kicked, Black Knight from Monty Python, because you are
> the judge and jury of what you believe. I can no more convince you the
> autopsy report is correct than I can convince every Somali Muslim in
> Minneapolis to convert to Judaism.

Nor can you convince anyone that **YOU** believe the Autopsy Report.

Because you clearly don't. It's in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the X-rays and
autopsy photos.

And you can't admit that simple fact.

Indeed, this is the problem with all you liars... you can't publicly admit
**ANYTHING** that contradicts your faith.

It must not be a very strong faith, when you can't accept even the slightest
bit of evidence that doesn't support it.

> So let's say JFK had a large hole in the back of his head and ignore
> your drawings and witnesses being in conflict with the autopsy report,

That's another *stupid* lie on your part, Chuckles. The Autopsy Report
**CLEARLY AND DECISIVELY IN MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY** put the wound in the back
of the head.

If you have the *slightest doubt* whatsoever, why not be courageous enough
to take that Autopsy Report to your doctor, and ask them?

Or would you whine "Dunning-Kruger" to your doctor too?

(Of course, you never will - because you already know what your doctor
would tell you.)

> and let's ignore the Parkland witnesses from the 1988 Nova program, and
> let's ignore the autopsy summary and the HSCA medical conclusions about
> the autopsy and on and on and on.

This is indeed what believers do routinely... 'Let's ignore all the evidence,
all we need is the *opinion* and *conclusions*...'

Chuckles can't think for himself.

> Now go somewhere with your "JFK had a large wound in the back of his head"
> theory.

Already have. We've proven you a liar and a coward by the use of the evidence.

> C'mon, Truther. You're challenging. Put something up for consideration that
> doesn't embarrass yourself even more than you've already been embarrassed.

How can the historical evidence embarrass an honest man?

> Wait...who am I kidding?
>
> You will N-E-V-E-R state what you think happened and give us details.

Been there, done that... and Chuckles can't admit it.

Because then he'd have to explain why he refuses to address it.

> Fortunately, you don't matter one iota. You are literally termite
> shit in the universe of JFK research, and what must make it even
> more galling for you is that you're debating lowly ME at what
> is--without a doubt--the worst JFK discussion board on the internet.

Let me guess, you favor censorship.

Why is it that people afraid of the truth favor censorship?

Oops, answered my own question... :)

> You desperately reset from the fringe to talk about the freaky
> looking sh!t you see and avoid at all costs putting up what you
> believe happened. Today it's the head wound, tomorrow it's MK
> Ultra and RFK and Sirhan wasn't close enough for the fatal shot,
> the next day it's Karyn Kupcinet or Dorothy Kilgallen, and this is
> followed by Silverstein the Jew in cahoots with the FDNY to "pull"
> WTC7, which was barely mentioned at the 911 museum. Hmm. Freaky.
> And this continues on an endless loop for you to stew in and obsess
> over, constantly re-posting the same drivel, over and over.

Ad hominem simply fails.

Intelligent people simply accept that ad hominem is what is used
when someone knows they lost the debate.

It's really strange that you apparently believe that lies actually
work.

They can in the short term... but in the long term, among honest
and intelligent people, only the truth will work.

> Better for you to not write something and be thought the fool than
> to write something and remove all doubt.

A dictum you'd do well to consider.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Put up a case, shorty.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Yawn.
>
> You've had your rant, potty-mouth. More "Stuff Gary Aguilar doesn't like about the autopsy report."

Nothing to do with Aguilar. *Everything* to do with those expert eyewitnesses.

>
> Big deal. Feel better? You don't think I've read this before? You don't think I've seen these pictures before?

Apes read philosophy, they just don't understand it.

>
> People pointing to different spots on their heads as far as where the wounds are?

They are essentially the same spot, give or take an inch. But if you wish to argue inches...the test shot from MythBusters was off by more than that.

>
> People with different drawings placing the wounds in different spots? You don't think this has been endlessly addressed before?

Nope. It hasn't. And won't be. And not by you, that's for sure.

>
>
> Your ass can't be kicked, Black Knight from Monty Python, because you are the judge and jury of what you believe.

Nothing to do with what I believe. I'm not smarter than 25 medical experts who all know what a head wound looks like.

>
> I can no more convince you the autopsy report is correct than I can convince every Somali Muslim in Minneapolis to convert to Judaism.

The autopsy report puts the head wound exactly where the witnesses did. This is just appeal to repetition.

>
> So let's say JFK had a large hole in the back of his head and ignore your drawings and witnesses being in conflict with the autopsy report,

They aren't in conflict.

>
> and let's ignore the Parkland witnesses from the 1988 Nova program,

Sure, I'll ignore 25-year-old recollection over same-day recollection.

>
> and let's ignore the autopsy summary and the HSCA medical conclusions about the autopsy and on and on and on.

JFK's gaping head was not sitting in front of the HSCA for all to examine. Fortunately, we have witnesses.

>
> Now go somewhere with your "JFK had a large wound in the back of his head" theory.

He had a large head wound. And the photo which appeared days later without chain of custody doesn't. That's all I need to go with it.

>
> C'mon, Truther. You're challenging. Put something up for consideration that doesn't embarrass yourself even more than you've already been embarrassed.

Anyone even half-drunk and lobotomized would realize that such an obvious contradiction *is* worth considering.

>
> Wait...who am I kidding?
>
> You will N-E-V-E-R state what you think happened and give us details.

I don't really need to jump through your hoops and write an essay-long scenario on this one. You disagree with the experts. And the witnesses. And the science. And the autopsy examination.

And I don't.

But between the two of us, it's ME you think needs to explain myself.

Hilarious.

>
> Fortunately, you don't matter one iota. You are literally termite shit in the universe of JFK research,

Why you mad, bro?

>
> and what must make it even more galling for you is that you're debating lowly ME

I'm not debating you. I'm holding you upside down and mopping the floor with that doofus blonde hair of yours, and all you're doing is occasionally sputtering out "somebody might buy it" before I dunk your head back in the mop bucket again.

>
> >
> at what is--without a doubt--the worst JFK discussion board on the internet.

They're all the same, basically. Either echo chambers from one side or another, or infested by LN trolls who take to posting YouTube vids of midgets with guns while real people are trying to have real discussions. And every so often we have to pause just to acknowledge your worthless existence.

>
> You desperately reset from the fringe to talk about the freaky looking sh!t you see and avoid at all costs putting up what you believe happened.

Why do you call me termite shit, and then insist you need to know what *I* believe happened? As if you can even adequately *pretend* what I say means anything to you.

I call stonewalling with this tactic.

>
> Today it's the head wound

That's all I need.

>
> Better for you to not write something and be thought the fool than to write something and remove all doubt.

You're so intelligent my eyes water just thinking about it.

Oh, and by the way....

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Just a reminder. They still exist.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> It's amusing how often a spanking elicits a yawn from Chuckles.

Yawning is what asleep people do.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:29:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's amusing how often a spanking elicits a yawn from Chuckles.
>
> Yawning is what asleep people do.

Believing in JFK conspiracies is what retards do.

[Ben Holmes]

Oops... looks like Chuckles ignored my advice.

> Put up a case, shorty.

Already did. You ran from it. Just as you ran from EVERYTHING above.

I've already done what you've never been able to. I'm clearly the man you'll
never be... Are you proud of your cowardice?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

> He had a large head wound. And the photo which appeared days later without chain of
> custody doesn't. That's all I need to go with it.

Actually, it wasn't seen and described until Nov. 1, 1966. That's almost 3 years
later, by anyone's calculation.

Now, the alterations and forgeries were undoubtedly *created* in the next few weeks or even months after the assassination... but they were never officially *seen* until 1966.

