Boris the Truther and the Challenge: #4

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

At another post, Boris wrote:

Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen. But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time, on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide which evidence we can discuss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me decide which evidence we can discuss.

Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural" consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.

The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:

1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.

2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the attack stating three shots fired.

3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click.

4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the earwitness heard three shots.

5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.

6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or less.

There is much, much more, but I'll stop.

What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?

No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges were fired at the motorcade.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>At another post, Boris wrote:
>
> Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
> But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
> on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
> you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
> which evidence we can discuss.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
> decide which evidence we can discuss.

Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
is that, coward?

> Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
> consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>
> The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
> is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
> things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:

Watch as you start in lying...

> 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
> to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.

This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
JFK case???

> 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
> attack stating three shots fired.

This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
in the early moments?

>3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
> him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
> click-click.

Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
Perry into changing his story.

Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.

> 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
> earwitness heard three shots.

Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.

>5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.

It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.

> 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
> less.

Not by the evidence.

>There is much, much more, but I'll stop.

Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.

> What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
> or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?

The witnesses. The limo. The testimony of the doctors.

> No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
> of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
> were fired at the motorcade.

You'll only run again.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:22:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >At another post, Boris wrote:
> >
> > Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
> > But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
> > on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
> > you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
> > which evidence we can discuss.
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
> > decide which evidence we can discuss.
>
>
> Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
> is that, coward?

Not helping your cause that thousands killed JFK in a multi-city, multi-agency plot that also claimed the life of RFK years later.

>
>
>
> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
> >
> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
> > is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
> > things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:
>
>
> Watch as you start in lying...
>
>
> > 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
> > to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.
>
>
> This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
> JFK case???

Opinion polls thought Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (spelling?) was telling the truth about Kavanaugh.

>
>
>
> > 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
> > attack stating three shots fired.
>
>
> This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
> in the early moments?

Cherry picking fallacy. Early reports did indeed broadcast three shots fired in their bulletins. Consilience.

>
>
> >3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
> > him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
> > click-click.
>
>
> Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
> no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
> a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
> Perry into changing his story.

So Elmer Moore is part of the conspiracy? I'll add that to your Benny tracker 2018 list.

>
> Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.

More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD, plenty of evidence for it.

>
>
> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
> > earwitness heard three shots.
>
>
> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.

Define originally. On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the WTC.

>
>
>
> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
>
>
> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.

Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.

>
>
> > 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
> > less.
>
>
> Not by the evidence.

Yet it was concluded that the wounds to JFK and JBC could be explained by three shots or less.

>
> >There is much, much more, but I'll stop.
>
>
> Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
> particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.

That's your job. Start citing for the consilience of the evidence that seven or eight shots were fired at the motorcade. Get moving, it's going on 55 years now.

>
>
> > What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
> > or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?
>
>
> The witnesses.

Most witnesses reported three shots. How many reported seven or eight? Consilience leans towards three, only two or three shots are needed to explain the crime.

>The limo.

The limo does not provide consilience for seven or eight shots. The damage can be explained with the three shots (or less) that was concluded were fired from Oswald's rifle.

>The testimony of the doctors.

Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.

>
>
> > No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
> > of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
> > were fired at the motorcade.
>
> You'll only run again.

Lame.

There's no evidentiary consilience for seven or eight shots, period. This was invented by "your side" as part of your triangulation of fire involving hit teams in the TSBD, south knoll and grassy knoll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:22:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >At another post, Boris wrote:
>> >
>> > Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
>> > But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
>> > on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
>> > you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
>> > which evidence we can discuss.
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
>> > decide which evidence we can discuss.
>>
>>
>> Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
>> is that, coward?
>
> Not helping your cause that thousands killed JFK in a multi-city,
> multi-agency plot that also claimed the life of RFK years later.

You'll have to fight your own strawmen.

I've never said anything like that, nor would I.

>> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
>> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>> >
>> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
>> > is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
>> > things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:
>>
>>
>> Watch as you start in lying...
>>
>>
>> > 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
>> > to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.
>>
>>
>> This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
>> JFK case???
>
> Opinion polls thought Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (spelling?) was
> telling the truth about Kavanaugh.

Don't you just HATE our American justice system? You know, the one
that regards everyone as innocent until *PROVEN* guilty?

>> > 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
>> > attack stating three shots fired.
>>
>>
>> This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
>> in the early moments?
>
> Cherry picking fallacy. Early reports did indeed broadcast three
> shots fired in their bulletins. Consilience.

I'll save this for the next time you whine that the earliest reports
were driven by confusion.

>> >3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
>> > him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
>> > click-click.
>>
>>
>> Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
>> no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
>> a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
>> Perry into changing his story.
>
> So Elmer Moore is part of the conspiracy? I'll add that to your
> Benny tracker 2018 list.

Anyone notice that Chuckles refused to apologize for lying to us?

Or refuting the evidence I mentioned?

>> Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.
>
> More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD,
> plenty of evidence for it.

Anyone notice that Chuckles couldn't explain the known facts, and
refused yet again to apologize for lying?

>> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
>> > earwitness heard three shots.
>>
>> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.
>
>Define originally

o斟ig搏搖al損y

adverb

1. from or in the beginning; at first.

> On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the
> WTC.

What's your point, moron? Are you asserting early confusion??? Moments
after dismissing it?

>> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
>>
>> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
>> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
>> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's
> rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.

It was, of course, physically impossible for CE 543 to have been fired
in the Mannlicher Carcano.

>> > 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
>> > less.
>>
>> Not by the evidence.
>
> Yet it was concluded that the wounds to JFK and JBC could be
> explained by three shots or less.

Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.

>> >There is much, much more, but I'll stop.
>>
>>
>> Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
>> particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.
>
> That's your job. Start citing for the consilience of the evidence
> that seven or eight shots were fired at the motorcade. Get moving,
> it's going on 55 years now.

Such a coward, eh Chucky!?

>> > What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
>> > or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?
>>
>> The witnesses.
>
> Most witnesses reported three shots. How many reported seven or
> eight? Consilience leans towards three, only two or three shots are
> needed to explain the crime.

Most Americans accept a conspiracy in this case.

Which fallacy is this again?

>>The limo.
>
> The limo does not provide consilience for seven or eight shots. The
> damage can be explained with the three shots (or less) that was
> concluded were fired from Oswald's rifle.

Then you'll be able to explain why the limo was illegally taken out of
the jurisdiction of the crime committed, and rebuilt before the WC
even met for the first time.

But I predict you'll run.

>>The testimony of the doctors.
>
>Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> > No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
>> > of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
>> > were fired at the motorcade.
>>
>> You'll only run again.
>
>Lame.

Running, aren't you Chuckles?

> There's no evidentiary consilience for seven or eight shots, period.
> This was invented by "your side" as part of your triangulation of fire
> involving hit teams in the TSBD, south knoll and grassy knoll.

You're lying again, Chuckles.
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:49:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:22:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >At another post, Boris wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
> >> > But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
> >> > on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
> >> > you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
> >> > which evidence we can discuss.
> >> >
> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
> >> > decide which evidence we can discuss.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
> >> is that, coward?
> >
> > Not helping your cause that thousands killed JFK in a multi-city,
> > multi-agency plot that also claimed the life of RFK years later.
>
>
> You'll have to fight your own strawmen.
>
> I've never said anything like that, nor would I.

Um, yeah, you've been saying it right here (or words to the same effect) for almost twenty years.

>
>
> >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
> >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
> >> >
> >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
> >> > is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
> >> > things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:
> >>
> >>
> >> Watch as you start in lying...
> >>
> >>
> >> > 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
> >> > to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.
> >>
> >>
> >> This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
> >> JFK case???
> >
> > Opinion polls thought Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (spelling?) was
> > telling the truth about Kavanaugh.
>
>
> Don't you just HATE our American justice system? You know, the one
> that regards everyone as innocent until *PROVEN* guilty?

Oswald never had a trial. We don't try the dead. Don't you just HATE our American justice system?

He is historically guilty. You know this, you ACKNOWLEDGE this verdict of history even if you don't ACCEPT it, and it's WHY you are at a discussion board called alt.conspiracy.jfk.

>
>
>
> >> > 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
> >> > attack stating three shots fired.
> >>
> >>
> >> This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
> >> in the early moments?
> >
> > Cherry picking fallacy. Early reports did indeed broadcast three
> > shots fired in their bulletins. Consilience.
>
>
> I'll save this for the next time you whine that the earliest reports
> were driven by confusion.

Which accounts for so much of the misinformation. But much your irritation, those early reports of three shots has held up. Consilience.

>
>
> >> >3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
> >> > him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
> >> > click-click.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
> >> no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
> >> a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
> >> Perry into changing his story.
> >
> > So Elmer Moore is part of the conspiracy? I'll add that to your
> > Benny tracker 2018 list.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Chuckles refused to apologize for lying to us?
>
> Or refuting the evidence I mentioned?

Word salad.

>
>
> >> Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.
> >
> > More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD,
> > plenty of evidence for it.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Chuckles couldn't explain the known facts, and
> refused yet again to apologize for lying?

Word salad. The subject is consilience related to three shots and the lack of consilience for seven or eight shots. Keep flailing away.

>
>
>
> >> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
> >> > earwitness heard three shots.
> >>
> >> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.
> >
> >Define originally
>
>
> o斟ig搏搖al損y
>
> adverb
>
> 1. from or in the beginning; at first.

Like the original reports of three shots fired? That counts, correct? Consilience.

>
>
> > On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the
> > WTC.
>
>
> What's your point, moron? Are you asserting early confusion??? Moments
> after dismissing it?

I don't dismiss it. We're talking consilience. Try and pay attention.

>
>
> >> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
> >>
> >> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
> >> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
> >> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.
> >
> > Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's
> > rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.
>
>
> It was, of course, physically impossible for CE 543 to have been fired
> in the Mannlicher Carcano.

Yet the WC did indeed conclude through their summary that the physical ballistic evidence showed the "consilience" to conclude three shots fired.

>
>
>
> >> > 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
> >> > less.
> >>
> >> Not by the evidence.
> >
> > Yet it was concluded that the wounds to JFK and JBC could be
> > explained by three shots or less.
>
>
> Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.

Yet they did indeed utilize the evidence to conclude three shots were fired.

>
>
>
> >> >There is much, much more, but I'll stop.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
> >> particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.
> >
> > That's your job. Start citing for the consilience of the evidence
> > that seven or eight shots were fired at the motorcade. Get moving,
> > it's going on 55 years now.
>
>
> Such a coward, eh Chucky!?

The Loser's Admission.

>
>
> >> > What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
> >> > or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?
> >>
> >> The witnesses.
> >
> > Most witnesses reported three shots. How many reported seven or
> > eight? Consilience leans towards three, only two or three shots are
> > needed to explain the crime.
>
>
> Most Americans accept a conspiracy in this case.
>
> Which fallacy is this again?

As an answer to my question it's a non sequitur or a fallacy of irrelevance. Otherwise it's called an Argumentum ad Populum.

>
>
> >>The limo.
> >
> > The limo does not provide consilience for seven or eight shots. The
> > damage can be explained with the three shots (or less) that was
> > concluded were fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
> Then you'll be able to explain why the limo was illegally taken out of
> the jurisdiction of the crime committed, and rebuilt before the WC
> even met for the first time.
>
> But I predict you'll run.

You're begging the question.

>
>
> >>The testimony of the doctors.
> >
> >Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.

That's Benspeak for he has no response.

>
>
> >> > No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
> >> > of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
> >> > were fired at the motorcade.
> >>
> >> You'll only run again.
> >
> >Lame.
>
>
> Running, aren't you Chuckles?
>
>
> > There's no evidentiary consilience for seven or eight shots, period.
> > This was invented by "your side" as part of your triangulation of fire
> > involving hit teams in the TSBD, south knoll and grassy knoll.
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.
> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html

Nothing in there about damage caused by seven or eight shots which can't be explained with what was available to explain it. Occam's Razor. Plus you have unknown guys prowling Dealey Plaza supposedly pocketing additional spent bullets. So how many shots are you up to now...ten or twelve?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:49:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:22:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >At another post, Boris wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
>> >> > But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
>> >> > on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
>> >> > you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
>> >> > which evidence we can discuss.
>> >> >
>> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
>> >> > decide which evidence we can discuss.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
>> >> is that, coward?
>> >
>> > Not helping your cause that thousands killed JFK in a multi-city,
>> > multi-agency plot that also claimed the life of RFK years later.
>>
>>
>> You'll have to fight your own strawmen.
>>
>> I've never said anything like that, nor would I.
>
> Um, yeah, you've been saying it right here (or words to the same
> effect) for almost twenty years.

You've been claiming to molest children & animals right here (or words
to the same effect) as long as you've been posting.

And I'll CITE it as soon as you cite for my words.

>> >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
>> >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>> >> >
>> >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
>> >> > is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
>> >> > things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Watch as you start in lying...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
>> >> > to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
>> >> JFK case???
>> >
>> > Opinion polls thought Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (spelling?) was
>> > telling the truth about Kavanaugh.
>>
>> Don't you just HATE our American justice system? You know, the one
>> that regards everyone as innocent until *PROVEN* guilty?
>
> Oswald never had a trial.

Associate Justice Kavanaugh never had a trial.


>He is historically guilty.


Oh? Where is that found in our Constitution?

>> >> > 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
>> >> > attack stating three shots fired.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
>> >> in the early moments?
>> >
>> > Cherry picking fallacy. Early reports did indeed broadcast three
>> > shots fired in their bulletins. Consilience.
>>
>> I'll save this for the next time you whine that the earliest reports
>> were driven by confusion.
>
> Which accounts for so much of the misinformation.

Tut tut tut, Chuckyypicker...

>> >> >3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
>> >> > him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
>> >> > click-click.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
>> >> no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
>> >> a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
>> >> Perry into changing his story.
>> >
>> > So Elmer Moore is part of the conspiracy? I'll add that to your
>> > Benny tracker 2018 list.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Chuckles refused to apologize for lying to us?
>>
>> Or refuting the evidence I mentioned?
>
>Word salad.

Caught lying again, weren't you?

>> >> Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.
>> >
>> > More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD,
>> > plenty of evidence for it.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Chuckles couldn't explain the known facts, and
>> refused yet again to apologize for lying?
>
>Word salad.

Caught lying again...

>> >> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
>> >> > earwitness heard three shots.
>> >>
>> >> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.
>> >
>> >Define originally
>>
>>

>> o?ig??al?y

>>
>> adverb
>>
>> 1. from or in the beginning; at first.
>
>Like the original reports of three shots fired?

Like the original reports of shots from the Grassy Knoll?

>> > On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the
>> > WTC.
>>
>> What's your point, moron? Are you asserting early confusion??? Moments
>> after dismissing it?
>
>I don't dismiss it.

Ah! So our forum's moron thinks it was a small plane that hit the WTC.

Puddy will explain to you the error of looking at the wrong evidence
wrongly.

>> >> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
>> >>
>> >> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
>> >> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
>> >> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.
>> >
>> > Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's
>> > rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.
>>
>> It was, of course, physically impossible for CE 543 to have been fired
>> in the Mannlicher Carcano.
>

>Yet ...


There's *NOTHING* you can say that allows a physical impossibility to
occur. Unless, of course, you're appealing to a miracle. If you did,
Puddy would have words with you...

>> >> > 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
>> >> > less.
>> >>
>> >> Not by the evidence.
>> >
>> > Yet it was concluded that the wounds to JFK and JBC could be
>> > explained by three shots or less.
>>
>> Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.
>

>Yet ...

Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.

>> >> >There is much, much more, but I'll stop.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
>> >> particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.
>> >
>> > That's your job. Start citing for the consilience of the evidence
>> > that seven or eight shots were fired at the motorcade. Get moving,
>> > it's going on 55 years now.
>>
>>
>> Such a coward, eh Chucky!?
>
>The Loser's Admission.