For a rather complete timeline, see here:
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm

[Ben Holmes]

CHUCKLES ASSERTS THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE "RETARDS!"


It won't take any time at all for that same majority of Americans to correctly
describe Chuckles, I suspect. Want to put it to a public poll, Chuckles?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Thanks. Note the difference: we aren't afraid to correct our errors.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:27:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He had a large head wound. And the photo which appeared days later without chain of
> > custody doesn't. That's all I need to go with it.
>
> Actually, it wasn't seen and described until Nov. 1, 1966.

> That's almost 3 years later, by anyone's calculation.

Do you think the Sun didn`t exist until someone documented it`s existence?

> Now, the alterations and forgeries were undoubtedly *created* in the next few weeks or even months after the assassination... but they were never officially *seen* until 1966.

Always from the outside looking in. If your ideas were valid you`d have people from the inside saying what they did. Every single forgery you suggest, whether it be handwriting, photos, film, bullets, ect would likely need multiple people involved in those forgeries. With all the things you suggest this would amount to a small army. Not counting the logistics, the communication, the plotting and planning, the coercing, the planting, ect. Thousands of people and not one felt it wrong to kill an American President enough to step forward and say "I helped do such and such a thing".

[Ben Holmes]

Absolutely. That's because only the actual evidence is worth our time... lies aren't worth squat when
it comes to explaining past history.

Chuckles hasn't learned that lesson yet.

Chuckles still hasn't replied to my posted scenario.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You haven't posted a scenario.

Neither has the Truther.

[Bud]

Take you true beliefs about what occurred that day and present them to the public. They would rightfully see you as a crackpot. You need to come to grips with the fact that you are lunatic fringe.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Do you think the Sun didn`t exist until someone documented it`s existence?

Following that idiotic logic, if the official narrative of the assassination was that the sun was blue, you would be forced to ignore every witness who said otherwise.

And in keeping with the analogy, each of those witnesses are also astrologers who work at NASA.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:27:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> He had a large head wound. And the photo which appeared days later without chain of
>>> custody doesn't. That's all I need to go with it.
>>
>> Actually, it wasn't seen and described until Nov. 1, 1966.
>
>> That's almost 3 years later, by anyone's calculation.
>
> Do you think the Sun didn`t exist until someone documented it`s existence?

Anyone notice that Puddy doesn't care about historical FACT?

He's too embarrassed to publicly admit that he knows that the autopsy material wasn't
first seen for nearly three years... he knows that the 6.5mm object wasn't documented
until more than three years after the autopsy.

He knows that the Warren Commission FAILED massively in their refusal to examine the
autopsy X-rays and photos.

But rather than simply acknowledge this - he pretends that I've said something not
said.


HE CAN'T REFUTE WHAT I *ACTUALLY* SAID - SO PUDDY SIMPLY
LIES AND PRETENDS THE STATEMENT MADE WAS SOMETHING ELSE!


But that's all it is... a lie on Puddy's part. He knows for a *FACT* that I only
stated historical facts that he's already well aware of and knows to be true.

>> Now, the alterations and forgeries were undoubtedly *created* in the next few weeks or even months
>> after the assassination... but they were never officially *seen* until 1966.
>
> Always from the outside looking in. If your ideas were valid you`d have people from the inside
> saying what they did.

https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Would-Talked-Larry-Hancock/dp/097746573X


Looks like Puddy's admitting that my ideas are valid.

> Every single forgery you suggest, whether it be handwriting, photos, film, bullets, ect would
> likely need multiple people involved in those forgeries. With all the things you suggest this
> would amount to a small army. Not counting the logistics, the communication, the plotting and
> planning, the coercing, the planting, ect. Thousands of people and not one felt it wrong to
> kill an American President enough to step forward and say "I helped do such and such a thing".

How many people did it take to change the FBI report on the paper used in the paper sack?

That's a PROVABLE HISTORICAL ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html


So it couldn't have happened, right?

But if it *could* happen, then you've lost... And sadly for you, it's historical fact.

And "every single forgery" I suggest must be possible.

[Ben Holmes]

Another empty claim on Puddy's part. You're simply a dumbass, by your own assertion.

I've already posted a +20,000 word scenario. Feel free to post it anywhere you want.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:03:14 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Do you think the Sun didn`t exist until someone documented it`s existence?
>
> Following that idiotic logic, if the official narrative of the assassination was that the sun was blue, you would be forced to ignore every witness who said otherwise.

That's how you read it?

>
> And in keeping with the analogy, each of those witnesses are also astrologers who work at NASA.

Kooks like you never tire of showing why you're the last people who should ever be tasked with looking into a murder.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Great. Where can I read the research on JFK's body being snatched?

Where's the research on the Nix film alteration?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Uh-huh.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Hey, remember what I said about entry wounds and the kinetic energy of bullets in skulls? It's still possible to admit that there was a large BOH wound, but that it was an entry. Remember, Crenshaw said it was about the size of his fist. The wound in the front of Kennedy's head is much bigger than that. Exit wounds ARE bigger than entries.

See, Chuck? I'm doing your work for you, both reasoning the position of the experts AND defending **your** position. Now...all you have to do is admit the wound was there, at the back of his head, chiefly in the parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Just like EVERYONE said. Just like the autopsy report said.

Just admit it was there. And say it like you believe it. Then I'll say it was a wound of entry.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

We'll see if you'll admit it was a wound of entry.

How many times was JFK shot in the head?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > >
> > > Kooks like you never tire of showing why you're the last people who should ever be tasked with looking into a murder.
> >
> > Uh-huh.
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > Hey, remember what I said about entry wounds and the kinetic energy of bullets in skulls? It's still possible to admit that there was a large BOH wound, but that it was an entry. Remember, Crenshaw said it was about the size of his fist. The wound in the front of Kennedy's head is much bigger than that. Exit wounds ARE bigger than entries.
> >
> > See, Chuck? I'm doing your work for you, both reasoning the position of the experts AND defending **your** position. Now...all you have to do is admit the wound was there, at the back of his head, chiefly in the parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Just like EVERYONE said. Just like the autopsy report said.
> >
> > Just admit it was there. And say it like you believe it. Then I'll say it was a wound of entry.
>
> We'll see if you'll admit it was a wound of entry.

I said I would. I don't lie. But first you have to admit that there was a large, gaping BOH wound, and that all the witnesses were correct and not so mistaken after all. And no appeasing; you have to believe it. Which means you can't take it back once you've said it. No go on. Admit it was there. Say it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 May 2019 16:13:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:06:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:58:57 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:29:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:44:30 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:29:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It's amusing how often a spanking elicits a yawn from Chuckles.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yawning is what asleep people do.
>> >>>
>> >>> Believing in JFK conspiracies is what retards do.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> CHUCKLES ASSERTS THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE "RETARDS!"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It won't take any time at all for that same majority of Americans to correctly
>> >> describe Chuckles, I suspect. Want to put it to a public poll, Chuckles?
>> >
>> > Take you true beliefs about what occurred that day and present them to the
>> > public. They would rightfully see you as a crackpot. You need to come to grips
>> > with the fact that you are lunatic fringe.
>>
>>
>> Another empty claim on Puddy's part. You're simply a dumbass, by your own assertion.
>>
>> I've already posted a +20,000 word scenario. Feel free to post it anywhere you want.
>
>Great. Where can I read the research on JFK's body being snatched?
>
>Where's the research on the Nix film alteration?

Douglas Horne's five volume set. Right where it's been the last time I
answered this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 May 2019 15:54:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're lying again, Chuckles.

Here's the actual posts detailing my scenario that you've run from...
in order.

The Challenge - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
The Challenge - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/WVBtmUQkx6c/9ZdyxAPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ

I've posted this a number of times before... and have it saved.

Each time you flagrantly lie, I'll simply cut & paste it again...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Horne saying the Nix film was altered because he knows the Z film was altered isn't research. It's called begging the Question or Circular Reasoning.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

A waste of bandwidth. Just like you.

Nothing in there that supports the fantastic things you allege.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Boris is happy to answer questions just as soon as I answer questions to his satisfaction.

It's a game.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > Hey, remember what I said about entry wounds and the kinetic energy of bullets in skulls? It's still possible to admit that there was a large BOH wound, but that it was an entry. Remember, Crenshaw said it was about the size of his fist. The wound in the front of Kennedy's head is much bigger than that. Exit wounds ARE bigger than entries.
> > > >
> > > > See, Chuck? I'm doing your work for you, both reasoning the position of the experts AND defending **your** position. Now...all you have to do is admit the wound was there, at the back of his head, chiefly in the parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Just like EVERYONE said. Just like the autopsy report said.
> > > >
> > > > Just admit it was there. And say it like you believe it. Then I'll say it was a wound of entry.
> > >
> > > We'll see if you'll admit it was a wound of entry.
> >
> > I said I would. I don't lie. But first you have to admit that there was a large, gaping BOH wound, and that all the witnesses were correct and not so mistaken after all. And no appeasing; you have to believe it. Which means you can't take it back once you've said it. No go on. Admit it was there. Say it.
>
>
> Boris is happy to answer questions just as soon as I answer questions to his satisfaction.
>
> It's a game.

No, the subject is quite serious. The game is in watching you stonewall and avoid. I've handed you the solution on a silver platter, in which a BOH wound could both address the witnesses and autopsy report, AND fully explain a shot from the rear. Plus, I would even admit as much. There's really no reason to avoid admitting the obvious any longer. Makes me wonder why you won't.

Are you ready to admit there was a large BOH wound? It's really okay. You can do it. We know you can. And we know why you won't.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 7:03:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:27:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 12:28:54 PM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> He had a large head wound. And the photo which appeared days later without chain of
> >>> custody doesn't. That's all I need to go with it.
> >>
> >> Actually, it wasn't seen and described until Nov. 1, 1966.
> >
> >> That's almost 3 years later, by anyone's calculation.
> >
> > Do you think the Sun didn`t exist until someone documented it`s existence?
>
>
> Anyone notice that Puddy doesn't care about historical FACT?
>
> He's too embarrassed to publicly admit that he knows that the autopsy material wasn't
> first seen for nearly three years... he knows that the 6.5mm object wasn't documented
> until more than three years after the autopsy.

So you *do* think the Sun didn`t exist until someone recorded it`s existence.

> He knows that the Warren Commission FAILED massively in their refusal to examine the
> autopsy X-rays and photos.
>
> But rather than simply acknowledge this - he pretends that I've said something not
> said.

The logic you are employing is if something isn`t recorded it didn`t exist.

>
> HE CAN'T REFUTE WHAT I *ACTUALLY* SAID - SO PUDDY SIMPLY
> LIES AND PRETENDS THE STATEMENT MADE WAS SOMETHING ELSE!
>
>
> But that's all it is... a lie on Puddy's part. He knows for a *FACT* that I only
> stated historical facts that he's already well aware of and knows to be true.
>
>
> >> Now, the alterations and forgeries were undoubtedly *created* in the next few weeks or even months
> >> after the assassination... but they were never officially *seen* until 1966.
> >
> > Always from the outside looking in. If your ideas were valid you`d have people from the inside
> > saying what they did.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Would-Talked-Larry-Hancock/dp/097746573X
>
>
> Looks like Puddy's admitting that my ideas are valid.

Go ahead, quote the people from that book who said they forged the backyard photo, the autopsy photos, the z-film, coerced witnesses, forged handwriting, planted evidence or any of the hundreds of other acts of tampering with evidence you imagine occurred. Quote these people saying they did this, that or the other thing.

> > Every single forgery you suggest, whether it be handwriting, photos, film, bullets, ect would
> > likely need multiple people involved in those forgeries. With all the things you suggest this
> > would amount to a small army. Not counting the logistics, the communication, the plotting and
> > planning, the coercing, the planting, ect. Thousands of people and not one felt it wrong to
> > kill an American President enough to step forward and say "I helped do such and such a thing".
>
>
> How many people did it take to change the FBI report on the paper used in the paper sack?

Admitting another failure? Another act, another case where you are empty handed. How many thousands of underhanded things do you imagine were done in this case? Yet you can produce none of the people doing them and none of the coordination that would be necessary every step of the way.

> That's a PROVABLE HISTORICAL ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE.

So you are saying the paper was a match and they altered it to say it wasn`t?

> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>
>
> So it couldn't have happened, right?

It could have happen like Jean Davison suggested years ago, that one mistakenly included the word "not", so it was retyped, and the erroneous version wasn`t discarded.

> But if it *could* happen, then you've lost... And sadly for you, it's historical fact.
>
> And "every single forgery" I suggest must be possible.

I just point out your pattern. Always from the outside looking in. All these thousands of actions you suggest occurred would be performed by people. If things occurred as you insist they did you would have dozens of people who did these things coming forward. In fact many would have blown the whistle when they were first approached. The world your ideas require has never existed and could never exist.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:57:51 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hey, remember what I said about entry wounds and the kinetic energy of bullets in skulls? It's still possible to admit that there was a large BOH wound, but that it was an entry. Remember, Crenshaw said it was about the size of his fist. The wound in the front of Kennedy's head is much bigger than that. Exit wounds ARE bigger than entries.
> > > > >
> > > > > See, Chuck? I'm doing your work for you, both reasoning the position of the experts AND defending **your** position. Now...all you have to do is admit the wound was there, at the back of his head, chiefly in the parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Just like EVERYONE said. Just like the autopsy report said.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just admit it was there. And say it like you believe it. Then I'll say it was a wound of entry.
> > > >
> > > > We'll see if you'll admit it was a wound of entry.
> > >
> > > I said I would. I don't lie. But first you have to admit that there was a large, gaping BOH wound, and that all the witnesses were correct and not so mistaken after all. And no appeasing; you have to believe it. Which means you can't take it back once you've said it. No go on. Admit it was there. Say it.
> >
> >
> > Boris is happy to answer questions just as soon as I answer questions to his satisfaction.
> >
> > It's a game.
>
> No, the subject is quite serious. The game is in watching you stonewall and avoid. I've handed you the solution on a silver platter, in which a BOH wound could both address the witnesses and autopsy report, AND fully explain a shot from the rear. Plus, I would even admit as much.

Then what's holding you back?

>There's really no reason to avoid admitting the obvious any longer. Makes me wonder why you won't.
>
> Are you ready to admit there was a large BOH wound? It's really okay. You can do it. We know you can. And we know why you won't.

I knew you couldn't do it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 8:21:41 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 6:57:51 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, remember what I said about entry wounds and the kinetic energy of bullets in skulls? It's still possible to admit that there was a large BOH wound, but that it was an entry. Remember, Crenshaw said it was about the size of his fist. The wound in the front of Kennedy's head is much bigger than that. Exit wounds ARE bigger than entries.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See, Chuck? I'm doing your work for you, both reasoning the position of the experts AND defending **your** position. Now...all you have to do is admit the wound was there, at the back of his head, chiefly in the parietal but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital. Just like EVERYONE said. Just like the autopsy report said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just admit it was there. And say it like you believe it. Then I'll say it was a wound of entry.
> > > > >
> > > > > We'll see if you'll admit it was a wound of entry.
> > > >
> > > > I said I would. I don't lie. But first you have to admit that there was a large, gaping BOH wound, and that all the witnesses were correct and not so mistaken after all. And no appeasing; you have to believe it. Which means you can't take it back once you've said it. No go on. Admit it was there. Say it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Boris is happy to answer questions just as soon as I answer questions to his satisfaction.
> > >
> > > It's a game.
> >
> > No, the subject is quite serious. The game is in watching you stonewall and avoid. I've handed you the solution on a silver platter, in which a BOH wound could both address the witnesses and autopsy report, AND fully explain a shot from the rear. Plus, I would even admit as much.
>
>
> Then what's holding you back?