Being called a "loser" by a proven coward isn't very damaging, is it
Chuckles?

>> >> > What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
>> >> > or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?
>> >>
>> >> The witnesses.
>> >
>> > Most witnesses reported three shots. How many reported seven or
>> > eight? Consilience leans towards three, only two or three shots are
>> > needed to explain the crime.
>>
>> Most Americans accept a conspiracy in this case.
>>
>> Which fallacy is this again?
>

>Argumentum ad Populum.


So why are you asserting what "most witnesses" reported?

>> >>The limo.
>> >
>> > The limo does not provide consilience for seven or eight shots. The
>> > damage can be explained with the three shots (or less) that was
>> > concluded were fired from Oswald's rifle.
>>
>> Then you'll be able to explain why the limo was illegally taken out of
>> the jurisdiction of the crime committed, and rebuilt before the WC
>> even met for the first time.
>>
>> But I predict you'll run.
>
>You're begging the question.

Since you failed to refute it, or even *disagree* with the fact that
the limo was illegally removed from its rightful jurisdiction, you
know you lost, don't you?

>> >>The testimony of the doctors.
>> >
>> >Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
>That's Benspeak for he has no response.

No, that's merely me pointing out that you're a provable liar.

Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest,
a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.

Caught lying, and PROVEN by a quote. I can, of course, cite for this
if you can't find it.

>> >> > No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
>> >> > of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
>> >> > were fired at the motorcade.
>> >>
>> >> You'll only run again.
>> >
>> >Lame.
>>
>>
>> Running, aren't you Chuckles?
>>
>>
>> > There's no evidentiary consilience for seven or eight shots, period.
>> > This was invented by "your side" as part of your triangulation of fire
>> > involving hit teams in the TSBD, south knoll and grassy knoll.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
>

> Nothing in there ...

About more than three bullets?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
> > >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.

Do you mean like the consilience between the autopsy report and these expert observations:

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

> > >> >
> > >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade.

When Russell, Boggs and Cooper signed the Warren Report, they were wrong. Then later, when faced with the evidence in an unpressured, unhurried setting, it clicked in their mind. I know that's an unsatisfying answer, but there it is.

>
> As an answer to my question it's a non sequitur or a fallacy of irrelevance. Otherwise it's called an Argumentum ad Populum.

Another example of argument ad populum is stating that most earwitnesses who were questioned stated three shots were fired. They also stated the second and third shots nearly overlapped, but then they were just mistaken because of early confusion. Cognitive dissonance.

> > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
>
> Nothing in there about damage caused by seven or eight shots which can't be explained with what was available to explain it.

Give an Idiot a pot of gold nuggets, and he'll use them to practice skipping stones across the water. It's amazing that you got nothing out of this article except "yeah, but..."

Well, not amazing to me. Not anymore.

I already told you this, but clearly you were too busy pounding your drums to hear it the first time, so let's go through it one more time (this is a long post, so be sure to ignore ALL OF IT, okay?).

The medical evidence suggests more than three shots. The physical evidence suggest more than three shots. The most likely reason the majority only heard three shots is because of silencers, which I explained here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/EmamW1u5AQAJ

As the article mentions, five separate witnesses saw a bullet strike at the limo turn. "). Virginia Baker described it as a firecracker that hit the pavement at the limo turn. She believed the shots came from in front of the car by the triple underpass (7 H 508-10).


Royce Skelton was a railroad worker watching the motorcade from atop the triple underpass. He told the Warren Commission, "I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet -- I take for granted it was -- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it -- away from the building. . . . on the pavement -- you know, pavement when it is hit with a hard object, it will scatter -- it will spread" (6 H 238).


Dallas policeman Starvis Ellis was riding a motorcycle about 100 feet in front of the President's limousine. When the shooting began, Ellis turned the limousine and saw debris fly up, presumably from this same bullet strike (John S. Craig, "The Guns of Dealey Plaza.


One shot missed the limousine and struck a spot in the grass just south of Elm Street, about 350 feet from the Book Depository. Officer J. W. Foster was standing on top of the triple underpass, and had a clear view of Elm; he saw the bullet strike the turf. He reported this to a superior, and was instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris, 72-75. Journalists and bystanders were kept away from the area. This could be the first shot that missed, although, again, it would have to have been a truly terrible shot.


Photographers Jim Murray and Bill Allen took a famous sequence of pictures showing Deputy Sheriff E. R. "Buddy" Walthers (in civilian clothes) and watching a blond-haired man he believed to be an FBI agent point at the dug-out spot on the ground just off Elm Street, bend over, scoop something up from the turf, then put the item in his pocket. Police Chief Jesse Curry said the man was FBI, but he didn't know his name; some have identified him as FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett . . . The photographs have been widely published. Murray also photographed the hole that was left in the turf after the scene had been cleared; this photograph ran in the following day's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, captioned, "One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street . . ." The Dallas Times-Herald reported in reference to the hole in the grass, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards."


Richard Randolph Carr . . . heard four shots fired, the last three of which he believed came from behind the wooden stockade fence on the grassy knoll. He saw a bullet strike the turf opp osite the knoll where it "knocked a bunch of grass up." Judging from the mark on the grass, Carr said the bullet had been traveling in a southeast direction from the knoll toward the Criminal Courts building at Elm and Houston (Shaw trial transcript; HSCA volumes; Craig).


Richard Dudman wrote in the December 21, 1963, New Republic: "On the say the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found
another bullet in the grass."


There was another bullet strike only about three to five feet from this one, but it wasn't noticed right away. Dealey Plaza witness John Martin discovered it two and a half hours after the shooting, and quickly informed a policeman, < BR>"you better get your boss down here to check this thing out, because that will show you where the bullet came from" (Griffith; Trask, 573). The mark very clearly does not point back to the Texas School Book Depository; it appears to have struck from the direction of the County Records Building, where a 30.06 bullet shell was found later.


Jim Murray took a number of photographs of police officers examining the spot, including identifications officer Lt. Carl Day, who spent some time at this spot with his crime lab kit (Trask). Because of the close proximity of the strikes, it is possible that a bullet struck the manhole and bounced into the grass, but given the high visibility of the grass strike and the reasonably deep gouge in the turf, it's unlikely.


Another bullet struck the sidewalk along the north side of Elm Street. It apparently was first discovered a day or two later by Dallas resident Eugene Aldredge -- a gash about four inches long and a quarter of an inch deep. Aldredge didn't report it to anyone, assuming it had not gone unnoticed by the authorities. At least one photograph of it was taken; it is pictured on several books, including Groden's The Killing of the President, 40. After the Warren Report came out, Aldredge was shocked not to see the missed bullet mentioned and notified the FBI (Weisberg, Never Again, 383-390). The FBI located it and wrote up a report describing it as approximately four inches long, a half inch wide, and a "dug out" appearance. Dallas Morning News reporter Carl Freund also identified the mark as a bullet strike. Groden notes that the gash lines up with the southwest sixth floor TSBD window.


There are numerous reports of other missed shots; some bullets have even been found in Dealey Plaza, literally years after the assassination. In 1975, a maintenance man named Morgan found a 30.06 shell on the roof of the County Records Building, which is about half a block south of the Book Depository. The casing has an odd crimp in its neck, suggesting it may have been fired from a sabot, a device used to fire a smaller caliber bullet out of a large caliber weapon. This is useful for criminals, as the caliber, type, and brand of the recovered bullet cannot be linked with their gun (Marrs, Crossfire, 317). The shell had been hidden underneath a lip of roofing tar, and was greatly deteriorated from exposure to moisture; it had obviously been there a while.


A fired but intact bullet was found on the top of the Massey Roofing Co. building on Elm Street, about eight blocks from the TSBD, by Richard Haythorne in 1967. No official study was made until the HSCA pronounced it a jacketed, soft-point .30 caliber bullet consistent with Remington-Peters ammunition; it had not been fired from the 6.5 caliber Mannlicher-Carcano (7 HSCA 357; Carol Hewett, "Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA"; Craig).


In 1974, Dallas resident Richard Lester swept Dealey Plaza with a metal detector, and discovered a fragment -- the base portion of a bullet – 500 yards southwest of the TSBD and 61 paces east of the triple underpass. Later he turned it over to the FBI, and it was studied by the House Select Committee on
Assassinations in 1978. They found that the fragment was from a 6.5 mm bullet, but that it had not been fired from the alleged "Oswald" Mannlicher-Carcano: its rifling pattern was different (Associated Press, January 5, 1978; 7 HSCA 395; Hewett). A whole, unfired .45 caliber bullet was found in 1976 by Hal Luster by the concrete retaining wall on the knoll (Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1978).


In the summer of 1966 , an intact bullet was found lodged in the roof of a building at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee. The building was about a quarter mile away from the Texas School Book Depository -- within rifle range -- in the direction that Oswald had allegedly fired. The FBI identified the bullet as a .30 caliber full metal jacketed military bullet; its rifling pattern of four grooves, right hand twist is consistent with ammunition of US manufacture. This is the type of bullet the CIA used with their silenced M-1 .30 caliber carbine rifles; civilians were not allowed to purchase them until the middle of 1963, and full metal jacketed bullets are illegal for use in hunting (Hewett, citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-5898).


Two spent Remington .222 bullet casings were found in Dealey Plaza by John Rademacher, about eighty feet apart, one on each end of the concrete pergola that stands midway between the Texas School Book Depository and the triple underpass. One was just to the east, while the other was just west of it, between the pergola and the wooden stockade fence on the grassy knoll. One of the casings has strange indentations which appear to be teeth marks on it.


Carol Hewett also notes, "The HSCA makes passing reference to the 'Walder' bullet that was also submitted for testing; the author could find no other mention of this particular item of evidence" (citing 7 HSCA 157). Hewett also references "the report from a top FBI administrator, Alan Belmont, to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's second in command, in which Belmont on the night of November 22nd advises that a bullet has been found lodged behind the President's ear" (citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-1431), consistent with the Sibert-O'Neill evidence envelope that was supposed to contain a "missile," not a fragment or fragments.


A missile is a bullet. It is not a bullet fragment; a fragment is a piece of a ruptured missile. Numerous minute fragments were recovered from the President's body during the autopsy. Not a single receipt for a fragment or fragments is listed on this document; they were transferred separately. This is a receipt for an intact bullet recovered from John F. Kennedy's body; it appeared in print for the first time in Weisberg's 1975 book, Post Mortem, 527.


Researcher Anna-Marie Kuhns-Walko turned up some interesting items at the National Archives in 1996: photographs (several) labeled as being of a bullet "removed from President Kennedy's body." It is not one of the tiny fragments that have been part of the record for thirty-five years. No other information is available: no photographer listed; no indication of when it was recovered; or what part of the body it came from; or if it was recovered at Parkland, Bethesda, or elsewhere. Just several photos of a bullet "removed from President Kennedy's body" that no one's ever seen before.


Anna-Marie also discovered an empty envelope, originally marked, "Shell 7.5 found in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63. This would be an expended cartridge found somewhere in Dealey Plaza, presumably not far from where it was fired; and regardless of where in Dealey Plaza it was found (which the envelope
doesn't state), it's a 7.5 caliber, not a 6.5 caliber like the Mannlicher-Carcano. No one outside a very select circle, apparently, ever heard of this item before. Why is the envelope empty? Written right after the previously quoted description: "DETERMINED OF NO VALUE AND DESTROYED."

So, there's just a small sample of physical evidence to more than three shots fired. I wonder if that would be enough for Mr. Christoper Hitchens? Again, be sure to ignore it all, okay? And BTW, Hitchens was a critic of religion, so when he said anything asserted without evidence could be dismissed without evidence, he was likely talking about religion. And if you're from the Midwest as you claimed, then I'm certain Hitchens would have thought you were an asshole.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:59:40 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ouch!

Let's all watch Chuckles run from this evidence like the yellow coward
he truly is.

[Bud]

Crime scene photo taken the day of the assassination, lurkers. The shells were circled by Luke Mooney, the officer who found the shells.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce510.jpg

> >> > More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD,
> >> > plenty of evidence for it.
> >>
> >> Anyone notice that Chuckles couldn't explain the known facts, and
> >> refused yet again to apologize for lying?
> >
> >Word salad.
>
>
> Caught lying again...
>
>
>
> >> >> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
> >> >> > earwitness heard three shots.
> >> >>
> >> >> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.
> >> >
> >> >Define originally
> >>
> >>
> >> o?ig??al?y
> >>
> >> adverb
> >>
> >> 1. from or in the beginning; at first.
> >
> >Like the original reports of three shots fired?
>
>
> Like the original reports of shots from the Grassy Knoll?

Some people expressed this impression, but no one would confuse that with factual information, would they, lurkers?

> >> > On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the
> >> > WTC.
> >>
> >> What's your point, moron? Are you asserting early confusion??? Moments
> >> after dismissing it?
> >
> >I don't dismiss it.
>
>
> Ah! So our forum's moron thinks it was a small plane that hit the WTC.
>
> Puddy will explain to you the error of looking at the wrong evidence
> wrongly.

It is the exact thing to focus on when your point is about the confusion sometimes found in early reports, lurkers. Your typical conspiracy retard will use such information in support of crackpot ideas, you see tards exploiting erroneous information in both cases.

>
> >> >> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
> >> >> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
> >> >> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.
> >> >
> >> > Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's
> >> > rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.
> >>
> >> It was, of course, physically impossible for CE 543 to have been fired
> >> in the Mannlicher Carcano.

Empty claim, lurkers.

It is up to Ben to establish these things, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >>The testimony of the doctors.
> >> >
> >> >Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.
> >
> >That's Benspeak for he has no response.
>
>
> No, that's merely me pointing out that you're a provable liar.
>
> Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
> Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
> Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
> Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest,
> a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
>
> Caught lying, and PROVEN by a quote. I can, of course, cite for this
> if you can't find it.

Was Chuck referring to the doctors who conducted the autopsy, lurkers?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:59:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
> > > >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>
> Do you mean like the consilience between the autopsy report and these expert observations:
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell

The autopsy report said there was one shot to the neck, and one to the head, both from behind.

>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade.
>
> When Russell, Boggs and Cooper signed the Warren Report, they were wrong. Then later, when faced with the evidence in an unpressured, unhurried setting, it clicked in their mind. I know that's an unsatisfying answer, but there it is.

Except they thought Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. I know that's an unsatisfying answer, but there it is.

>
> >
> > As an answer to my question it's a non sequitur or a fallacy of irrelevance. Otherwise it's called an Argumentum ad Populum.
>
> Another example of argument ad populum is stating that most earwitnesses who were questioned stated three shots were fired. They also stated the second and third shots nearly overlapped, but then they were just mistaken because of early confusion. Cognitive dissonance.

An explanation was supplied to you earlier, hence this is a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang. Tau Effect was one explanation.

>
> > > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
> >
> > Nothing in there about damage caused by seven or eight shots which can't be explained with what was available to explain it.
>
> Give an Idiot a pot of gold nuggets, and he'll use them to practice skipping stones across the water. It's amazing that you got nothing out of this article except "yeah, but..."
>
> Well, not amazing to me. Not anymore.
>
> I already told you this, but clearly you were too busy pounding your drums to hear it the first time, so let's go through it one more time (this is a long post, so be sure to ignore ALL OF IT, okay?).
>
> The medical evidence suggests more than three shots.

Yet the medical evidence was used to conclude three shots.

>The physical evidence suggest more than three shots.

Yet the physical evidence was used to conclude three shots.

>The most likely reason the majority only heard three shots is because of silencers, which I explained here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/EmamW1u5AQAJ

Um, no, the most likely reason the majority heard three shots is because three shots were fired. Implying extra shots based on non-existent evidence for silencers is you making stuff up to fit your conclusions.

>
> As the article mentions, five separate witnesses saw a bullet strike at the limo turn. "). Virginia Baker described it as a firecracker that hit the pavement at the limo turn. She believed the shots came from in front of the car by the triple underpass (7 H 508-10).