Because there's nothing for me to admit until you admit there is a large BOH wound, as per the witnesses and the autopsy report. If you refuse to publicly state there was a wound, then how can I state the wound was an entrance? You have to first establish there was a large BOH wound present before I can say that same wound was one of entry. Otherwise, what is it I'm admitting to?

>
>
>
> >There's really no reason to avoid admitting the obvious any longer. Makes me wonder why you won't.
> >
> > Are you ready to admit there was a large BOH wound? It's really okay. You can do it. We know you can. And we know why you won't.
>
>
> I knew you couldn't do it.

You do know the challenge was posed to you first. But you being a creep with no manners have decided to jump the line instead of being a gentleman. There's no surprise here.

Everyone can see you stalling.

[David Healy]

methinks you have a casket fetish

> Where's the research on the Nix film alteration?

there is no in-camera NIX original to research tootsie-roll... What-a-maroon!

methinks you have a casket fetish

[David Healy]

that's why you sound like a basketball that's been dribbled 3,000 miles. You don't make sense, Kilroy!

[Ben Holmes]

Okay. Now QUOTE Horne saying this. You see, even without looking I know that
either you're lying, or Douglas Horne knows far less about the case evidence
than I do.

I'm betting that you're lying.

Your refusal to QUOTE Douglas Horne saying what you claimed he said will
serve as your acknowledgment that you were caught lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

Empty and unsupported claim. As Puddy points out, "...if he is unwilling to support a claim it is an empty claim, lurkers. No one has to contest an unsupported claim, it is nothing by its very nature."

So there's nothing I need say.

Other than to point out that you're a proven liar and coward.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

When somebody absolutely refuses to make a claim---even a claim that SUPPORTS the science, the experts, the autopsy report AND their narrative---they know they have a very serious problem.

And everyone saw it.

[Ben Holmes]

Well, you can't come down too hard on poor Chuckles.

He'd be forced to admit that the evidence is in conflict.

And he's absolutely TERRIFIED of admitting that.

For if he would finally admit that the evidence for a large BOH wound is
real, he'd have to also admit that the autopsy material not seen for 3 years
contradicts that.

And the EVIDENCE is not a place believers want to be.

They're far more comfortable with conclusions... of the right kind, of
course... but still conclusions...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:04:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> When somebody absolutely refuses to make a claim---even a claim that SUPPORTS the science, the experts, the autopsy report AND their narrative---they know they have a very serious problem.
>
> And everyone saw it.

Dear rare lurker(s),

The irony is often very thick around here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:47:19 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:04:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When somebody absolutely refuses to make a claim---even a claim that
>> SUPPORTS the science, the experts, the autopsy report AND their
>> narrative---they know they have a very serious problem.
>>
>> And everyone saw it.
>
> Dear rare lurker(s),
>

> The truth is often very thick around here.

Indeed.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Indeed indeed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 07:42:57 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Good of you to agree. Sadly, it's simply not coming from your side...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Sadly, you don't get it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
>
> Dear rare lurker(s),
>
> The irony is often very thick around here.

You're a fucking coward. You're so terrified of one little photo that you're willing to throw away basic scientific principles and EVERY witness account of a large BOH wound. You stand for nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:44:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 07:42:57 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:47:19 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 9:04:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> When somebody absolutely refuses to make a claim---even a claim that
>> >> >> SUPPORTS the science, the experts, the autopsy report AND their
>> >> >> narrative---they know they have a very serious problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And everyone saw it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Dear rare lurker(s),
>> >> >
>> >> > The truth is often very thick around here.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >
>> >Indeed indeed.
>>
>> Good of you to agree. Sadly, it's simply not coming from your side...
>
>Sadly, you don't get it.

You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
premises), so why did you bother posting them?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 07:58:05 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>> Dear rare lurker(s),
>>
>> The truth is often very thick around here.

>
> You're a fucking coward. You're so terrified of one little photo
> that you're willing to throw away basic scientific principles and
> EVERY witness account of a large BOH wound. You stand for nothing.

Far more importantly, believers *KNOW FOR A FACT* that the evidence
contradicts itself - yet refuse to publicly admit it.

Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly state that the Autopsy
Report contradicts the autopsy photos & X-rays... and that
eyewitnesses *ALSO* contradict the autopsy photos & X-rays.

This level of dishonesty is probably pathological...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Far more importantly, believers *KNOW FOR A FACT* that the evidence
> contradicts itself - yet refuse to publicly admit it.
>
> Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly state that the Autopsy
> Report contradicts the autopsy photos & X-rays... and that
> eyewitnesses *ALSO* contradict the autopsy photos & X-rays.
>
> This level of dishonesty is probably pathological...

I even managed to spin it in a way that a large BOH wound **could** also be one of entry. Normally they're so gung-ho on "could" that they'll take anything they can get. It's too bad that photo exists, or Chuck would have jumped on my offer like a rabid mutt.

Sometimes, it's not just about the evidence they reject. It's about the evidence they even refuse to acknowledge.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Yep. You hit the nail on the head.

You can't get liars to publicly acknowledge anything at all that they
don't like.

As if their actions would change the facts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:58:06 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear rare lurker(s),
> >
> > The irony is often very thick around here.
>
> You're a fucking coward.

What are you all worked up about, brah?

>You're so terrified of one little photo that you're willing to throw away basic scientific principles and >EVERY witness account of a large BOH wound. You stand for nothing.

You don't like the autopsy report.

Got it.

You thin something fishy was going on.

Check.

You repeat that the Parkland witnesses thought there was a big hole in the back of JFK's head.

Got it. A staple of the conspiratards.

You say the WC lied to cover it all up.

Yep, it's been repeated a few times over the years here.

You claim no one can explain all of the freaky stuff to your satisfaction.

I hear you loud and clear.

So let's dispense with the games, and why don't you put forward a case that better explains the event than the historically accepted case?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Five sentences in your response start with "you".

Why do you think the evidence is about me?

It's about the evidence. The same evidence you reject and/or deny completely. Then act smug about not knowing and denying.

Such amusing stupidity. Also....

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Now keep spinning some nothing answers, while I laugh at you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 2:45:55 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 3:41:59 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:58:06 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear rare lurker(s),
> > > >
> > > > The irony is often very thick around here.
> > >
> > > You're a fucking coward.
> >
> > What are you all worked up about, brah?
> >
> >
> > >You're so terrified of one little photo that you're willing to throw away basic scientific principles and >EVERY witness account of a large BOH wound. You stand for nothing.
> >
> > You don't like the autopsy report.
> >
> > Got it.
> >
> > You thin something fishy was going on.
> >
> > Check.
> >
> > You repeat that the Parkland witnesses thought there was a big hole in the back of JFK's head.
> >
> > Got it. A staple of the conspiratards.
> >
> > You say the WC lied to cover it all up.
> >
> > Yep, it's been repeated a few times over the years here.
> >
> > You claim no one can explain all of the freaky stuff to your satisfaction.
> >
> > I hear you loud and clear.
> >
> > So let's dispense with the games, and why don't you put forward a case that better explains the event than the historically accepted case?
>
> Five sentences in your response start with "you".
>
> Why do you think the evidence is about me?