Why were you snipers firing when the limo turned and missing so poorly and from what position were they firing from?

>
>
> Royce Skelton was a railroad worker watching the motorcade from atop the triple underpass. He told the Warren Commission, "I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet -- I take for granted it was -- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it -- away from the building. . . . on the pavement -- you know, pavement when it is hit with a hard object, it will scatter -- it will spread" (6 H 238).

Extremely weak. Your world class marksmen are aiming for what?

>
>
> Dallas policeman Starvis Ellis was riding a motorcycle about 100 feet in front of the President's limousine. When the shooting began, Ellis turned the limousine and saw debris fly up, presumably from this same bullet strike (John S. Craig, "The Guns of Dealey Plaza.

How many shots are you up to now? It changes by the paragraph.

>
>
> One shot missed the limousine and struck a spot in the grass just south of Elm Street, about 350 feet from the Book Depository. Officer J. W. Foster was standing on top of the triple underpass, and had a clear view of Elm; he saw the bullet strike the turf. He reported this to a superior, and was instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris, 72-75. Journalists and bystanders were kept away from the area. This could be the first shot that missed, although, again, it would have to have been a truly terrible shot.

12-14 shots now? Silly.

>
>
> Photographers Jim Murray and Bill Allen took a famous sequence of pictures showing Deputy Sheriff E. R. "Buddy" Walthers (in civilian clothes) and watching a blond-haired man he believed to be an FBI agent point at the dug-out spot on the ground just off Elm Street, bend over, scoop something up from the turf, then put the item in his pocket. Police Chief Jesse Curry said the man was FBI, but he didn't know his name; some have identified him as FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett . . . The photographs have been widely published. Murray also photographed the hole that was left in the turf after the scene had been cleared; this photograph ran in the following day's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, captioned, "One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street . . ." The Dallas Times-Herald reported in reference to the hole in the grass, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards."
>
>
> Richard Randolph Carr . . . heard four shots fired, the last three of which he believed came from behind the wooden stockade fence on the grassy knoll.

So that's at least six shots, three from the DPD and three from the knoll. The HSCA said one from the knoll that missed.

He saw a bullet strike the turf opp osite the knoll where it "knocked a bunch of grass up." Judging from the mark on the grass, Carr said the bullet had been traveling in a southeast direction from the knoll toward the Criminal Courts building at Elm and Houston (Shaw trial transcript; HSCA volumes; Craig).

Bullets everywhere except hitting JFK.

>
>
> Richard Dudman wrote in the December 21, 1963, New Republic: "On the say the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found
> another bullet in the grass."
>
>
> There was another bullet strike only about three to five feet from this one, but it wasn't noticed right away. Dealey Plaza witness John Martin discovered it two and a half hours after the shooting, and quickly informed a policeman, < BR>"you better get your boss down here to check this thing out, because that will show you where the bullet came from" (Griffith; Trask, 573). The mark very clearly does not point back to the Texas School Book Depository; it appears to have struck from the direction of the County Records Building, where a 30.06 bullet shell was found later.

You could be at 12-15 shots.

>
>
> Jim Murray took a number of photographs of police officers examining the spot, including identifications officer Lt. Carl Day, who spent some time at this spot with his crime lab kit (Trask). Because of the close proximity of the strikes, it is possible that a bullet struck the manhole and bounced into the grass, but given the high visibility of the grass strike and the reasonably deep gouge in the turf, it's unlikely.

Over a dozen shots?

>
>
> Another bullet struck the sidewalk along the north side of Elm Street. It apparently was first discovered a day or two later by Dallas resident Eugene Aldredge -- a gash about four inches long and a quarter of an inch deep. Aldredge didn't report it to anyone, assuming it had not gone unnoticed by the authorities. At least one photograph of it was taken; it is pictured on several books, including Groden's The Killing of the President, 40. After the Warren Report came out, Aldredge was shocked not to see the missed bullet mentioned and notified the FBI (Weisberg, Never Again, 383-390). The FBI located it and wrote up a report describing it as approximately four inches long, a half inch wide, and a "dug out" appearance. Dallas Morning News reporter Carl Freund also identified the mark as a bullet strike. Groden notes that the gash lines up with the southwest sixth floor TSBD window.

Bullets galore.

>
>
> There are numerous reports of other missed shots; some bullets have even been found in Dealey Plaza, literally years after the assassination. In 1975, a maintenance man named Morgan found a 30.06 shell on the roof of the County Records Building, which is about half a block south of the Book Depository. The casing has an odd crimp in its neck, suggesting it may have been fired from a sabot, a device used to fire a smaller caliber bullet out of a large caliber weapon. This is useful for criminals, as the caliber, type, and brand of the recovered bullet cannot be linked with their gun (Marrs, Crossfire, 317). The shell had been hidden underneath a lip of roofing tar, and was greatly deteriorated from exposure to moisture; it had obviously been there a while.

At least 12-15 shots.

>
>
> A fired but intact bullet was found on the top of the Massey Roofing Co. building on Elm Street, about eight blocks from the TSBD, by Richard Haythorne in 1967. No official study was made until the HSCA pronounced it a jacketed, soft-point .30 caliber bullet consistent with Remington-Peters ammunition; it had not been fired from the 6.5 caliber Mannlicher-Carcano (7 HSCA 357; Carol Hewett, "Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA"; Craig).

Another sniper location. This is crazy.

>
>
> In 1974, Dallas resident Richard Lester swept Dealey Plaza with a metal detector, and discovered a fragment -- the base portion of a bullet – 500 yards southwest of the TSBD and 61 paces east of the triple underpass. Later he turned it over to the FBI, and it was studied by the House Select Committee on
> Assassinations in 1978. They found that the fragment was from a 6.5 mm bullet, but that it had not been fired from the alleged "Oswald" Mannlicher-Carcano: its rifling pattern was different (Associated Press, January 5, 1978; 7 HSCA 395; Hewett). A whole, unfired .45 caliber bullet was found in 1976 by Hal Luster by the concrete retaining wall on the knoll (Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1978).

More possible snipers.

>
>
> In the summer of 1966 , an intact bullet was found lodged in the roof of a building at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee. The building was about a quarter mile away from the Texas School Book Depository -- within rifle range -- in the direction that Oswald had allegedly fired. The FBI identified the bullet as a .30 caliber full metal jacketed military bullet; its rifling pattern of four grooves, right hand twist is consistent with ammunition of US manufacture. This is the type of bullet the CIA used with their silenced M-1 .30 caliber carbine rifles; civilians were not allowed to purchase them until the middle of 1963, and full metal jacketed bullets are illegal for use in hunting (Hewett, citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-5898).

So assassins were hitting a building a 1/4 mile away potentially?

>
>
> Two spent Remington .222 bullet casings were found in Dealey Plaza by John Rademacher, about eighty feet apart, one on each end of the concrete pergola that stands midway between the Texas School Book Depository and the triple underpass. One was just to the east, while the other was just west of it, between the pergola and the wooden stockade fence on the grassy knoll. One of the casings has strange indentations which appear to be teeth marks on it.
>

Perhaps twenty shots now.

>
> Carol Hewett also notes, "The HSCA makes passing reference to the 'Walder' bullet that was also submitted for testing; the author could find no other mention of this particular item of evidence" (citing 7 HSCA 157). Hewett also references "the report from a top FBI administrator, Alan Belmont, to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's second in command, in which Belmont on the night of November 22nd advises that a bullet has been found lodged behind the President's ear" (citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-1431), consistent with the Sibert-O'Neill evidence envelope that was supposed to contain a "missile," not a fragment or fragments.
>
>
> A missile is a bullet. It is not a bullet fragment; a fragment is a piece of a ruptured missile. Numerous minute fragments were recovered from the President's body during the autopsy. Not a single receipt for a fragment or fragments is listed on this document; they were transferred separately. This is a receipt for an intact bullet recovered from John F. Kennedy's body; it appeared in print for the first time in Weisberg's 1975 book, Post Mortem, 527.
>
>
> Researcher Anna-Marie Kuhns-Walko turned up some interesting items at the National Archives in 1996: photographs (several) labeled as being of a bullet "removed from President Kennedy's body." It is not one of the tiny fragments that have been part of the record for thirty-five years. No other information is available: no photographer listed; no indication of when it was recovered; or what part of the body it came from; or if it was recovered at Parkland, Bethesda, or elsewhere. Just several photos of a bullet "removed from President Kennedy's body" that no one's ever seen before.
>
>
> Anna-Marie also discovered an empty envelope, originally marked, "Shell 7.5 found in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63. This would be an expended cartridge found somewhere in Dealey Plaza, presumably not far from where it was fired; and regardless of where in Dealey Plaza it was found (which the envelope
> doesn't state), it's a 7.5 caliber, not a 6.5 caliber like the Mannlicher-Carcano. No one outside a very select circle, apparently, ever heard of this item before. Why is the envelope empty? Written right after the previously quoted description: "DETERMINED OF NO VALUE AND DESTROYED."
>
> So, there's just a small sample of physical evidence to more than three shots fired. I wonder if that would be enough for Mr. Christoper Hitchens?

No, he thought you guys were nuts.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:59:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
>> > > >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>>
>> Do you mean like the consilience between the autopsy report and these expert observations:
>>
>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>
> The autopsy report said there was one shot to the neck, and one to
> the head, both from behind.

Of course, this contradicts the evidence, and you don't believe the
Autopsy Report anyway...

Tell us, why are you relying on reports & experts that you don't
believe?

And why did you pretend to answer the point Boris made without
actually addressing it?

>> > > >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade.
>>
>> When Russell, Boggs and Cooper signed the Warren Report, they were
>> wrong. Then later, when faced with the evidence in an unpressured,
>> unhurried setting, it clicked in their mind. I know that's an
>> unsatisfying answer, but there it is.
>
> Except they thought Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. I know
> that's an unsatisfying answer, but there it is.

Except that this scenario is not possible once you remove the SBT as a
working hypothesis.

>> > As an answer to my question it's a non sequitur or a fallacy of irrelevance. Otherwise it's called an Argumentum ad Populum.
>>
>> Another example of argument ad populum is stating that most
>> earwitnesses who were questioned stated three shots were fired. They
>> also stated the second and third shots nearly overlapped, but then
>> they were just mistaken because of early confusion. Cognitive
>> dissonance.
>
> An explanation was supplied to you earlier, hence this is a Fringe
> Reset/Boris Boomerang. Tau Effect was one explanation.

Once again you refuse to actually address the point that was raised.
(indeed, I raised the same point, and you ran from it as well...)

>> > > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
>> >
>>> Nothing in there about damage caused by seven or eight shots
>>> which can't be explained with what was available to explain it.
>>
>> Give an Idiot a pot of gold nuggets, and he'll use them to
>> practice skipping stones across the water. It's amazing that you got
>> nothing out of this article except "yeah, but..."
>>
>> Well, not amazing to me. Not anymore.
>>
>> I already told you this, but clearly you were too busy pounding
>> your drums to hear it the first time, so let's go through it one more
>> time (this is a long post, so be sure to ignore ALL OF IT, okay?).
>>
>> The medical evidence suggests more than three shots.
>
>Yet the medical evidence was used to conclude three shots.

But it's a FACT that the experts testified in a manner which supported
more than three shots.

You simply don't believe the experts.

>>The physical evidence suggest more than three shots.
>
>Yet the physical evidence was used to conclude three shots.

In *contradiction* to the physical evidence.

Keep running, coward.

>> The most likely reason the majority only heard three shots is
>> because of silencers, which I explained here:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/EmamW1u5AQAJ
>
> Um, no, the most likely reason the majority heard three shots is
> because three shots were fired. Implying extra shots based on
> non-existent evidence for silencers is you making stuff up to fit your
> conclusions.

Nope. Once again, you merely make a claim, refuse to support it, and
think that you've accomplished something.

>> As the article mentions, five separate witnesses saw a bullet
>> strike at the limo turn. "). Virginia Baker described it as a
>> firecracker that hit the pavement at the limo turn. She believed the
>> shots came from in front of the car by the triple underpass (7 H
>> 508-10).
>
> Why were you snipers firing when the limo turned and missing so
> poorly and from what position were they firing from?

Answers to these questions have already been posted many times. Are
you a moron?

>> Royce Skelton was a railroad worker watching the motorcade from
>> atop the triple underpass. He told the Warren Commission, "I saw a
>> bullet, or I guess it was a bullet -- I take for granted it was -- hit
>> in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it
>> did, the smoke carried with it -- away from the building. . . . on
>> the pavement -- you know, pavement when it is hit with a hard object,
>> it will scatter -- it will spread" (6 H 238).
>
>Extremely weak. Your world class marksmen are aiming for what?

This is the whimpering of someone who knows they lost.

>> Dallas policeman Starvis Ellis was riding a motorcycle about 100
>> feet in front of the President's limousine. When the shooting began,
>> Ellis turned the limousine and saw debris fly up, presumably from this
>> same bullet strike (John S. Craig, "The Guns of Dealey Plaza.
>
>How many shots are you up to now? It changes by the paragraph.

Whining again. It's your job to REFUTE ALL THIS EVIDENCE FOR MORE
SHOTS, not whine about it.

>> One shot missed the limousine and struck a spot in the grass just
>> south of Elm Street, about 350 feet from the Book Depository. Officer
>> J. W. Foster was standing on top of the triple underpass, and had a
>> clear view of Elm; he saw the bullet strike the turf. He reported this
>> to a superior, and was instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris,
>> 72-75. Journalists and bystanders were kept away from the area. This
>> could be the first shot that missed, although, again, it would have to
>> have been a truly terrible shot.
>
>12-14 shots now? Silly.

It takes a true moron to imagine that every witness saw and described
a *unique* shot that no-one else noticed.

But this is the sort of stupidity that you need in order to believe in
the WCR.

>> Photographers Jim Murray and Bill Allen took a famous sequence of
>> pictures showing Deputy Sheriff E. R. "Buddy" Walthers (in civilian
>> clothes) and watching a blond-haired man he believed to be an FBI
>> agent point at the dug-out spot on the ground just off Elm Street,
>> bend over, scoop something up from the turf, then put the item in his
>> pocket. Police Chief Jesse Curry said the man was FBI, but he didn't
>> know his name; some have identified him as FBI Special Agent Robert
>> Barrett . . . The photographs have been widely published. Murray also
>> photographed the hole that was left in the turf after the scene had
>> been cleared; this photograph ran in the following day's Fort Worth
>> Star-Telegram, captioned, "One of the rifle bullets fired by the
>> murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street . .
>> ." The Dallas Times-Herald reported in reference to the hole in the
>> grass, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the
>> distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of
>> the bullets was recovered at 100 yards."

It's not surprising that Chuckles ran from this. Photographs combined
with a journalistic instinct for the correct titles simply frighten
Chucky into silence.

>> Richard Randolph Carr . . . heard four shots fired, the last three
>> of which he believed came from behind the wooden stockade fence on the
>> grassy knoll.
>
> So that's at least six shots, three from the DPD and three from the
> knoll. The HSCA said one from the knoll that missed.

Only a moron can look at a witness who stated that he heard four
shots, and turn it into six shots.

Tell us Chuckles, just how stupid ARE you?

> He saw a bullet strike the turf opp osite the knoll where it
> "knocked a bunch of grass up." Judging from the mark on the grass,
> Carr said the bullet had been traveling in a southeast direction from
> the knoll toward the Criminal Courts building at Elm and Houston (Shaw
> trial transcript; HSCA volumes; Craig).
>
>Bullets everywhere except hitting JFK.

Tell us about each bullet fired by ... you pick it, any mass shooting
in the U.S. in the last 50 years. Tell us who each one wounded or
killed, and cite for your answer.

>> Richard Dudman wrote in the December 21, 1963, New Republic: "On
>> the say the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth
>> [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the
>> side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector
>> told me they had just found another bullet in the grass."

Careful, Chuckles will think this is the 18th bullet.

>> There was another bullet strike only about three to five feet from
>> this one, but it wasn't noticed right away. Dealey Plaza witness John
>> Martin discovered it two and a half hours after the shooting, and

>> quickly informed a policeman, "you better get your boss down here

>> to check this thing out, because that will show you where the bullet
>> came from" (Griffith; Trask, 573). The mark very clearly does not
>> point back to the Texas School Book Depository; it appears to have
>> struck from the direction of the County Records Building, where a
>> 30.06 bullet shell was found later.
>
>You could be at 12-15 shots.

You "could" be a moron - unable to accept the possibility that
witnesses CORROBORATED each other rather than hearing unique shots.

But I'd suggest that "could be " is a needlessly generous way to say
"are"...

>> Jim Murray took a number of photographs of police officers
>> examining the spot, including identifications officer Lt. Carl Day,
>> who spent some time at this spot with his crime lab kit (Trask).
>> Because of the close proximity of the strikes, it is possible that a
>> bullet struck the manhole and bounced into the grass, but given the
>> high visibility of the grass strike and the reasonably deep gouge in
>> the turf, it's unlikely.
>
>Over a dozen shots?

Still a moron?

>> Another bullet struck the sidewalk along the north side of Elm
>> Street. It apparently was first discovered a day or two later by
>> Dallas resident Eugene Aldredge -- a gash about four inches long and a
>> quarter of an inch deep. Aldredge didn't report it to anyone, assuming
>> it had not gone unnoticed by the authorities. At least one photograph
>> of it was taken; it is pictured on several books, including Groden's
>> The Killing of the President, 40. After the Warren Report came out,
>> Aldredge was shocked not to see the missed bullet mentioned and
>> notified the FBI (Weisberg, Never Again, 383-390). The FBI located it
>> and wrote up a report describing it as approximately four inches long,
>> a half inch wide, and a "dug out" appearance. Dallas Morning News
>> reporter Carl Freund also identified the mark as a bullet strike.
>> Groden notes that the gash lines up with the southwest sixth floor
>> TSBD window.
>
>Bullets galore.

Yep... still a moron.

>> There are numerous reports of other missed shots; some bullets
>> have even been found in Dealey Plaza, literally years after the
>> assassination. In 1975, a maintenance man named Morgan found a 30.06
>> shell on the roof of the County Records Building, which is about half
>> a block south of the Book Depository. The casing has an odd crimp in
>> its neck, suggesting it may have been fired from a sabot, a device
>> used to fire a smaller caliber bullet out of a large caliber weapon.
>> This is useful for criminals, as the caliber, type, and brand of the
>> recovered bullet cannot be linked with their gun (Marrs, Crossfire,
>> 317). The shell had been hidden underneath a lip of roofing tar, and
>> was greatly deteriorated from exposure to moisture; it had obviously
>> been there a while.
>
>At least 12-15 shots.

Still a moron, eh Chucky?

Anything more than three and you've lost.

>> A fired but intact bullet was found on the top of the Massey
>> Roofing Co. building on Elm Street, about eight blocks from the TSBD,
>> by Richard Haythorne in 1967. No official study was made until the
>> HSCA pronounced it a jacketed, soft-point .30 caliber bullet
>> consistent with Remington-Peters ammunition; it had not been fired
>> from the 6.5 caliber Mannlicher-Carcano (7 HSCA 357; Carol Hewett,
>> "Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA"; Craig).
>
>Another sniper location. This is crazy.

It would take a moron even more stupid than Chuckly has yet proven
himself to be to think that there was an assassin eight blocks away...
tell us Chucky, are you THAT stupid?

>> In 1974, Dallas resident Richard Lester swept Dealey Plaza with a
>> metal detector, and discovered a fragment -- the base portion of a
>> bullet – 500 yards southwest of the TSBD and 61 paces east of the
>> triple underpass. Later he turned it over to the FBI, and it was
>> studied by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. They
>> found that the fragment was from a 6.5 mm bullet, but that it had not
>> been fired from the alleged "Oswald" Mannlicher-Carcano: its rifling
>> pattern was different (Associated Press, January 5, 1978; 7 HSCA 395;
>> Hewett). A whole, unfired .45 caliber bullet was found in 1976 by Hal
>> Luster by the concrete retaining wall on the knoll (Dallas Morning
>> News, December 23, 1978).
>
>More possible snipers.

It takes only *ONE* extra shooter to prove your lifetime belief a lie.

>> In the summer of 1966 , an intact bullet was found lodged in the
>> roof of a building at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee. The
>> building was about a quarter mile away from the Texas School Book
>> Depository -- within rifle range -- in the direction that Oswald had
>> allegedly fired. The FBI identified the bullet as a .30 caliber full
>> metal jacketed military bullet; its rifling pattern of four grooves,
>> right hand twist is consistent with ammunition of US manufacture. This
>> is the type of bullet the CIA used with their silenced M-1 .30 caliber
>> carbine rifles; civilians were not allowed to purchase them until the
>> middle of 1963, and full metal jacketed bullets are illegal for use in
>> hunting (Hewett, citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-5898).
>
>So assassins were hitting a building a 1/4 mile away potentially?

Of course not. Everyone knows that a bullet won't travel that far.

(Well, at least *morons* have that belief...)

>> Two spent Remington .222 bullet casings were found in Dealey Plaza
>> by John Rademacher, about eighty feet apart, one on each end of the
>> concrete pergola that stands midway between the Texas School Book
>> Depository and the triple underpass. One was just to the east, while
>> the other was just west of it, between the pergola and the wooden
>> stockade fence on the grassy knoll. One of the casings has strange
>> indentations which appear to be teeth marks on it.
>
>Perhaps twenty shots now.

It takes only *one* to demolish your faith.

>> Carol Hewett also notes, "The HSCA makes passing reference to the
>> 'Walder' bullet that was also submitted for testing; the author could
>> find no other mention of this particular item of evidence" (citing 7
>> HSCA 157). Hewett also references "the report from a top FBI
>> administrator, Alan Belmont, to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's second in
>> command, in which Belmont on the night of November 22nd advises that a
>> bullet has been found lodged behind the President's ear" (citing FBI
>> Doc. #62-109060-1431), consistent with the Sibert-O'Neill evidence
>> envelope that was supposed to contain a "missile," not a fragment or
>> fragments.
>>
>>
>> A missile is a bullet. It is not a bullet fragment; a fragment is
>> a piece of a ruptured missile. Numerous minute fragments were
>> recovered from the President's body during the autopsy. Not a single
>> receipt for a fragment or fragments is listed on this document; they
>> were transferred separately. This is a receipt for an intact bullet
>> recovered from John F. Kennedy's body; it appeared in print for the
>> first time in Weisberg's 1975 book, Post Mortem, 527.

And Chuckles was forced to run...

>> Researcher Anna-Marie Kuhns-Walko turned up some interesting items
>> at the National Archives in 1996: photographs (several) labeled as
>> being of a bullet "removed from President Kennedy's body." It is not
>> one of the tiny fragments that have been part of the record for
>> thirty-five years. No other information is available: no photographer
>> listed; no indication of when it was recovered; or what part of the
>> body it came from; or if it was recovered at Parkland, Bethesda, or
>> elsewhere. Just several photos of a bullet "removed from President
>> Kennedy's body" that no one's ever seen before.
>>
>> Anna-Marie also discovered an empty envelope, originally marked,
>> "Shell 7.5 found in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63. This would be an expended
>> cartridge found somewhere in Dealey Plaza, presumably not far from
>> where it was fired; and regardless of where in Dealey Plaza it was
>> found (which the envelope doesn't state), it's a 7.5 caliber, not a
>> 6.5 caliber like the Mannlicher-Carcano. No one outside a very select
>> circle, apparently, ever heard of this item before. Why is the
>> envelope empty? Written right after the previously quoted description:
>> "DETERMINED OF NO VALUE AND DESTROYED."

Another one that Chuckles ran from.

>> So, there's just a small sample of physical evidence to more than
>> three shots fired. I wonder if that would be enough for Mr. Christoper
>> Hitchens?
>
>No, he thought you guys were nuts.

Oh, I'll bet even Hitchens is smart enough to know that a single shot
can be heard by multiple witnesses.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots. Doesn't mean there can't be more shots or less shots, but that's the answer that requires the fewest additional assumptions. Occam's Razor comes into play.

Boris the Truther's Gish Gallop above is full of wacky, unsubstantiated, unsupported, vague shot counts from odd locations, with bullets pinging off concrete, burrowing in the grass at various locations, etc. We know he's got a shot through the windshield, too. You kooks are constantly whining that Oswald couldn't make the shots yet have your expert marksmen apparently hitting everything except JFK.

At a certain point, you Truthers need to take a step back and just listen to how kooky you sound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:04:58 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:59:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
>> >> > > >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean like the consilience between the autopsy report and these expert observations:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>> >
>> > The autopsy report said there was one shot to the neck, and one to
>> > the head, both from behind.
>>
>>
>> Of course, this contradicts the evidence, and you don't believe the
>> Autopsy Report anyway...
>>
>> Tell us, why are you relying on reports & experts that you don't
>> believe?
>>
>> And why did you pretend to answer the point Boris made without
>> actually addressing it?

Looks like Chuckles decided to run again...

>> >> > > >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade.
>> >>
>> >> When Russell, Boggs and Cooper signed the Warren Report, they were
>> >> wrong. Then later, when faced with the evidence in an unpressured,
>> >> unhurried setting, it clicked in their mind. I know that's an
>> >> unsatisfying answer, but there it is.
>> >
>> > Except they thought Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK. I know
>> > that's an unsatisfying answer, but there it is.
>>
>> Except that this scenario is not possible once you remove the SBT as a
>> working hypothesis.

Dead silence...

>> >> > As an answer to my question it's a non sequitur or a fallacy of irrelevance. Otherwise it's called an Argumentum ad Populum.
>> >>
>> >> Another example of argument ad populum is stating that most
>> >> earwitnesses who were questioned stated three shots were fired. They
>> >> also stated the second and third shots nearly overlapped, but then
>> >> they were just mistaken because of early confusion. Cognitive
>> >> dissonance.
>> >
>> > An explanation was supplied to you earlier, hence this is a Fringe
>> > Reset/Boris Boomerang. Tau Effect was one explanation.
>>
>> Once again you refuse to actually address the point that was raised.
>> (indeed, I raised the same point, and you ran from it as well...)

The coward runs yet again...

>> >> > > http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
>> >> >
>> >>> Nothing in there about damage caused by seven or eight shots
>> >>> which can't be explained with what was available to explain it.
>> >>
>> >> Give an Idiot a pot of gold nuggets, and he'll use them to
>> >> practice skipping stones across the water. It's amazing that you got
>> >> nothing out of this article except "yeah, but..."
>> >>
>> >> Well, not amazing to me. Not anymore.
>> >>
>> >> I already told you this, but clearly you were too busy pounding
>> >> your drums to hear it the first time, so let's go through it one more
>> >> time (this is a long post, so be sure to ignore ALL OF IT, okay?).
>> >>
>> >> The medical evidence suggests more than three shots.
>> >
>> >Yet the medical evidence was used to conclude three shots.
>>
>> But it's a FACT that the experts testified in a manner which supported
>> more than three shots.
>>
>> You simply don't believe the experts.

Chuckles had no response to this devastating point.

Looks like the coward lost this one...

>> >>The physical evidence suggest more than three shots.
>> >
>> >Yet the physical evidence was used to conclude three shots.
>>
>> In *contradiction* to the physical evidence.
>>
>> Keep running, coward.

Clearly, he decided to do exactly that.

>> >> The most likely reason the majority only heard three shots is
>> >> because of silencers, which I explained here:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/EmamW1u5AQAJ
>> >
>> > Um, no, the most likely reason the majority heard three shots is
>> > because three shots were fired. Implying extra shots based on
>> > non-existent evidence for silencers is you making stuff up to fit your
>> > conclusions.
>>
>> Nope. Once again, you merely make a claim, refuse to support it, and
>> think that you've accomplished something.

And when that fails, you simply run away...

>> >> As the article mentions, five separate witnesses saw a bullet
>> >> strike at the limo turn. "). Virginia Baker described it as a
>> >> firecracker that hit the pavement at the limo turn. She believed the
>> >> shots came from in front of the car by the triple underpass (7 H
>> >> 508-10).
>> >
>> > Why were you snipers firing when the limo turned and missing so
>> > poorly and from what position were they firing from?
>>
>> Answers to these questions have already been posted many times. Are
>> you a moron?

Chuckles wouldn't have been afraid to answer "no" - but he's clearly
TERRIFIED of the truth.

>> >> Royce Skelton was a railroad worker watching the motorcade from
>> >> atop the triple underpass. He told the Warren Commission, "I saw a
>> >> bullet, or I guess it was a bullet -- I take for granted it was -- hit
>> >> in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it
>> >> did, the smoke carried with it -- away from the building. . . . on
>> >> the pavement -- you know, pavement when it is hit with a hard object,
>> >> it will scatter -- it will spread" (6 H 238).
>> >
>> >Extremely weak. Your world class marksmen are aiming for what?
>>
>> This is the whimpering of someone who knows they lost.

And is now running ...

>> >> Dallas policeman Starvis Ellis was riding a motorcycle about 100
>> >> feet in front of the President's limousine. When the shooting began,
>> >> Ellis turned the limousine and saw debris fly up, presumably from this
>> >> same bullet strike (John S. Craig, "The Guns of Dealey Plaza.
>> >
>> >How many shots are you up to now? It changes by the paragraph.
>>
>> Whining again. It's your job to REFUTE ALL THIS EVIDENCE FOR MORE
>> SHOTS, not whine about it.

Carry your burden, coward!

>> >> One shot missed the limousine and struck a spot in the grass just
>> >> south of Elm Street, about 350 feet from the Book Depository. Officer
>> >> J. W. Foster was standing on top of the triple underpass, and had a
>> >> clear view of Elm; he saw the bullet strike the turf. He reported this
>> >> to a superior, and was instructed to guard the area (Shaw and Harris,
>> >> 72-75. Journalists and bystanders were kept away from the area. This
>> >> could be the first shot that missed, although, again, it would have to
>> >> have been a truly terrible shot.
>> >
>> >12-14 shots now? Silly.
>>
>> It takes a true moron to imagine that every witness saw and described
>> a *unique* shot that no-one else noticed.
>>
>> But this is the sort of stupidity that you need in order to believe in
>> the WCR.

Well illustrated by this coward...

>> >> Photographers Jim Murray and Bill Allen took a famous sequence of
>> >> pictures showing Deputy Sheriff E. R. "Buddy" Walthers (in civilian
>> >> clothes) and watching a blond-haired man he believed to be an FBI
>> >> agent point at the dug-out spot on the ground just off Elm Street,
>> >> bend over, scoop something up from the turf, then put the item in his
>> >> pocket. Police Chief Jesse Curry said the man was FBI, but he didn't
>> >> know his name; some have identified him as FBI Special Agent Robert
>> >> Barrett . . . The photographs have been widely published. Murray also
>> >> photographed the hole that was left in the turf after the scene had
>> >> been cleared; this photograph ran in the following day's Fort Worth
>> >> Star-Telegram, captioned, "One of the rifle bullets fired by the
>> >> murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street . .
>> >> ." The Dallas Times-Herald reported in reference to the hole in the
>> >> grass, "Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the
>> >> distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of
>> >> the bullets was recovered at 100 yards."
>>
>> It's not surprising that Chuckles ran from this. Photographs combined
>> with a journalistic instinct for the correct titles simply frighten
>> Chucky into silence.

And, despite being pointed out as a coward, Chuckles ran AGAIN!