This entire case is about you, meaning conspiracists in general. It's a part of the disease of conspiracism. You guys--Team Oswald--believe you can read between the lines on the autopsy report, Katzenbach memo, etc. and uniquely decipher the hidden history behind the world's biggest so-called mysteries.

Not one of you have the slightest interest in solving anything, so it is about YOU.

>
> It's about the evidence. The same evidence you reject and/or deny completely. Then act smug about not knowing and denying.
>
> Such amusing stupidity. Also....
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> Now keep spinning some nothing answers, while I laugh at you.

Boris, you're a smart guy who believes dumb things.

Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay. Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1554686318


Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Why do you think the evidence is about me?
>
>This entire case is about you, meaning conspiracists in general.

It has to be. Believers can't debate the evidence, so they have to
debate the critics.

That fact tells the tale.

[Bud]

You can`t hide behind "the evidence" and you can`t hide behind public opinion polls. These are your stupid ideas, own them.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > It has to be. Believers can't debate the evidence, so they have to
> > debate the critics.
>
> You can`t hide behind "the evidence"

What an astounding Freudian slip.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This entire case is about you,

It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.

> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.

>
> Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.

And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.

>
> Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.

Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.

Hey, Jonathan Kay is a former tax lawyer. And as his book is currently #2,880,445 in the Amazon best-seller rank, I bet it wouldn't take very long for him to calculate the income grossed from it :-)

>
>
> Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.

Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:41:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This entire case is about you,
>
> It's about the evidence.

You can`t hide behind "the evidence" and you can`t hide behind public opinion polls. These are your stupid ideas, own them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:41:56 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This entire case is about you,
>
> It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.
>
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.
>
>
> >
> > Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.
>
> And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.

He espouses--among many great observations--that you are neither a conspiracist nor do you have a conspiracy theory. He's right.

>
> >
> > Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.
>
> Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.

But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.

Got it.

The bar for others is so high, but "your guy" merely spaketh and thou doth tremble at the wisdom he brought to Rome.

>
> Hey, Jonathan Kay is a former tax lawyer. And as his book is currently #2,880,445 in the Amazon best-seller rank, I bet it wouldn't take very long for him to calculate the income grossed from it :-)

If we're judging impact and effectiveness by popularity, make sure you ignore Horne's ranking.

>
>
> >
> >
> > Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.
>
> Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.

I know Horne's a modified Liftonite. Who does he say did it? Big Oil? CIA? FBI? LBJ? DPD? Castro? anti-Castroites? the Mob? All of the above?

(Crickets...)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
> > > > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
> > > > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
> > > > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
> > > > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
> > > > supports this conclusion.
> >
> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
>
> And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)

We're the same people you've been talking to for a year, Boris.

And the autopsy report says you're the guy exhibiting Dunning-Kruger.
>
> Still interested to hear from the medical professionals who indicated NO wound at the back of the head. We'll wait for those citations, but expect more ad hominem attacks from the trolls in the interim.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > This entire case is about you,
> >
> > It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.

Speaking of crickets.

> >
> > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > >
> > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.

Speaking of crickets again.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.
> >
> > And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.
>
> He espouses--among many great observations--that you are neither a conspiracist nor do you have a conspiracy theory. He's right.

Would love to hear his PhD dissertation on topics he knows nothing about. Be sure and ask him what he thinks about Bugliosi's position on the RFK assassination, next time you're in line to meet him at Comic-Con.

> >
> > >
> > > Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.
> >
> > Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.
>
> But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
>
> Got it.

Are these people up to the same standard....?

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Would you consider them experts in the medical field, able to make the proper distinction between what is a wound and what is not?

Let me guess....crickets again.

> >
> > Hey, Jonathan Kay is a former tax lawyer. And as his book is currently #2,880,445 in the Amazon best-seller rank, I bet it wouldn't take very long for him to calculate the income grossed from it :-)
>
> If we're judging impact and effectiveness by popularity, make sure you ignore Horne's ranking.

Are you trying to compare the sales of a $125 self-published niche-market book with a book sold and marketed by HarperCollins, which is available used for $1.40? Because guess what...Horne STILL ranks higher.

> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.
> >
> > Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.
>
> I know Horne's a modified Liftonite. Who does he say did it? Big Oil? CIA? FBI? LBJ? DPD? Castro? anti-Castroites? the Mob? All of the above?
>
> (Crickets...)

I hear crickets, and they're chirping "Poisoning the Well", and "Why is Chuck still ignoring expert testimonials about the BOH wound?"

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:39:38 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This entire case is about you,
> > >
> > > It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.
>
> Speaking of crickets.
>
> > >
> > > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > >
> > > Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.
>
> Speaking of crickets again.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.
> > >
> > > And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.
> >
> > He espouses--among many great observations--that you are neither a conspiracist nor do you have a conspiracy theory. He's right.
>
> Would love to hear his PhD dissertation on topics he knows nothing about.

Using your standards about only writing about topics you know about limits you to weed and homosexuality. And tinfoil beanies with propellers.

>Be sure and ask him what he thinks about Bugliosi's position on the RFK assassination, next time you're >in line to meet him at Comic-Con.

I'll print out your posts from here, and after we laugh about them, I'll ask him about you and Bugs believing in an RFK conspiracy. It'll be fun. We'll laugh extra hard when I tell him you think WTC 7 was "pulled" by the evil Jew, Silverstein, for insurance money. And the tricky Jew got the FDNY to pull it while 300 of their brother firefighters were incinerated in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 mere yards away.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.
> > >
> > > Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.
> >
> > But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> >
> > Got it.
>
> Are these people up to the same standard....?
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

How many autopsies has Seaton done, and why isn't his background relevant to his critique/research the way you hold Kay's background up as relevant to Kay's critique/research?

(Crickets...)

>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> Would you consider them experts in the medical field, able to make the proper distinction between what is a wound and what is not?

It's a Fringe Reset. And sorry, you discredited Seaton's ability to collate information if Kay is held to the same standard because of his background as a lawyer. You did this. You did.
>
> Let me guess....crickets again.

Let me guess...no theory again. And you discredited Seaton through your Kay critique. You did. We can dismiss Seaton, dismiss the Parkland observations, dismiss everything based on YOUR standards vis-a-vis Kay. We can dismiss Josiah Thompson and Harold Weisberg.

And Mark Lane.

Ben is already fuming at you.

You've been hoisted on your own petard, retard.

>
>
> > >
> > > Hey, Jonathan Kay is a former tax lawyer. And as his book is currently #2,880,445 in the Amazon best-seller rank, I bet it wouldn't take very long for him to calculate the income grossed from it :-)
> >
> > If we're judging impact and effectiveness by popularity, make sure you ignore Horne's ranking.
>
> Are you trying to compare the sales of a $125 self-published niche-market book with a book sold and marketed by HarperCollins, which is available used for $1.40? Because guess what...Horne STILL ranks higher.

Two grains of sand on the beach for Horne, one for Kay.

And none for you.

It's a game.

I wasn't comparing the two, but you brought up Kay's current ranking as if it a gauge of the truthfulness of his book or a reflection on its content. You brought up his status as a former tax attorney as a way of impugning what he wrote on the subject of conspiracism. Isn't that Poisoning the Well, by the way?

>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.
> > >
> > > Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.
> >
> > I know Horne's a modified Liftonite. Who does he say did it? Big Oil? CIA? FBI? LBJ? DPD? Castro? anti-Castroites? the Mob? All of the above?
> >
> > (Crickets...)
>
> I hear crickets, and they're chirping "Poisoning the Well", and "Why is Chuck still ignoring expert testimonials about the BOH wound?"

Why are you ignoring the autopsy conclusions? Why are you Poisoning the Well regarding Kay?