>> >> Richard Randolph Carr . . . heard four shots fired, the last three
>> >> of which he believed came from behind the wooden stockade fence on the
>> >> grassy knoll.
>> >
>> > So that's at least six shots, three from the DPD and three from the
>> > knoll. The HSCA said one from the knoll that missed.
>>
>> Only a moron can look at a witness who stated that he heard four
>> shots, and turn it into six shots.
>>
>> Tell us Chuckles, just how stupid ARE you?

Oh, perhaps Chuckles is *SO* stupid, that he can't answer this...

That is, of course... an answer.

>> > He saw a bullet strike the turf opp osite the knoll where it
>> > "knocked a bunch of grass up." Judging from the mark on the grass,
>> > Carr said the bullet had been traveling in a southeast direction from
>> > the knoll toward the Criminal Courts building at Elm and Houston (Shaw
>> > trial transcript; HSCA volumes; Craig).
>> >
>> >Bullets everywhere except hitting JFK.
>>
>> Tell us about each bullet fired by ... you pick it, any mass shooting
>> in the U.S. in the last 50 years. Tell us who each one wounded or
>> killed, and cite for your answer.

Even givin the opportunity to pick any mass shooting he wanted to, our
local coward Chuckles just ran away...

Thus proving my point.

>> >> Richard Dudman wrote in the December 21, 1963, New Republic: "On
>> >> the say the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth
>> >> [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the
>> >> side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector
>> >> told me they had just found another bullet in the grass."
>>
>> Careful, Chuckles will think this is the 18th bullet.
>>
>> >> There was another bullet strike only about three to five feet from
>> >> this one, but it wasn't noticed right away. Dealey Plaza witness John
>> >> Martin discovered it two and a half hours after the shooting, and
>> >> quickly informed a policeman, "you better get your boss down here
>> >> to check this thing out, because that will show you where the bullet
>> >> came from" (Griffith; Trask, 573). The mark very clearly does not
>> >> point back to the Texas School Book Depository; it appears to have
>> >> struck from the direction of the County Records Building, where a
>> >> 30.06 bullet shell was found later.
>> >
>> >You could be at 12-15 shots.
>>
>> You "could" be a moron - unable to accept the possibility that
>> witnesses CORROBORATED each other rather than hearing unique shots.
>>
>> But I'd suggest that "could be " is a needlessly generous way to say
>> "are"...

Yep... you ARE a moron, aren't you Chucky?

Chuckles had no answer for this obvious fact.

>> >> A fired but intact bullet was found on the top of the Massey
>> >> Roofing Co. building on Elm Street, about eight blocks from the TSBD,
>> >> by Richard Haythorne in 1967. No official study was made until the
>> >> HSCA pronounced it a jacketed, soft-point .30 caliber bullet
>> >> consistent with Remington-Peters ammunition; it had not been fired
>> >> from the 6.5 caliber Mannlicher-Carcano (7 HSCA 357; Carol Hewett,
>> >> "Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA"; Craig).
>> >
>> >Another sniper location. This is crazy.
>>
>> It would take a moron even more stupid than Chuckly has yet proven
>> himself to be to think that there was an assassin eight blocks away...
>> tell us Chucky, are you THAT stupid?

Looks like we have a winner! Chuckles, the moron who thinks that there
might have been an assassin firing from 8 blocks away.

>> >> In 1974, Dallas resident Richard Lester swept Dealey Plaza with a
>> >> metal detector, and discovered a fragment -- the base portion of a
>> >> bullet – 500 yards southwest of the TSBD and 61 paces east of the
>> >> triple underpass. Later he turned it over to the FBI, and it was
>> >> studied by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. They
>> >> found that the fragment was from a 6.5 mm bullet, but that it had not
>> >> been fired from the alleged "Oswald" Mannlicher-Carcano: its rifling
>> >> pattern was different (Associated Press, January 5, 1978; 7 HSCA 395;
>> >> Hewett). A whole, unfired .45 caliber bullet was found in 1976 by Hal
>> >> Luster by the concrete retaining wall on the knoll (Dallas Morning
>> >> News, December 23, 1978).
>> >
>> >More possible snipers.
>>
>> It takes only *ONE* extra shooter to prove your lifetime belief a lie.

And Chuckles was DUMBFOUNDED to learn this.

>> >> In the summer of 1966 , an intact bullet was found lodged in the
>> >> roof of a building at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee. The
>> >> building was about a quarter mile away from the Texas School Book
>> >> Depository -- within rifle range -- in the direction that Oswald had
>> >> allegedly fired. The FBI identified the bullet as a .30 caliber full
>> >> metal jacketed military bullet; its rifling pattern of four grooves,
>> >> right hand twist is consistent with ammunition of US manufacture. This
>> >> is the type of bullet the CIA used with their silenced M-1 .30 caliber
>> >> carbine rifles; civilians were not allowed to purchase them until the
>> >> middle of 1963, and full metal jacketed bullets are illegal for use in
>> >> hunting (Hewett, citing FBI Doc. #62-109060-5898).
>> >
>> >So assassins were hitting a building a 1/4 mile away potentially?
>>
>> Of course not. Everyone knows that a bullet won't travel that far.
>>
>> (Well, at least *morons* have that belief...)

Clearly, Chuckles doesn't know much at all about rifles & bullets.

> He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know ...

That a single shot can be heard by multiple witnesses.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

(A real answer from Ben a few months ago.)

And that's about as specific as they'll get.

Almost fifty-five years of futility for these clowns.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:09:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Who killed Mary Ann Nichols? (You won't answer, thus proving that your
question is just silly)

You ran from ALL of my points, thus proving your cowardice yet again.

I'm getting in the habit of going to the bottom of any of your posts,
knowing that this the only place you ever seem to post.

You run from EVERYTHING!

What a coward!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.

In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.

>
> Doesn't mean there can't be more shots or less shots, but that's the answer that requires the fewest additional assumptions. Occam's Razor comes into play.

If multiple shell cartridges were found around and adjacent to the scene of a major shooting, would Occam's Razor suggest the two incidences were connected, or not connected?

>
> Boris the Truther's Gish Gallop above

"Gish Gallop". I like that. In other words, Chuck dared me to provide a body of evidence for more than three shots. And now he's whining I've provided too much.

>
> is full of wacky,

Warren Commission testimony.

>
> unsubstantiated,

HSCA testimony.

>
> unsupported,

Affidavits.

>
> vague

FBI documents, all cited for.

>
> shot counts from odd locations,

The number of shots is not up for question. You wanted "a body of evidence" pointing to more than three. And more than one location. The evidence for the latter is beyond certainty. Beyond any doubt whatsoever. Whether 2 shots were fired or 200, you now have hard, tangible proof of shells found in multiple locations.

And as of yet, you've done nothing except whine about it.

At a certain point, you need to take a step back and just listen to how pitiful you sound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:03:49 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

> The number of shots is not up for question. You wanted "a body of
> evidence" pointing to more than three. And more than one location. The
> evidence for the latter is beyond certainty. Beyond any doubt
> whatsoever. Whether 2 shots were fired or 200, you now have hard,
> tangible proof of shells found in multiple locations.

Oh oh...

Here it comes... "Critics claim 200 shots fired in Dealey Plaza"...

Watch for it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.
>
> In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.

I count up to twenty separate bullets/bullet strikes which you seem to think can be incorporated into your narrative. It's not my job to disprove they weren't part of the JFK assassination. Make a positive case for your Gish Gallop. No consilience.

>
> >
> > Doesn't mean there can't be more shots or less shots, but that's the answer that requires the fewest additional assumptions. Occam's Razor comes into play.
>
> If multiple shell cartridges were found around and adjacent to the scene of a major shooting, would Occam's Razor suggest the two incidences were connected, or not connected?

The question is consilience, and Boris does a Fringe Resets/Boris Boomerang back to turf he's more comfortable on.

But to answer anyway, in this case, no, of course not. Most people heard three shots, there's evidence connecting three shots (or less depending on how to count Tague) to the crime, and three shells were found. No one found shells behind the grassy knoll or mythical south knoll or anywhere else, and why your pro snipers were missing so badly with their shots and firing ammo different than what was trying to be pinned on Oswald is a question you don't even want to tackle.

>
> >
> > Boris the Truther's Gish Gallop above
>
> "Gish Gallop". I like that. In other words, Chuck dared me to provide a body of evidence for more than three shots. And now he's whining I've provided too much.

Notice how Boris the Truther subtly twists this around. Consilience denotes a synergy in the forms of evidence that bolster the main argument. Finding a bullet on a roof years later disconnected from your "theory" (whatever it specifically is 'cause you're not forthcoming) doesn't help your case that thousands killed JFK and later murdered RFK, ordered to do so by LBJ.

>
> >
> > is full of wacky,
>
> Warren Commission testimony.

Which concluded Oswald alone, three shots.
>
> >
> > unsubstantiated,
>
> HSCA testimony.

Which concluded Oswald Alone killed JFK and a mystery second shooter fired a shot which missed everything, the findings of which have been discredited.
>
> >
> > unsupported,
>
> Affidavits.

Used to conclude Oswald killed JFK.

>
> >
> > vague
>
> FBI documents, all cited for.

All taken as part of the body of evidence which concluded Oswald killed JFK.

>
> >
> > shot counts from odd locations,
>
> The number of shots is not up for question.

Then tell us how many were fired.

>You wanted "a body of evidence" pointing to more than three.

I'm looking for consilience. Wounds that can be explained by three shots or less, most witnesses hearing three shots, an earwitness below on the 5th floor hearing three shots and actually hearing the bolt work, forensics that link the rifle recovered to the shells and bullet/fragments recovered, etc.

>And more than one location. The evidence for the latter is beyond certainty. Beyond any doubt whatsoever. Whether 2 shots were fired or 200, you now have hard, tangible proof of shells found in multiple locations.

Boris struggles with consilience. You cannot connect any of this with the JFK assassination in any way other than one-dimensional speculation.

>
> And as of yet, you've done nothing except whine about it.
>
> At a certain point, you need to take a step back and just listen to how pitiful you sound.

From a guy who think JFK's body was kidnapped for a secret autopsy.

How do you lump a whole, unfired .45 caliber bullet found in 1976 by the concrete retaining wall in Dealey Plaza with the JFK assassination 13 years earlier? Was someone firing a pistol at him? You've got an empty envelope marked "Determined of no evidentiary value" connected to the assassination, your "proof" of more than three shots. Bizarre. You've got a bullet found on the roof of a building far away from Dealey Plaza, found years later, and this is suspicious to the JFK assassination in what way?

And of course, you've provided no consilience at all. It's a Gish Gallop attempt to force me to reply to everything or you get to spin the propeller on your tinfoil beanie and claim you've met the burden of consilience. You haven't.

Indeed, at a certain point, you need to take a step back and just listen to how pitiful you sound. *sigh*

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.
>>
>> In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.
>

>I count up to twenty separate bullets/bullet strikes...

No you didn't.

Only a MORON thinks that if twenty people report hearing a single
gunshot, that there must have been twenty shots fired.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Then why doesn't Boris the Truther sort it out? Assign the shots, the empty envelope marked 'no evidentiary value, the bullet on the roof, the different bullets in the grass, etc. into a narrative. Better yet, show consilience with other forms of evidence to pull all of this information together.

The WC was able to do this. Your burden isn't less than theirs. Carry your burden.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 5:28:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.
>> >>
>> >> In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.
>> >
>> >I count up to twenty separate bullets/bullet strikes...
>>
>> No you didn't.
>>
>> Only a MORON thinks that if twenty people report hearing a single
>> gunshot, that there must have been twenty shots fired.
>

>Then why doesn't Boris ...

Nothing Boris did, said, or thought can have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on your
stupid conclusions...

As I pointed out.

Just beg forgiveness from Puddy for looking at the wrong evidence the
wrong way...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The frustration is setting in on you kooks.

Boris the Truther attempted to address the issue of consilience. He wasn't very successful, and elected instead to trot out bullets found on rooftops years later as "consilience" of some sort. Perhaps you can give it a try.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Oh oh...
>
> Here it comes... "Critics claim 200 shots fired in Dealey Plaza"...
>
> Watch for it.

LOL!! As soon as I clicked the "post" button, I had this same feeling. When will I learn?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:29:37 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 5:28:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.
> > >>
> > >> In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.
> > >
>
>

> Then why doesn't Boris the Truther sort it out?

Boris the Truther doesn't have to sort it out. Boris the Truther, through his own deductive reasoning, managed to conclude that when it rained in Dallas that morning, it was NOT raining shell casings, and so therefore the shell casings were probably ejected from some sort of magic thunder stick. All by Oswald, of course, who went around collecting each and every one from his many multiple positions before heading over to the TSBD, except he missed the odd one or two or six, because he was a loser and a failure. Not unlike yourself, except unfortunately Jack Ruby is no longer around to dispose of you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Let's for a moment consider something Chuck just did. It's quite interesting, if you think about it. It occurs in this exchange:

> >
> > >
> > > is full of wacky,
> >
> > Warren Commission testimony.
>
> Which concluded Oswald alone, three shots.
> >
> > >
> > > unsubstantiated,
> >
> > HSCA testimony.
>
> Which concluded Oswald Alone killed JFK and a mystery second shooter fired a shot which missed everything, the findings of which have been discredited.
> >
> > >
> > > unsupported,
> >
> > Affidavits.
>
> Used to conclude Oswald killed JFK.
> >
> > >
> > > vague
> >
> > FBI documents, all cited for.
>
> All taken as part of the body of evidence which concluded Oswald killed JFK.

The long story short goes like this: I cited a number of claims indicating multiple shell casings, fragments and bullets in and around Dealey Plaza. Chuck referred to every one of these claims as "wacky, unsubstantiated, unsupported, and vague." Which is fine, because it's his job to say that. BUT, when I pointed out several of these claims were from affidavits, WC and HSCA testimony, and official FBI reports, Chuck is quick to point out that all of these were used to conclude Oswald acted alone (which isn't even true in the HSCA case, but whatever).

In other words, by **Chuck's own admission**, the investigations which found Oswald acted alone were basing all their information on wacky, unsubstantiated, unsupported and vague claims. And he perfectly accepts their findings.

Chuck is artwork, lurkers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 8:58:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

> Let's for a moment consider something Chuck just did. It's quite interesting, if you think about it. It occurs in this exchange:
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is full of wacky,
> > >
> > > Warren Commission testimony.
> >
> > Which concluded Oswald alone, three shots.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > unsubstantiated,
> > >
> > > HSCA testimony.
> >
> > Which concluded Oswald Alone killed JFK and a mystery second shooter fired a shot which missed everything, the findings of which have been discredited.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > unsupported,
> > >
> > > Affidavits.
> >
> > Used to conclude Oswald killed JFK.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > vague
> > >
> > > FBI documents, all cited for.
> >
> > All taken as part of the body of evidence which concluded Oswald killed JFK.
>
> The long story short goes like this: I cited a number of claims indicating multiple shell casings, fragments and bullets in and around Dealey Plaza.

I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was; citing mystery bullets found years later, or never entered into evidence, etc. is all unsupported hokum. It's astounding you'd even be serious about this, but considering all of the other dumb stuff you believe in--a kidnapped JFK corpse, Sirhan Sirhan under the control of an MK Ultra program for LBJ to avoid the JFK secrets being revealed by future President Bobby, planted demo in the WTCs, etc.--I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. And you've certainly provided no consilience. As always with JFK Truthers, the evidence not in evidence is stronger than the evidence in evidence. And for Boris, the strongest evidence has no consilience with other data. There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

>Chuck referred to every one of these claims as "wacky, unsubstantiated, unsupported, and vague." >Which is fine, because it's his job to say that. BUT, when I pointed out several of these claims were from >affidavits, WC and HSCA testimony, and official FBI reports,

The same conspiracy which went around murdering witnesses on a mysterious deaths list (like Karyn Kupcinet!) and altering testimony, then inexplicably leaves all sorts of damning evidence around--a veritable bread crumbs trail--that allows our intrepid hippie investigoogler to breathlessly connect the dots for his massive, massive conspiracy which LBJ ordered, and which eventually claimed Bobby's life.

Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient to their pre-ordained narrative? You know, the stuff you are quoting as so damning? Why is it even AROUND? Alter it like they did the Z film.

(With rising alarm because he has no answer, Boris fires up the propeller on his tinfoil beanie and speeds out the door,)

>Chuck is quick to point out that all of these were used to conclude Oswald acted alone

Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE (there's that word again).

>(which isn't even true in the HSCA case, but whatever).

But the HSCA did say Oswald fired the only shots that struck anyone, no altered Z film, no poison-dart firing umbrella, no known involvement by agencies of our government, etc. and that the "mystery" shooter on the knoll missed.

Go find that mystery shooter, Boris! The expert marksman from the Corsican Mob/CIA/DPD, etc. who missed from point blank range.

>
> In other words, by **Chuck's own admission**, the investigations which found Oswald acted alone were basing all their information on wacky, unsubstantiated, unsupported and vague claims.

In other words, like most Truthers, Boris has a really hard time reading for comprehension and loves assigning positions to people they haven't taken. Quite the opposite, the investigation listened to testimony, much of it conflicting, and they were ADULTS. They actually let people have their say and printed their thoughts on what happened, and they put a case together, and it has held up for a long, long time.

>And he perfectly accepts their findings.

I do. They are and were smarter than me, and they are and were definitely smarter than you. And history accepts their findings. Oswald Alone is the null hypothesis. And you can stomp your feet and hold your breath all you want, but Justice Kavanaugh is now on the SCOTUS, and Oswald is historically guilty. And so is Sirhan Sirhan guilty of murdering RFK, no help. And 19 muslims did fly airplanes into buildings on 911, no help from Bush or Cheney or Silverstein or controlled demolitions. And we did land on the moon. Really.

Boris the Truther is smarter than the WC, more capable of understanding the nuances of the evidence. He's even smarter than the Dunning-Kruger fellows that coined the term he wears as well as the propeller spinning tinfoil beanie on his pony-tailed hippie head which protrudes up from his "Investigate 911" shirt. Boris doesn't accept their findings. He's a rebel.
>
> Chuck is artwork, lurkers.



Consilience, Boris. Focus. Go ahead and tie some bullet found on a roof in 1966 or an envelope marked 'no evidentiary value' or a .45 caliber bullet found somewhere to the assassination with other pieces of the evidence.

While you're at it, tie in the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress or a missile striking the Pentagon.

No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was;

Mostly you just whined and showed everyone how badly your counting sucks.

>
> Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient to their pre-ordained narrative?

It does get somewhat tricky altering statements which are on record, overheard by notetakers, stenographers, whoever was around. If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly changed the topic, or led the witness elsewhere. They just didn't address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me, they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All the "mistaken" ones.

>
> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE (there's that word again).

Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.

>
> No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.

Well....some.

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

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:37:52 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was;
>
> Mostly you just whined and showed everyone how badly your counting sucks.
>
>
> >
> > Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient to their pre-ordained narrative?
>
> It does get somewhat tricky altering statements which are on record, overheard by notetakers, stenographers, whoever was around.

But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse guarded by agents, his devastated 'Irish Mafia' cohorts, members of the military, wife, pilots and personnel, and the new President. (Oh yeah...he was part of it. My bad.) All of this and the natural barrier of struggling to switch out a corpse or coffin or whatever in tight confines, on a schedule deadline, the events potentially being recorded on film.

You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.

>If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly changed the topic, or led the witness >elsewhere. They just didn't address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me, they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All the "mistaken" ones.

Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones which "prove" conspiracy to you.

>
> >
> > Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE (there's that word again).
>
> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.

Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots? Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?

I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC "deny" the statements. They're in the report (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to build your unique conspiracy. (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.) The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case to come together.

>
> >
> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
>
> Well....some.
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3

Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus blanket, the 13cm defect. Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on, which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.

But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World Order is foiled again!

By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where? The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was responsible for the wounds.

And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified in the report which was also allegedly under "military control" and also allegedly involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:57:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 16:29:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 5:28:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:11:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:03:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > He's dead, Ben, but he was probably smart enough to know that when most people report three shots, and when the physical evidence points to three shots (the recovered shells), it's probably *just* three shots.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In his previous post, Chuck showed us how counting isn't really his thing. He's done it again now. I'd urge you to go back to my post and count how many shells, fragments and/or "missiles" were discovered from places other than the TSBD. The answer is more than zero.
>> >> >
>> >> >I count up to twenty separate bullets/bullet strikes...
>> >>
>> >> No you didn't.
>> >>
>> >> Only a MORON thinks that if twenty people report hearing a single
>> >> gunshot, that there must have been twenty shots fired.
>> >
>> >Then why doesn't Boris ...
>>
>> Nothing Boris did, said, or thought can have ANY EFFECT AT ALL on your
>> stupid conclusions...
>>
>> As I pointed out.
>>
>> Just beg forgiveness from Puddy for looking at the wrong evidence the
>> wrong way...
>
>
>The frustration is setting in on you kooks.

Couldn't tell it by me. Boris... are you getting frustrated?

Like me, Boris is probably having a good time pointing out the lies &
cowardice.

> Boris the Truther attempted to address the issue of consilience. He
> wasn't very successful, and elected instead to trot out bullets found
> on rooftops years later as "consilience" of some sort. Perhaps you can
> give it a try.

Why would I? Boris did a *fine* job of showing what a coward you are.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:37:52 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was;
>>
>> Mostly you just whined and showed everyone how badly your counting sucks.
>>
>>> Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest
>>> bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient
>>> to their pre-ordained narrative?
>>
>> It does get somewhat tricky altering statements which are on
>> record, overheard by notetakers, stenographers, whoever was around.
>
> But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse
> guarded by agents, his devastated 'Irish Mafia' cohorts, members of
> the military, wife, pilots and personnel, and the new President. (Oh
> yeah...he was part of it. My bad.) All of this and the natural barrier
> of struggling to switch out a corpse or coffin or whatever in tight
> confines, on a schedule deadline, the events potentially being
> recorded on film.
>
>You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.

Of course, you PROVE that you believe this "fantasy" - because you run
away from any substantive debate on the topic.

You're TERRIFIED of the time that the coffin arrived at Bethesda -
because you know it proves me right, and you wrong.

>> If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly
>> changed the topic, or led the witness elsewhere. They just didn't
>> address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me,
>> they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were
>> altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All
>> the "mistaken" ones.

A good example is James Chaney - who went on record just hours after
the event. The Warren Commission was DEATHLY afraid of his testimony,
so they refused to call him.

> Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones
> which "prove" conspiracy to you.

Proves it to you, too. Since you clearly have no credible and
non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence we raise, you know
you CANNOT explain it.

So you realize that it *DOES* support a conspiracy.

>>> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately
>>> given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE
>>> (there's that word again).
>>
>> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth
>> of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
>
> Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots?
> Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?

Boris just got through schooling you on the evidence for more than
simply three shots, and you just RAN from half of them, and denied the
rest.

And just after Puddles schools you on the fact that you can't see
bullets in the Z-film, you go and demand to be shown where they are.

How silly of you, Chucky!

> I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC
> "deny" the statements. They're in the report

Now you're merely lying. The Warren Commission never even knew of most
of these extra bullets, and even those they knew about - THEY DIDN'T
EXPLAIN AWAY. They called no eyewitnesses to testify.

You won't cite any - so the proof that you lied is crystal clear.

You claim that "They're in the report," but you're a liar. You'll
NEVER cite for that claim.

Have you even *read* the Warren Commission Report???

> (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to
> build your unique conspiracy.

Yep... like most of America, we "malign" the WCR. You are in the
minority.

> (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.)

Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. Deal with it.

Or run away again as you usually do.

> The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do
> not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case
> to come together.

Can you QUOTE these alleged statements that frighten us?

I know I can easily quote statements that YOU run from, been doing so
for many years... (indeed, there's a good example in this very post)
but I've never seen something that I run from.

Where is it Chuckles?

Make Puddles laugh, quote something that frightens me.

Or be proven a liar yet again.

>> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
>>
>> Well....some.
>>
>> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>>
>> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy
>> report, pg. 3
>
> Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus
> blanket, the 13cm defect.

And it's ad hominem time for the single sentence from the Autopsy
Report that invariably forces believers to run away.

> Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the
> autopsy

Boris, and any intelligent honest man, will easily disregard
"conclusions" that aren't supported by the evidence.

But **YOU** don't even believe the Autopsy Report. You're TERRIFIED
each time this topic comes up.

> in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy
> involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on,
> which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later
> involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring
> LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.

This is what I like to call verbal vomit. It invariably comes out when
the topic is something that terrifies believers.

The Autopsy Report invariably brings it out. You **NEED** the Autopsy
Report to get your "two shots from the rear" - but you HATE the fact
that you really don't believe that statement quoted by Boris.

And you're TERRIFIED of admitting that fact publicly. You NEED that
Autopsy Report.

> But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the
> rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World
> Order is foiled again!

More silliness by Chuckles to evade the fact that he's got nothing to
say about the Autopsy Report.

And can't explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.

> By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does
> the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience

Tut tut tut, moron. DEFINE "consilience" - then let Boris simply
repost what he posted.

> for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you
> allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where?
> The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was
> responsible for the wounds.

You don't believe the HSCA, so why bother to cite it?

> And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified
> in the report

It provably was.

You're a PROVABLE liar.

I'll bet that even you, were you honest enough, could tell us what the
ORIGINAL size of that wound as "found" in the autopsy was.

Go ahead, Chuckles - TELL US WHAT THE *LARGER* WOUND DESCRIPTION WAS,
and where it can be found.

Or run away like a coward from your lie ...

>which was also allegedly under "military control"

Some people might excuse such a lie based on you never having served
in the military. But I don't.

The average American certainly realizes that an autopsy conducted by
military officers, directed by their superiors, on a military base -
constitutes "military control."

But a moron like you blatantly denies the obvious.

That can only be a desperate lie on your part.

> and also allegedly
> involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping
> JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and
> perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?

Ah! But you *BELIEVE* this to be true. If you didn't, you'd be HAPPY
to tell me when the coffin arrived at Bethesda.

But you know enough about the evidence to realize the rabbit hole
you'd sink into if you dared to try to answer.

So you simply run away like the proven coward you are.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot back to Chaney, which has been discussed hundreds of times. I did a quick search for topics with the word Chaney in them and was able to find posts involving Chaney as part of the discussion going back to June of 1992!

You've been asked to provide the details on what he had to say that would've been so devastating, but you refuse. Instead, this comes up every few weeks, and has now, AT THIS BOARD, for 26 years.

Try it. If you view messages through Google Groups, type Chaney into the advanced search features and see how often this has come up. It never stops.

>
>
> > Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones
> > which "prove" conspiracy to you.
>
>
> Proves it to you, too. Since you clearly have no credible and
> non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence we raise, you know
> you CANNOT explain it.

Not my job to explain it. That's your job. You're failing, per usual.

>
> So you realize that it *DOES* support a conspiracy.

What conspiracy? Who? How? How many shots? Where's the supporting evidence?

>
>
> >>> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately
> >>> given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE
> >>> (there's that word again).
> >>
> >> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth
> >> of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
> >
> > Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots?
> > Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?
>
>
> Boris just got through schooling you on the evidence for more than
> simply three shots, and you just RAN from half of them, and denied the
> rest.

Yet it was concluded three shots were fired, from Oswald's rifle. He didn't "school" me, he ignored the conclusions.

>
> And just after Puddles schools you on the fact that you can't see
> bullets in the Z-film, you go and demand to be shown where they are.

Word salad.

>
> How silly of you, Chucky!
>
>
> > I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC
> > "deny" the statements. They're in the report
>
>
> Now you're merely lying. The Warren Commission never even knew of most
> of these extra bullets, and even those they knew about - THEY DIDN'T
> EXPLAIN AWAY. They called no eyewitnesses to testify.
>
> You won't cite any - so the proof that you lied is crystal clear.
>
> You claim that "They're in the report," but you're a liar. You'll
> NEVER cite for that claim.

Baloney. You guys take stuff from the WC all the time as tinker toys for your hobby.

>
> Have you even *read* the Warren Commission Report???

I missed the part about eight shots, LBJ ordering JFK's murder, and so on.

>
>
> > (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to
> > build your unique conspiracy.
>
>
> Yep... like most of America, we "malign" the WCR. You are in the
> minority.

Argumentum ad Populum.

>
>
> > (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.)
>
>
> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. Deal with it.
>
> Or run away again as you usually do.

Who killed JFK?

Ben: "The snipers."
>
>

> > The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do
> > not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case
> > to come together.
>
>
> Can you QUOTE these alleged statements that frighten us?

Figure of speech doofus.

>
> I know I can easily quote statements that YOU run from, been doing so
> for many years... (indeed, there's a good example in this very post)
> but I've never seen something that I run from.
>
> Where is it Chuckles?
>
> Make Puddles laugh, quote something that frightens me.

"The cops found your child porn."

>
> Or be proven a liar yet again.
>
>
> >> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
> >>
> >> Well....some.
> >>
> >> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> >>
> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> >> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy
> >> report, pg. 3
> >
> > Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus
> > blanket, the 13cm defect.
>
>
> And it's ad hominem time for the single sentence from the Autopsy
> Report that invariably forces believers to run away.

The autopsy proves one shot to the head, from above and behind. Every investigation that has subsequently taken the matter up has concluded the same thing.

>
>
> > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the
> > autopsy
>
>
> Boris, and any intelligent honest man, will easily disregard
> "conclusions" that aren't supported by the evidence.

What your evidence that Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit?

>
> But **YOU** don't even believe the Autopsy Report. You're TERRIFIED
> each time this topic comes up.

Yeah, I believe the experts. One shot from above and behind to the head.

>
>
> > in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy
> > involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on,
> > which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later
> > involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring
> > LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.
>
>
> This is what I like to call verbal vomit. It invariably comes out when
> the topic is something that terrifies believers.

I can understand the vomiting. This is what you believe, this is what you live for, this is a synopsis of what you think happened. And when you're actually confronted with it, even you can see how silly it is.

Do you think LBJ and Hoover were involved? Why you've sure said so. Many times.

How about the CIA and Mob in some way, shape or form? You've surely hinted at that, too.

The Military/Industrial Complex? Well, yeah...they wanted Vietnam, they didn't want to lose their oil depletion allowance, etc.

The Secret Service? Sure. What about the agent at Love Field who was "waved away" from the departing motorcade? Of course the SS was involved.

How about RFK? I believe Boris brought up MK Ultra in reference to Sirhan. And the shots supposedly too close to have been fired from Sirhan. And it may have been him or you who mused that future President Bobby was killed to keep him from "discovering" LBJ was behind the hit on JFK.

So these are your beliefs, retarded as they may be. Vomit away.

>
> The Autopsy Report invariably brings it out. You **NEED** the Autopsy
> Report to get your "two shots from the rear" - but you HATE the fact
> that you really don't believe that statement quoted by Boris.
>
> And you're TERRIFIED of admitting that fact publicly. You NEED that
> Autopsy Report.
>
>
> > But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the
> > rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World
> > Order is foiled again!
>
>
> More silliness by Chuckles to evade the fact that he's got nothing to
> say about the Autopsy Report.

>
> And can't explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.

It's your job to explain the autopsy report and show two or more shots to JFK's head, not my job to disprove it. The autopsy report already says one shot to the head, from above and behind.

>
>
> > By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does
> > the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience
>
>
> Tut tut tut, moron. DEFINE "consilience" - then let Boris simply
> repost what he posted.

Already defined. Different ways of measuring an event, different types of evidence, that point to or bolster a theory. Seeing a gunman firing from the TSBD, hearing the gunman from the floor below work the bolt and firing the rounds, finding bullets and casings forensically linked to the rifle found with the shooter's print on it, etc. all provide forms of consilience.

>
>
>
> > for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you
> > allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where?
> > The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was
> > responsible for the wounds.
>
>
> You don't believe the HSCA, so why bother to cite it?

I do believe the HSCA, and I believe the science that overturned their last minute acoustics findings. There is "consilience" which overturns it. Testimony from McLain that it wasn't his mic, a review of faint voices heard by Steve Barber indicating the recording is from about a minute after the shots were fired, and film interpretation showing McLain was outside the "cone" he needed to have been in to pick up the shots. Consilience.
>

Final nonsense snipped.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse

Moving the goalposts. Strawman. And this is not what we were discussing.

>
> You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.

Shells from bullets used by the CIA with silenced M-1 .30 caliber carbine rifles -- which were not allowed to be purchased by civilians -- were found. If you don't like my rationalizations for why bullet shells would be found at the scene of a shooting, you're welcome to provide your reasons. But you won't do it. Not your burden. So until you do, you're stuck with the existing evidence as I provided it, which still remains uncontested.

> >
> > Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
>
> Corroborate what?

Hard physical evidence of more than three shots and/or one rifleman. And it doesn't matter how many more, or how few.

> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> >
> > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
>
> Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus blanket, the 13cm defect.

This amounts to just more whining.

>
> Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick

I'm ignoring the conclusions in favor of the CONSILIENCE (there's that drumroll again) of the medical findings.

>
> But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World Order is foiled again!

All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?

>
> By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where? The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was responsible for the wounds.
>
> And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified in the report which was also allegedly under "military control" and also allegedly involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?

Careful, you're getting VERY CLOSE to publicly admitting there was a large BOH wound, and siding with the experts. You wouldn't want to do that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 10:33:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:37:52 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was;
>> >>
>> >> Mostly you just whined and showed everyone how badly your counting sucks.
>> >>
>> >>> Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest
>> >>> bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient
>> >>> to their pre-ordained narrative?
>> >>
>> >> It does get somewhat tricky altering statements which are on
>> >> record, overheard by notetakers, stenographers, whoever was around.
>> >
>> > But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse
>> > guarded by agents, his devastated 'Irish Mafia' cohorts, members of
>> > the military, wife, pilots and personnel, and the new President. (Oh
>> > yeah...he was part of it. My bad.) All of this and the natural barrier
>> > of struggling to switch out a corpse or coffin or whatever in tight
>> > confines, on a schedule deadline, the events potentially being
>> > recorded on film.
>> >
>> >You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.
>>
>> Of course, you PROVE that you believe this "fantasy" - because you run
>> away from any substantive debate on the topic.
>>
>> You're TERRIFIED of the time that the coffin arrived at Bethesda -
>> because you know it proves me right, and you wrong.

Dead silence...

>> >> If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly
>> >> changed the topic, or led the witness elsewhere. They just didn't
>> >> address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me,
>> >> they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were
>> >> altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All
>> >> the "mistaken" ones.
>>
>> A good example is James Chaney - who went on record just hours after
>> the event. The Warren Commission was DEATHLY afraid of his testimony,
>> so they refused to call him.
>
> It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot back to Chaney, which has been
> discussed hundreds of times. I did a quick search for topics with the
> word Chaney in them and was able to find posts involving Chaney as
> part of the discussion going back to June of 1992!

And it will CONTINUE to be brought up - because in all those hundreds
of posts you'll never find a single one where you or any other
believer has given a credible explanation for why Chaney was ignored
by the Warren Commission.

Your "Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot" is simply a point where you and all
other believers have run for over 50 years.

> You've been asked to provide the details on what he had to say that
> would've been so devastating, but you refuse. Instead, this comes up
> every few weeks, and has now, AT THIS BOARD, for 26 years.

You're lying again, Chuckles. I've NEVER refused to state what Chaney
had to say... you'll NEVER cite such a thread.

Your refusal to cite such a thread will prove you a liar.

Chaney would have testified that Connally was struck by a DIFFERENT
bullet than the one that hit JFK. Directly contradicting the SBT.

He would have also testified to an action not seen in *ANY* film -
where he went forward to speak with Chief Curry.

> Try it. If you view messages through Google Groups, type Chaney into
> the advanced search features and see how often this has come up. It
> never stops.

I don't need to "try it" - I know you've been a coward for over 50
years, I know EVERY believer has been a coward for over 50 years. You
will *NEVER* cite the thread where a credible non-conspiratorial
explanation for why the WC didn't call James Chaney was posted.

>> > Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones
>> > which "prove" conspiracy to you.
>>
>> Proves it to you, too. Since you clearly have no credible and
>> non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence we raise, you know
>> you CANNOT explain it.
>
>Not my job to explain it. That's your job. You're failing, per usual.

Yes stupid, it *IS* your job. If you cannot explain the evidence in
non-conspiratoral terms, then the "null hypothesis" is conspiracy.

>> So you realize that it *DOES* support a conspiracy.
>
>What conspiracy? Who? How? How many shots? Where's the supporting evidence?

"On The Spot" Logical fallacy.

>> >>> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately
>> >>> given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE
>> >>> (there's that word again).
>> >>
>> >> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth
>> >> of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
>> >
>> > Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots?
>> > Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?
>>
>> Boris just got through schooling you on the evidence for more than
>> simply three shots, and you just RAN from half of them, and denied the
>> rest.
>
> Yet it was concluded three shots were fired, from Oswald's rifle. He
> didn't "school" me, he ignored the conclusions.

Any intelligent person will ignore "conclusions" not based on the
evidence.

>> And just after Puddles schools you on the fact that you can't see
>> bullets in the Z-film, you go and demand to be shown where they are.
>
>Word salad.

Stupid, aren't you?

>> How silly of you, Chucky!
>>
>> > I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC
>> > "deny" the statements. They're in the report
>>
>> Now you're merely lying. The Warren Commission never even knew of most
>> of these extra bullets, and even those they knew about - THEY DIDN'T
>> EXPLAIN AWAY. They called no eyewitnesses to testify.
>>
>> You won't cite any - so the proof that you lied is crystal clear.
>>
>> You claim that "They're in the report," but you're a liar. You'll
>> NEVER cite for that claim.
>
> Baloney. You guys take stuff from the WC all the time as tinker toys
> for your hobby.

I said you'd never cite - and once again, you've proven me right, and
yourself a liar.

You lied... and got caught at it.

>> Have you even *read* the Warren Commission Report???
>
>I missed the part about eight shots, LBJ ordering JFK's murder, and so on.

You also missed answering the question... what a coward!

>> > (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to
>> > build your unique conspiracy.
>>
>> Yep... like most of America, we "malign" the WCR. You are in the
>> minority.
>
>Argumentum ad Populum.

No, this isn't. It's merely a fact.

No "argument" is being made here, simply stating that most of America
"maligns" the WCR, and you are in the minority.

You whine about logical fallacies when you wish to avoid the truth.

>> > (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.)
>>
>> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. Deal with it.
>>
>> Or run away again as you usually do.
>
>Who killed JFK?
>
>Ben: "The snipers."

You see? I answer questions... you don't.

And despite the fact that I provably answered your question, in the
next few days, weeks, months... you'll ask it again as if it had never
been answered.

>> > The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do
>> > not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case
>> > to come together.
>>
>> Can you QUOTE these alleged statements that frighten us?
>
>Figure of speech doofus.

Yep... a lie.

You lied, and once again, I've proven you a liar. You make a claim,
and when I demand that you SPECIFICALLY prove it, you run.

>> I know I can easily quote statements that YOU run from, been doing so
>> for many years... (indeed, there's a good example in this very post)
>> but I've never seen something that I run from.
>>
>> Where is it Chuckles?
>>
>> Make Puddles laugh, quote something that frightens me.
>

>"The cops found my child porn."


Working in a school district, I can well understand why you'd be
terrified to death if they found your porn stash.

>> Or be proven a liar yet again.

And, once again, Chuckles has proven himself a liar.

>> >> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
>> >>
>> >> Well....some.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>> >>
>> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> >> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy
>> >> report, pg. 3
>> >
>> > Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus
>> > blanket, the 13cm defect.
>>
>> And it's ad hominem time for the single sentence from the Autopsy
>> Report that invariably forces believers to run away.
>
> The autopsy proves one shot to the head, from above and behind.
> Every investigation that has subsequently taken the matter up has
> concluded the same thing.

No Chuckles, you're lying again. By the same token, it "proved" the
BOH photo to be a forgery.

>> > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the
>> > autopsy
>>
>> Boris, and any intelligent honest man, will easily disregard
>> "conclusions" that aren't supported by the evidence.
>
>What your evidence that Jack Thompson killed JD Tippit?

The same as yours.

Amusing how you switch the topic when you can't refute it.

>> But **YOU** don't even believe the Autopsy Report. You're TERRIFIED
>> each time this topic comes up.
>
> Yeah, I believe the experts.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

The "experts" said that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's
head.

Let's hear you SPECIFICALLY agree with that statement.

> One shot from above and behind to the head.

Contradicted by scientific evidence.

>> > in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy
>> > involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on,
>> > which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later
>> > involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring
>> > LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.
>>
>> This is what I like to call verbal vomit. It invariably comes out when
>> the topic is something that terrifies believers.
>
> I can understand the vomiting. This is what you believe, this is
> what you live for, this is a synopsis of what you think happened. And
> when you're actually confronted with it, even you can see how silly it
> is.

There's more of it!

> Do you think LBJ and Hoover were involved? Why you've sure said so.
> Many times.

The evidence is clear that they were involved in covering up the
crime.

> How about the CIA and Mob in some way, shape or form? You've surely
> hinted at that, too.

Don't tell me that you don't believe the experts on the HSCA that
pointed this out???

Were you lying when you claimed to believe the experts?

> The Military/Industrial Complex? Well, yeah...they wanted Vietnam,
> they didn't want to lose their oil depletion allowance, etc.

Now you're just getting silly.

> The Secret Service? Sure. What about the agent at Love Field who was
> "waved away" from the departing motorcade? Of course the SS was
> involved.

The evidence is pretty clear on this.

Evidence that believers have denied and run from for years.

> How about RFK? I believe Boris brought up MK Ultra in reference to
> Sirhan. And the shots supposedly too close to have been fired from
> Sirhan. And it may have been him or you who mused that future
> President Bobby was killed to keep him from "discovering" LBJ was
> behind the hit on JFK.

What's this, Fratercide?

>So these are your beliefs, retarded as they may be. Vomit away.

Looks like you provably lied, doesn't it?

>> The Autopsy Report invariably brings it out. You **NEED** the Autopsy
>> Report to get your "two shots from the rear" - but you HATE the fact
>> that you really don't believe that statement quoted by Boris.
>>
>> And you're TERRIFIED of admitting that fact publicly. You NEED that
>> Autopsy Report.

Dead silence.

>> > But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the
>> > rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World
>> > Order is foiled again!
>>
>> More silliness by Chuckles to evade the fact that he's got nothing to
>> say about the Autopsy Report.
>>
>> And can't explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
>
> It's your job to explain the autopsy report and show two or more
> shots to JFK's head, not my job to disprove it. The autopsy report
> already says one shot to the head, from above and behind.

Nope.

>> > By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does
>> > the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience
>>
>> Tut tut tut, moron. DEFINE "consilience" - then let Boris simply
>> repost what he posted.
>
> Already defined. Different ways of measuring an event, different
> types of evidence, that point to or bolster a theory. Seeing a gunman
> firing from the TSBD, hearing the gunman from the floor below work the
> bolt and firing the rounds, finding bullets and casings forensically
> linked to the rifle found with the shooter's print on it, etc. all
> provide forms of consilience.

Now, read Boris' words again.

>> > for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you
>> > allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where?
>> > The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was
>> > responsible for the wounds.
>>
>> You don't believe the HSCA, so why bother to cite it?
>
> I do believe the HSCA

So why did the Warren Commission feel it necessary to fake the lie
detector test of Jack Ruby?

>Final nonsense snipped.


Added back in so everyone can see what you ran from, and how you lied:

>> And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified
>> in the report
>
>It provably was.
>
>You're a PROVABLE liar.
>
>I'll bet that even you, were you honest enough, could tell us what the
>ORIGINAL size of that wound as "found" in the autopsy was.
>
>Go ahead, Chuckles - TELL US WHAT THE *LARGER* WOUND DESCRIPTION WAS,
>and where it can be found.
>
>Or run away like a coward from your lie ...

Looks like you got caught in another provable lie, and were so
embarrassed that you had to snip it.

>>which was also allegedly under "military control"
>
>Some people might excuse such a lie based on you never having served
>in the military. But I don't.
>
>The average American certainly realizes that an autopsy conducted by
>military officers, directed by their superiors, on a military base -
>constitutes "military control."
>
>But a moron like you blatantly denies the obvious.
>
>That can only be a desperate lie on your part.

Another lie on your part, liar...

>> and also allegedly
>> involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping
>> JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and
>> perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?
>
>Ah! But you *BELIEVE* this to be true. If you didn't, you'd be HAPPY
>to tell me when the coffin arrived at Bethesda.
>
>But you know enough about the evidence to realize the rabbit hole
>you'd sink into if you dared to try to answer.
>
>So you simply run away like the proven coward you are.

And once again, you run from the truth.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:33:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 05:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:37:52 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I pointed out how retarded your Gish Gallop was;
> >>
> >> Mostly you just whined and showed everyone how badly your counting sucks.
> >>
> >>> Question for Boris: Why didn't the lying, conniving, dishonest
> >>> bums on the WC simply alter the testimony that would be inconvenient
> >>> to their pre-ordained narrative?
> >>
> >> It does get somewhat tricky altering statements which are on
> >> record, overheard by notetakers, stenographers, whoever was around.
> >
> > But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse
> > guarded by agents, his devastated 'Irish Mafia' cohorts, members of
> > the military, wife, pilots and personnel, and the new President. (Oh
> > yeah...he was part of it. My bad.) All of this and the natural barrier
> > of struggling to switch out a corpse or coffin or whatever in tight
> > confines, on a schedule deadline, the events potentially being
> > recorded on film.
> >
> >You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.
>
>
> Of course, you PROVE that you believe this "fantasy" - because you run
> away from any substantive debate on the topic.
>
> You're TERRIFIED of the time that the coffin arrived at Bethesda -
> because you know it proves me right, and you wrong.

<snicker> Why does Beb never say how this information decides the issue in his favor, lurkers?

>
> >> If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly
> >> changed the topic, or led the witness elsewhere. They just didn't
> >> address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me,
> >> they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were
> >> altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All
> >> the "mistaken" ones.
>
>
> A good example is James Chaney - who went on record just hours after
> the event.

Saying the shots came from behind him, lurkers. he was a good witness for the conclusions of the WC.

> The Warren Commission was DEATHLY afraid of his testimony,

Empty claim, lurkers.

> so they refused to call him.
>
>
> > Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones
> > which "prove" conspiracy to you.
>
>
> Proves it to you, too. Since you clearly have no credible and
> non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence we raise, you know
> you CANNOT explain it.

Shifting the burden, lurkers. Why can`t these retards ever put their ideas and the support for those ideas on the table for consideration?

> So you realize that it *DOES* support a conspiracy.

Why isn`t Ben using it in his case showing conspiracy in this event, lurkers. What does his failure to do this have to do with anyone else?

>
> >>> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately
> >>> given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE
> >>> (there's that word again).
> >>
> >> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth
> >> of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
> >
> > Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots?
> > Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?
>
>
> Boris just got through schooling you on the evidence for more than
> simply three shots, and you just RAN from half of them, and denied the
> rest.