Now Dunning-Kruger your way into arguing they were really stating in the autopsy that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's skull.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > >
> > > > > This entire case is about you,
> > > >
> > > > It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.
> >
> > Speaking of crickets.

The evidence for a large BOH wound in Kennedy's occipital/parietal region continues to be ignored and mocked.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > >
> > > > Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.
> >

Never. Ever. The trolls don't actually care.

> > > > >
> > > > > Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.
> > > >
> > > > And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.
> > >
> > > He espouses--among many great observations--that you are neither a conspiracist nor do you have a conspiracy theory. He's right.
> >
> > Would love to hear his PhD dissertation on topics he knows nothing about.
>
> Using your standards about only writing about topics you know about limits you to weed and homosexuality. And tinfoil beanies with propellers.

If I wrote a book deconstructing the psyche of the human mind, and that book was released by a top five New York publisher, then yes, I would be expected to have some background in psychology.

Chuck will now remind us how much he values experts, after he insults me some more.

>
>
> >Be sure and ask him what he thinks about Bugliosi's position on the RFK assassination, next time you're >in line to meet him at Comic-Con.

Oops! The troll got flummoxed here and decided the best course of action was to break the Guinness World Record for number of non sequiturs in a single paragraph.

>
> I'll print out your posts from here, and after we laugh about them, I'll ask him about you and Bugs believing in an RFK conspiracy. It'll be fun. We'll laugh extra hard when I tell him you think WTC 7 was "pulled" by the evil Jew, Silverstein, for insurance money. And the tricky Jew got the FDNY to pull it while 300 of their brother firefighters were incinerated in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 mere yards away.

Imbecile, isn't he, folks?

>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.
> > > >
> > > > Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.
> > >
> > > But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> > >
> > > Got it.
> >
> > Are these people up to the same standard....?
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

Oops! The troll is stymied again. Let's all enjoy his desperate whataboutism...

>
> How many autopsies has Seaton done, and why isn't his background relevant to his critique/research the way you hold Kay's background up as relevant to Kay's critique/research?
>
> (Crickets...)

You don't need an autopsy to identify a large, gaping head wound, nor do you need to be an expert. But even if you did...you don't believe the experts on this matter. Literally all of them. All of them.

> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > Would you consider them experts in the medical field, able to make the proper distinction between what is a wound and what is not?
>
> It's a Fringe Reset.

No, it's a yes/no question. Do try and keep up.

And the answer is "yes", by the way. We'll note you couldn't commit it in writing.

> >
> > Let me guess....crickets again.
>
> Let me guess...no theory again.

No theory needed. The BOH photo factually shows an intact head. The witnesses and the autopsy report factually contradict the photo.

Questions?

>
> I wasn't comparing the two, but you brought up Kay's current ranking as if it a gauge of the truthfulness of his book or a reflection on its content. You brought up his status as a former tax attorney as a way of impugning what he wrote on the subject of conspiracism. Isn't that Poisoning the Well, by the way?

No, it's not poisoning the well to question someone's expertise on a matter which he wrote an entire book about. You are asking me to invest my time and money in a book whose sole purpose is to mock anyone for the crime of having an inquiring mind. His whole book sounds like "poisoning the well", frankly. So it's fair game to demand a higher standard of someone who is capitalizing from mocking people who want to know the truth about things that don't add up.

> > > > >
> > > > > Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.
> > > >
> > > > Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.
> > >
> > > I know Horne's a modified Liftonite. Who does he say did it? Big Oil? CIA? FBI? LBJ? DPD? Castro? anti-Castroites? the Mob? All of the above?
> > >
> > > (Crickets...)
> >
> > I hear crickets, and they're chirping "Poisoning the Well", and "Why is Chuck still ignoring expert testimonials about the BOH wound?"
>
> Why are you ignoring the autopsy conclusions?

Because they are opinion-based and contradict the findings of that very autopsy's examination.

>
> Now Dunning-Kruger your way into arguing they were really stating in the autopsy that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's skull.

How would it be Dunning-Kruger if I was agreeing with them?

>
> Go ahead.
>
> I'll wait.

As will I. But I think I'll be waiting longer. So I'll bring some reading material with me....

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

Look, Chuck! The facts aren't going away!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I need to step back and remember I'm arguing with someone who thinks JFK was shot through the limo windshield, his body later kidnapped, and a secret autopsy performed to cover-up multiple shots to the head...

3...2...1...breathe...

Okay, I'm good.

Spin the propeller on the tinfoil beanie and enjoy the hobby tonight, Boris.

[Ben Holmes]

Logical fallacy ... appeal to ridicule.

But strangely enough, you believe it too. The proof that *YOU* believe it is
your ABJECT REFUSAL to even let the evidence *FOR* that scenario to pass
your lips.

Even if it has another explanation.

We know... WE KNOW FOR A FACT... that two different groups of people carried
JFK's casket into Bethesda at two different times.

We know... WE KNOW FOR A FACT... that there was a break in the chain of
custody for JFK's body. YOU CANNOT NAME A SINGLE PERSON WHO FOLLOWED THE
BODY FROM THE AIRPLANE TO THE AUTOPSY ROOM.

Those two facts provide the opportunity for a pre-autopsy autopsy.

And there's nothing in the Warren Commission Report that contradicts it.
You just HATE that, don't you Chuckles?



We know that you fear the multiple corroborating witnesses for a hole in
the windshield.

We know that you refuse to publicly acknowledge just how good the South
Knoll was for an assassin.

We know that you're TERRIFIED of Douglas Horne's five-volume set, which sets
out the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy.

You accept the evidence BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO REFUTE THE EVIDENCE, OR GIVE
AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR THAT EVIDENCE.

Run coward... RUN!

[Bud]

Boris at 4:00...

https://youtu.be/waf5PBKwszA

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You're lying again, Chuckles. There's nothing I post that I don't
stand behind.

Tell us coward, how do you explain the EARLIEST documented
descriptions of the wound in the back of JFK's head from Parkland?

The Warren Commission thought so highly of them that they were
immortalized in the WCR.

I suspect, however, that you'll simply run away again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.

Oh?

Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
share with the class?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:31:25 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 3:50:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:27:02 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:48:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > > To take a small example: If you were given all evidence to consider
>> > > > the question: What were JFK's headwounds? You would have to conclude
>> > > > he had a large hole in the back of his head. You would also identify
>> > > > some very suspicious evidence of the hiding of this fact. You can't
>> > > > honestly conclude anything else, the preponderance of evidence
>> > > > supports this conclusion.
>> >
>> > This is called looking at the wrong things incorrectly.
>>
>> And this is called denying what 25 medical professionals and the autopsy report all indicated seeing. Also known as Dunning-Kruger (though Chuck is oddly nowhere to be found!)
>
>We're the same people you've been talking to for a year, Boris.
>
>And the autopsy report says you're the guy exhibiting Dunning-Kruger.

You're lying again, Chuckles. Even David Von Liar admitted that the
occipital was in the back of the head, if I recall correctly.

Are you honest enough to publicly state that the occipital is in the
back of the head?

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:47:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > This entire case is about you,
> > > > >
> > > > > It's about the evidence. And you know it conflicts. And now we know that you know. And for some reason you don't care.
> > >
> > > Speaking of crickets.
>
> The evidence for a large BOH wound in Kennedy's occipital/parietal region continues to be ignored and mocked.
>

...Because it only exists in the "B" Brother's minds. (Perhaps that last par is an oxymoronic statement.)

> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Still no comment on this from the troll. And there never will be.
> > >
>
> Never. Ever. The trolls don't actually care.
>
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read 'Among the Truthers' by Jonathan Kay.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it espouses what? That conspiracies don't exist? That's deep.
> > > >
> > > > He espouses--among many great observations--that you are neither a conspiracist nor do you have a conspiracy theory. He's right.
> > >
> > > Would love to hear his PhD dissertation on topics he knows nothing about.
> >
> > Using your standards about only writing about topics you know about limits you to weed and homosexuality. And tinfoil beanies with propellers.
>
> If I wrote a book deconstructing the psyche of the human mind, and that book was released by a top five New York publisher, then yes, I would be expected to have some background in psychology.
>

...Glad you've refrained. ...Not that I believe every person writing a valid book has to be a recognized expert. But to be accepted, what they say should have to make sense with either the *consensus* of expert opinion *or* show in some *persuasive* fashion *why* said consensus is incorrect.

> Chuck will now remind us how much he values experts, after he insults me some more.
>

Remember, one expert is not a consensus. Very few conclusions LN's rely on in this case are the work of, but a single expert. Wecht, Lifton, Horne, et. al. are welcome to write disagreements, but they must then carry their burden of proof in *persuasively* to have any impact on challenging the accepted consensus.

>
> >
> >
> > >Be sure and ask him what he thinks about Bugliosi's position on the RFK assassination, next time you're >in line to meet him at Comic-Con.
>
> Oops! The troll got flummoxed here and decided the best course of action was to break the Guinness World Record for number of non sequiturs in a single paragraph.
>

Envious "Boris"? Don't worry. I'm sure your position as record holder will remain safe for the next eon or two.

> >
> > I'll print out your posts from here, and after we laugh about them, I'll ask him about you and Bugs believing in an RFK conspiracy. It'll be fun. We'll laugh extra hard when I tell him you think WTC 7 was "pulled" by the evil Jew, Silverstein, for insurance money. And the tricky Jew got the FDNY to pull it while 300 of their brother firefighters were incinerated in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 mere yards away.
>
> Imbecile, isn't he, folks?
>

Well yes, "Boris'" beliefs do render that notion about him inevitable.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Conspiracism is a disease--usually harmless--and you are afflicted with it. So is Ben.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh good, I love it when people with no psychology background try to deconstruct the mind with vague broadstroke claims.
> > > >

Sort of hypocritical to assert that you and beb are able to pronounce on the work of experts, yet begrudge Chuck the right as a non expert for venturing to pronounce his (well considered) opinion on the mental make up of you two.

> > > > But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> > > >
> > > > Got it.
> > >
> > > Are these people up to the same standard....?
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> Oops! The troll is stymied again. Let's all enjoy his desperate whataboutism...
>

..."Boris" sounds more like beb himself all the time folks. Eerie how they are becoming a living Vulcan Mind Meld. (Pardon the oxymoron again folks.)

> >
> > How many autopsies has Seaton done, and why isn't his background relevant to his critique/research the way you hold Kay's background up as relevant to Kay's critique/research?
> >
> > (Crickets...)
>
> You don't need an autopsy to identify a large, gaping head wound, nor do you need to be an expert. But even if you did...you don't believe the experts on this matter. Literally all of them. All of them.
>

...Proving the point I made just a sentence or two ago about "Boris" hypocrisy in daring to begrudge any other non expert their opinion. Moreover, his last sentence shows that he still has no understanding of the what recognized qualifications and roles the doctors has that worked on JKF, nor the circumstances they did that work, as compared to the qualifications, role, and circumstances that govern the work done by HFB and the various FP's that have followed them in reviewing the evidence they documented.

>
> > >
> > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > >
> > > Would you consider them experts in the medical field, able to make the proper distinction between what is a wound and what is not?
> >
> > It's a Fringe Reset.
>
> No, it's a yes/no question. Do try and keep up.
>
> And the answer is "yes", by the way. We'll note you couldn't commit it in writing.
>

"Capable" and "correctly identified in *all* respects" under the *circumstances* and given the role they were assigned and trained to accomplish are two quite different things, however.

>
> > >
> > > Let me guess....crickets again.
> >
> > Let me guess...no theory again.
>
> No theory needed. The BOH photo factually shows an intact head. The witnesses and the autopsy report factually contradict the photo.
>

The witnesses (many who later changed their story when they were *reminded* by what they saw in the autopsy photographs) may contradict, but the AR does no such thing, even if we cannot be sure the *precise* meaning of the reference about the large exit wound extending "somewhat" into the occipital region. ...As well as "somewhat" into the frontal region. (Not sure why the "B" Brothers don't fixate on that "somewhat" but go crazy about the other "somewhat" reference.)

> Questions?
>

Many, but asking you would be like asking a person with 2.5 times the legal limit of blood alcohol for directions.

> >
> > I wasn't comparing the two, but you brought up Kay's current ranking as if it a gauge of the truthfulness of his book or a reflection on its content. You brought up his status as a former tax attorney as a way of impugning what he wrote on the subject of conspiracism. Isn't that Poisoning the Well, by the way?
>
> No, it's not poisoning the well to question someone's expertise on a matter which he wrote an entire book about. You are asking me to invest my time and money in a book whose sole purpose is to mock anyone for the crime of having an inquiring mind. His whole book sounds like "poisoning the well", frankly. So it's fair game to demand a higher standard of someone who is capitalizing from mocking people who want to know the truth about things that don't add up.
>

As I said above, there is no "magic" to be conferred upon the opinion of an expert or even experts. The existence of such expertise simply serves to raise the bar necessary to be taken seriously when challenging such opinions. Higher for an expert than a non expert. Higher still for either an expert or non expert when challenging the *consensus* of expert opinion. (NOTE: The level of consensus obviously comes into play as well.)

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Give me a P.O. Box and I'll send you a copy of the book.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh sure! And I'll send you Douglas Horne's masterpiece. And then both our minds will be changed. And the world will know harmony.
> > > >
> > > > I know Horne's a modified Liftonite. Who does he say did it? Big Oil? CIA? FBI? LBJ? DPD? Castro? anti-Castroites? the Mob? All of the above?
> > > >
> > > > (Crickets...)
> > >
> > > I hear crickets, and they're chirping "Poisoning the Well", and "Why is Chuck still ignoring expert testimonials about the BOH wound?"
> >

Because the *actual* expert opinion that is accorded the highest degree of consideration is decidedly in favor of Chuck's assertions and against "Boris'" beliefs.

> > Why are you ignoring the autopsy conclusions?
>
> Because they are opinion-based and contradict the findings of that very autopsy's examination.
>

LOL! The *KING* statement of rejecting expert opinion, while attempting to report authoritatively to the very AR they wrote to make a point. IOW, they like some details they wrote, and consider those facts; but the details they don't like, and conclusions that arise therefrom, they ignore and reject. Well and good. Now comes the *persuasive* part in showing how you non-experts have overcome a consensus opinion of recognized experts.

>
> >
> > Now Dunning-Kruger your way into arguing they were really stating in the autopsy that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's skull.
>
> How would it be Dunning-Kruger if I was agreeing with them?
>

Let "Boris" show how rejecting their *conclusions* and ignoring *contradictory* evidence is "agreeing" with them?

> >
> > Go ahead.
> >
> > I'll wait.
>
> As will I. But I think I'll be waiting longer. So I'll bring some reading material with me....
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> Look, Chuck! The facts aren't going away!

...Now if only "Boris" would *heed* them!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.

And not LYING about the evidence.

He is indeed held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD I hold anyone to. I hold
the Warren Commission to the very same standard... and they failed.

The fact that you're afraid to offer any criticism of Douglas Horne
simply shows that you're afraid of getting spanked again.

Run coward... RUN!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:23:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>
> >> Oh?
> >>
> >> Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
> >> share with the class?
> >
> >My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.
>
>
> The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.

What's the evidence JFK's body was snatched? Explain it. Horne believes it, so does Lifton. You do, too.

>
> And not LYING about the evidence.
>
> He is indeed held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD I hold anyone to. I hold
> the Warren Commission to the very same standard... and they failed.

My point with Boris was that he claimed Kay had no authority to write a book on conspiracism with a lawyer background, and I asked him why Horne wasn't held to the same standard.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:23:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
>>>>
>>>> Oh?
>>>>
>>>> Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
>>>> share with the class?
>>>
>>>My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.
>>
>> The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.
>
> What's the evidence JFK's body was snatched? Explain it. Horne
> believes it, so does Lifton. You do, too.

I've already answered this question.

I find it amusing that everytime I stop you in your tracks with an
answer, you simply change the topic.


I JUST REFUTED YOUR LIE THAT MY STANDARD
ISN'T ABSOLUTELY THE SAME WHETHER IT'S THE
WARREN COMMISSION OR A CRITIC AUTHOR.


And you simply ran. What a GUTLESS coward you are.

You make baseless claims, then run away...

>> And not LYING about the evidence.
>>
>> He is indeed held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD I hold anyone to. I hold
>> the Warren Commission to the very same standard... and they failed.
>
> My point with Boris

BZZZT! Boris isn't in this thread. Check the names above, moron!

>> The fact that you're afraid to offer any criticism of Douglas Horne
>> simply shows that you're afraid of getting spanked again.
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!

And indeed you did precisely this ... YOU RAN!!

And refused to offer any criticism of Douglas Horne at all... nothing
that could be answered.


YOU'RE SIMPLY A COWARD, CHUCKLES!!!


And that fact tells the tale...

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:17:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Why do you think the evidence is about me?
> >> >
> >> >This entire case is about you, meaning conspiracists in general.
> >>
> >> It has to be. Believers can't debate the evidence, so they have to
> >> debate the critics.
> >
> > You can`t hide behind "the evidence" and you can`t hide behind
> > public opinion polls. These are your stupid ideas, own them.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.

Wrong person and meaningless accusation.

> There's nothing I post that I don't
> stand behind.

There is little that you post that you support.

> Tell us coward, how do you explain the EARLIEST documented
> descriptions of the wound in the back of JFK's head from Parkland?

Always ready to whip out one of your favorite talking points. Since you can`t go anywhere with them and we`ve established you can`t put a case together using the known evidence what can it be but a silly game?

> The Warren Commission thought so highly of them that they were
> immortalized in the WCR.

Bitching about the WC for decade after decade. You have nothing to offer yourself so the WCR is all there is.

> I suspect, however, that you'll simply run away again...

I am under no compulsion to play your silly games.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 12:35:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:23:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>
> >> Oh?
> >>
> >> Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
> >> share with the class?
> >
> >My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.
>
>
> The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.

And since credibility is a judgment call and you are heavily biased towards the idea of conspiracy the standards are not the same.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 3:35:49 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:23:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
> >>>> share with the class?
> >>>
> >>>My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>
> >> The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.
> >
> > What's the evidence JFK's body was snatched? Explain it. Horne
> > believes it, so does Lifton. You do, too.
>
>
> I've already answered this question.
>
> I find it amusing that everytime I stop you in your tracks with an
> answer, you simply change the topic.
>
>
> I JUST REFUTED YOUR LIE THAT MY STANDARD
> ISN'T ABSOLUTELY THE SAME WHETHER IT'S THE
> WARREN COMMISSION OR A CRITIC AUTHOR.

You can`t refute the truth, you can only dispute it. And that you claim to use the same standards only shows how delusional you are.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris at 4:00...
>
> https://youtu.be/waf5PBKwszA

Most certainly Da Vinci was criticizing those who refuse to believe everything the mainstream media fed them. Just a fancier way of saying "watch more TV", right, moron?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 14:58:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:17:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:34:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the evidence is about me?
>>>>>
>>>>>This entire case is about you, meaning conspiracists in general.
>>>>
>>>> It has to be. Believers can't debate the evidence, so they have to
>>>> debate the critics.
>>>
>>> You can`t hide behind "the evidence" and you can`t hide behind
>>> public opinion polls. These are your stupid ideas, own them.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
> Wrong person and meaningless accusation.

You made the claim, moron.

Now you run away when your lie is pointed out.

>> There's nothing I post that I don't
>> stand behind.
>
> There is little that you post that you support.

You're lying again, Chuckles. Indeed, it's the critics on this board
that are citing the evidence. (As I did in this very post!)

>> Tell us coward, how do you explain the EARLIEST documented
>> descriptions of the wound in the back of JFK's head from Parkland?

Do you need the page numbers? Do you even *own* the WCR?

> Always ready to whip out one of your favorite talking points.

You're lying again, Chuckles. I defy you to produce the citation where
I spoke of these doctor's descriptions copied in the WCR.

You won't, of course... thus proving yourself a STUPID liar.

> Since you can`t go anywhere with them

I already have. I've proven you a liar and a coward. You've lied about
this being a "favorite talking point" ... and you've simply *RUN AWAY*
from explaining this earliest documented evidence.

I'd say I've gone quite far indeed. Want to put it to a public poll
and see?

> and we`ve established you can`t put a case together using the known
> evidence what can it be but a silly game?

Merely making that false claim over and over isn't "establishing"
anything at all other than that you're willing to lie.

Pretend that some lurker is reading this... document where you've
"established" that I've not put a case together.

Better yet, document where **YOU** have put a case together, let's
compare it with my scenario that was posted.



Or run again, thus proving yourself a liar.

>> The Warren Commission thought so highly of them that they were
>> immortalized in the WCR.
>
> Bitching about the WC for decade after decade. You have nothing to
> offer yourself so the WCR is all there is.

Pretending to defend the WC for decade after decade - yet unwilling to
**ACTUALLY** do so.

Quite the coward, aren't you Chuckles?

The Warren Commission *DOCUMENTED IN IT'S REPORT* the descriptions of
a wound in the back of JFK's head. "Occipital Parietal" - the two
words that believers just HATE with a passion.

So how do you explain what the WCR documented?


Or, of course, you can ad hominem and run away again...

>> I suspect, however, that you'll simply run away again...
>
> I am under no compulsion to play your silly games.

Another perfectly fulfilled prediction.

>>>> That fact tells the tale.

Amusing that believers never seem to figure this out... that their
cowardice & dishonesty isn't winning them any converts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 2:35:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 12:08:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:35:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 9 May 2019 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 9:23:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 19:25:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>But Doug Horne isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh?
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you actually have a criticism about Douglas Horne that you want to
> >>>> share with the class?
> >>>
> >>>My criticism is that he isn't held up to the same standard.
> >>
> >> The standard being the credible explanation of the evidence.
> >
> > What's the evidence JFK's body was snatched? Explain it. Horne
> > believes it, so does Lifton. You do, too.
>
>
> I've already answered this question.

Argumentum ad Tony Marshium.

>
> I find it amusing that everytime I stop you in your tracks with an
> answer, you simply change the topic.
>
>
> I JUST REFUTED YOUR LIE THAT MY STANDARD
> ISN'T ABSOLUTELY THE SAME WHETHER IT'S THE
> WARREN COMMISSION OR A CRITIC AUTHOR.

I was having an exchange with Boris, you butted in.

But since you bring this up in ALL CAPS, no, you don't hold yourself up to the same standard that you hold the Oswald Alone side.

>
>
> And you simply ran. What a GUTLESS coward you are.
>
> You make baseless claims, then run away...
>
>
> >> And not LYING about the evidence.
> >>
> >> He is indeed held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD I hold anyone to. I hold
> >> the Warren Commission to the very same standard... and they failed.
> >
> > My point with Boris
>
>
> BZZZT! Boris isn't in this thread. Check the names above, moron!

You better check again, shorty.