There was evidence there was a dog in the limo, lurkers.

> And just after Puddles schools you on the fact that you can't see
> bullets in the Z-film, you go and demand to be shown where they are.
>
> How silly of you, Chucky!
>
>
> > I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC
> > "deny" the statements. They're in the report
>
>
> Now you're merely lying. The Warren Commission never even knew of most
> of these extra bullets, and even those they knew about - THEY DIDN'T
> EXPLAIN AWAY. They called no eyewitnesses to testify.

Beb should use these extra bullets in the case he will never make, lurkers.

> You won't cite any - so the proof that you lied is crystal clear.
>
> You claim that "They're in the report," but you're a liar. You'll
> NEVER cite for that claim.
>
> Have you even *read* the Warren Commission Report???
>
>
> > (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to
> > build your unique conspiracy.
>
>
> Yep... like most of America, we "malign" the WCR. You are in the
> minority.

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
> > (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.)
>
>
> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. Deal with it.

Just one, lurkers. Now what?

> Or run away again as you usually do.
>
>
> > The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do
> > not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case
> > to come together.
>
>
> Can you QUOTE these alleged statements that frighten us?

Heres one, lurkers...

Roger Craig`s testimony...

Mr. BELIN - How many shells did you see there?

Mr. CRAIG - I saw three.

Lurkers watch as Beb handwaves this away or misdirects somewhere else.

> I know I can easily quote statements that YOU run from, been doing so
> for many years... (indeed, there's a good example in this very post)
> but I've never seen something that I run from.
>
> Where is it Chuckles?
>
> Make Puddles laugh, quote something that frightens me.

Everything is a game with this retard, anything produced he can invent some reason to disregard it. It is a retard hobby, that`s all, lurkers. It is all nothing until they can put a case on the table and they will never do it.

> Or be proven a liar yet again.
>
>
> >> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
> >>
> >> Well....some.
> >>
> >> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> >>
> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> >> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy
> >> report, pg. 3
> >
> > Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus
> > blanket, the 13cm defect.
>
>
> And it's ad hominem time for the single sentence from the Autopsy
> Report that invariably forces believers to run away.

Have lurkers seen these guys go anywhere with this information? They quote it, but they can`t seem to use it is support of an idea.

>
> > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the
> > autopsy
>
>
> Boris, and any intelligent honest man, will easily disregard
> "conclusions" that aren't supported by the evidence.

Retards can believe whatever they want to believe, it is a free country, lurkers. But they can`t seem to put anything on the table for consideration.

> But **YOU** don't even believe the Autopsy Report. You're TERRIFIED
> each time this topic comes up.

Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind, what is hard to believe about that, lurkers. This is where the person was seen shooting from. So retards conclude everywhere but there. They are dopes, and they keep challenging rational people to stop them from being retarded.

> > in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy
> > involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on,
> > which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later
> > involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring
> > LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.
>
>
> This is what I like to call verbal vomit. It invariably comes out when
> the topic is something that terrifies believers.

These are the sorts of ideas these guys hold, lurkers. But they don`t let you see them because they know they are ridiculous, and they are ashamed of them.

> The Autopsy Report invariably brings it out. You **NEED** the Autopsy
> Report to get your "two shots from the rear" - but you HATE the fact
> that you really don't believe that statement quoted by Boris.

He quoted it, what idea did he support with it, lurkers?

> And you're TERRIFIED of admitting that fact publicly. You NEED that
> Autopsy Report.

The retards need to contrive reasons to disregard it, lurkers. It is what they do with all the information that goes against their silly ideas.

>
> > But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the
> > rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World
> > Order is foiled again!
>
>
> More silliness by Chuckles to evade the fact that he's got nothing to
> say about the Autopsy Report.
>
> And can't explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.

Let Beb use whatever he likes in this case he will never make, lurkers.

> > By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does
> > the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience
>
>
> Tut tut tut, moron. DEFINE "consilience" - then let Boris simply
> repost what he posted.

Lurkers...

"the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory."

Have lurkers seen any conspiracy retard ever do this?

>
> > for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you
> > allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where?
> > The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was
> > responsible for the wounds.
>
>
> You don't believe the HSCA, so why bother to cite it?

They found that the same idea valid that the WC found valid, that Oswald killed Kennedy, lurkers. This is actually all there is to this event, the rest is misdirection and barking up the wrong trees.

> > And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified
> > in the report
>
>
> It provably was.
>
> You're a PROVABLE liar.
>
> I'll bet that even you, were you honest enough, could tell us what the
> ORIGINAL size of that wound as "found" in the autopsy was.

Beb seems to have an idea but is ashamed to say what it is, lurkers.

> Go ahead, Chuckles - TELL US WHAT THE *LARGER* WOUND DESCRIPTION WAS,
> and where it can be found.

Shifting the burden, lurkers. beb has an idea he will vaguely allude to and try to make Chuck disprove it with Beb actually even saying what the idea is. this is how intellectual cowards and retards argue, lurkers.

> Or run away like a coward from your lie ...
>
>
> >which was also allegedly under "military control"
>
>
> Some people might excuse such a lie based on you never having served
> in the military. But I don't.

This is a lame cop-out, lurkers. The military doesn`t exert the kind of control these retard represent it to have. Nobody has to follow illegal orders and nobody is going to put their livelihood, reputation and freedom at risk to do the things these idiots imagine.

> The average American certainly realizes that an autopsy conducted by
> military officers, directed by their superiors, on a military base -
> constitutes "military control."

So they could have said "Shoot everyone in the gallery" and the soldiers on duty just would. Nobody has any control of their own action under such conditions.

Nonsense.

And Jackie picked Bethesda over Walter Reed on a whim, are we to believe three other prosectors could be called there and they would just as easily fall in line? Not people at all, really, just robots following orders.

> But a moron like you blatantly denies the obvious.

The obvious, lurkers, is that if someone would have approached Humes to do the things Beb alleges, he could have told them to stick it up their ass, and there wouldn`t have been a damned thing they could do to him.

> That can only be a desperate lie on your part.
>
>
> > and also allegedly
> > involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping
> > JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and
> > perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?
>
>
> Ah! But you *BELIEVE* this to be true. If you didn't, you'd be HAPPY
> to tell me when the coffin arrived at Bethesda.

Why doesn`t Beb use that time to put forth a compelling argument, lurkers?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> "On The Spot" Logical fallacy.

Ooh, very nice! Never heard of that one before. I'll have to start using it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:41:18 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But I guess it doesn't get tricky stealing the President's corpse
>
> Moving the goalposts. Strawman. And this is not what we were discussing.

We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.

>
> >
> > You're rationalizing to mold the events around your fantasy.
>
> Shells from bullets used by the CIA with silenced M-1 .30 caliber carbine rifles -- which were not allowed to be purchased by civilians -- were found.

When and where were they found? How does one tell if a shell was fired through a silenced weapon?

>If you don't like my rationalizations for why bullet shells would be found at the scene of a shooting, you're welcome to provide your reasons.

You're begging the question and assuming the bullets have a connection to the crime. You're welcome to provide your reasons, evidence, etc. that the bullets are part of the crime, but you won't.

>But you won't do it. Not your burden. So until you do, you're stuck with the existing evidence as I provided it, which still remains uncontested.

I'm contesting it, although properly, you should be fitting it together in a narrative and making a positive case for what you think occurred. When and where were these bullets found, and how do you know they were used on a "silenced" rifle? Oh yeah, your theory requires rifles with silencers so you're making your "evidence" fit your theory.

>
>
> > >
> > > Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
> >
> > Corroborate what?
>
> Hard physical evidence of more than three shots and/or one rifleman. And it doesn't matter how many more, or how few.

It doesn't matter how many more or how few because this is a game. You make the rules, you declare yourself the winner, but time marches on and the world cares very little about your theory that thousands killed JFK and covered it up, ordered to his death by LBJ to aid LBJ in avoiding a potential corruption charge.

>
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> > >
> > > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
> >
> > Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus blanket, the 13cm defect.
>
> This amounts to just more whining.

It sure does, just not the way you see it.

>
> >
> > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick
>
> I'm ignoring the conclusions in favor of the CONSILIENCE (there's that drumroll again) of the medical findings.

Which were used to conclude JFK was hit in the head one time by a bullet fired from above and behind. You always miss that part.

>
> >
> > But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World Order is foiled again!
>
> All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?

Not allowed there, expected over here. Go to Jim Hess's site and you'll be treated very fairly. I have no doubt that this is the worst site on the internet to discuss the JFK assassination. It's a guilty pleasure for me.

>
>
> >
> > By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where? The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was responsible for the wounds.
> >
> > And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified in the report which was also allegedly under "military control" and also allegedly involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?
>
> Careful, you're getting VERY CLOSE to publicly admitting there was a large BOH wound, and siding with the experts. You wouldn't want to do that.

And you're not answering the question of consilience.

If there's something damning about the 13cm wound, it should've been corrected or whatever during the "pre-autopsy autopsy." Wasn't the kidnapped JFK corpse all part of a plan to eliminate traces of shots or wounds that would lead to a conclusion of more than one gunman? Weren't the autopsy doctors ordered to play ball? Barring an inability to fix the wound in a pre-autopsy autopsy, the wound description by the autopsy authors should've been changed a bit so as not to tip off you and Scooby and Velma and the rest of you pesky kids.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:33:45 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>>
>> "On The Spot" Logical fallacy.
>
>Ooh, very nice! Never heard of that one before. I'll have to start using it.

It's actually quite common among believers... they demand that we
produce the assassins, their locations, the weapons they used, etc...
to validate what the evidence already shows.

But it *is* a logical fallacy.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.

We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided it, which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour stretch, and then faced with the evidence too damaging to challenge, decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I have never brought up, now or any other time.

>
>
> When and where were they found? How does one tell if a shell was fired through a silenced weapon?

You ought to read the citations. They were provided. It's amazing the most you can do is whine about these findings, rather than face them like a man and get you thinking about the "why" and "how". This is obviously the first you've heard of these shells. Just admit this is new for you, and that these findings are somewhat peculiar and damaging.

>
> You're begging the question and assuming the bullets have a connection to the crime. You're welcome to provide your reasons, evidence, etc. that the bullets are part of the crime, but you won't.

I look at all the right things correctly, lurkers. Chuck the retard looks at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

>
> I'm contesting it,

Naturally. You must. But JFK lost his life, so at least have enough respect to do it well.

>
> although properly, you should be fitting it together in a narrative and making a positive case for what you think occurred. When and where were these bullets found, and how do you know they were used on a "silenced" rifle? Oh yeah, your theory requires rifles with silencers so you're making your "evidence" fit your theory.

Clearly the shell casings were from a whole 'nother gunfight entirely, many years later. One that was not heard by anyone, or ever reported. It's the only logical explanation.

>
> It doesn't matter how many more or how few because this is a game.

More than zero is the only tally that matters.

>
> You make the rules, you declare yourself the winner, but time marches on and the world cares very little about your theory that thousands killed JFK and covered it up, ordered to his death by LBJ to aid LBJ in avoiding a potential corruption charge.

More whining.

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> > > >
> > > > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
> > >

> > > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick

I've ignored nothing. In a previous post I stated an obvious deductive FACT that either the conclusion or the examination were wrong. I chose which one I believed to be correct, and offered the evidence and the reasoning as to why I believed which one was correct. And you, as always, chose cognitive dissonance.

> >
> > All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?
>
> Not allowed there, expected over here. Go to Jim Hess's site and you'll be treated very fairly.

Ah, so you're telling me if I took Monday's post over there, you'd stand up and refute it like a man?

>
> I have no doubt that this is the worst site on the internet to discuss the JFK assassination. It's a guilty pleasure for me.

What a strange comment to make, from someone who regularly whines that this is "just a game" to CTers.

[Bud]

Beb just used the "begging the question" fallacy, lurkers. The ever popular circular argument that the evidence shows there was a conspiracy and that there was a conspiracy because that is what the evidence shows.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:50:40 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I
>> pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but
>> you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have
>> been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.
>
> We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you
> demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided
> it, which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour
> stretch, and then faced with the evidence too damaging to challenge,
> decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I
> have never brought up, now or any other time.

Yep... that's me. And Chuckles is TERRIFIED of debate with me, I
simply know far more about the case than he ever learned. So for some
strange reason, he thinks your easier pickins...

Not true, of course.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No one is "afraid" of you, idiot.

Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.

Explain to Boris and I when it happened that day and where, who did it, what the proof is for the kidnapping, and so on.

Boris and I agree there was no JFK body snatching.

Make your case. Boris and I are ready to comment on it.

Boris and I are allies now.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 5:50:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.
>
> We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided it,

You didn't provide consilience. Examples were given earlier. A mish-mash of reports of a bullet being found on top of a building years later etc. isn't consilience.

>which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour stretch, and then faced with the evidence too >damaging to challenge, decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I have never >brought up, now or any other time.

So do you believe there were two separate sightings/arrivals of JFK and/or an imposter coffin at Bethesda for the presumptive "pre-autopsy autopsy" Ben says occurred to remove traces of shots and wounds that would point towards a conspiracy? If you do, how did JFK's body get to Bethesda early?

>
> >
> >
> > When and where were they found? How does one tell if a shell was fired through a silenced weapon?
>
> You ought to read the citations. They were provided. It's amazing the most you can do is whine about these findings, rather than face them like a man and get you thinking about the "why" and "how". This is obviously the first you've heard of these shells. Just admit this is new for you, and that these findings are somewhat peculiar and damaging.

Okay I missed the citation (a/k/a a kook claim) about how a bullet found was linked to a CIA rifle with a silencer. Where is the citation?

>
> >
> > You're begging the question and assuming the bullets have a connection to the crime. You're welcome to provide your reasons, evidence, etc. that the bullets are part of the crime, but you won't.
>
> I look at all the right things correctly, lurkers. Chuck the retard looks at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.
>
> >
> > I'm contesting it,
>
> Naturally. You must. But JFK lost his life, so at least have enough respect to do it well.

Asking you to put forward a case requires you to have enough respect for the consideration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom you accuse of being up to his eyeballs in the murder of JFK, and later, RFK. At least have enough respect to do it well.

> >
> > although properly, you should be fitting it together in a narrative and making a positive case for what you think occurred. When and where were these bullets found, and how do you know they were used on a "silenced" rifle? Oh yeah, your theory requires rifles with silencers so you're making your "evidence" fit your theory.
>
> Clearly the shell casings were from a whole 'nother gunfight entirely, many years later. One that was not heard by anyone, or ever reported. It's the only logical explanation.

False dilemma fallacy.

>
> >
> > It doesn't matter how many more or how few because this is a game.
>
> More than zero is the only tally that matters.

Because it's a game. Specifics sink you.

>
> >
> > You make the rules, you declare yourself the winner, but time marches on and the world cares very little about your theory that thousands killed JFK and covered it up, ordered to his death by LBJ to aid LBJ in avoiding a potential corruption charge.
>
> More whining.
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
> > > > >
> > > > > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
> > > >
> > > > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick
>
> I've ignored nothing. In a previous post I stated an obvious deductive FACT that either the conclusion or the examination were wrong.

Dunning-Kruger effect on full display here.

>I chose which one I believed to be correct, and offered the evidence and the reasoning as to why I believed which one was correct. And you, as always, chose cognitive dissonance.

Oh, the irony.

>
> > >
> > > All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?
> >
> > Not allowed there, expected over here. Go to Jim Hess's site and you'll be treated very fairly.
>
> Ah, so you're telling me if I took Monday's post over there, you'd stand up and refute it like a man?

I think they require a real name, so that probably leaves you out.

It can't be refuted to your satisfaction Boris. You're the judge and jury of your theories. Admitting you're wrong at this point in your adult life would require an introspection that you probably don't possess. Once the disease of conspiracism takes root, it is very, very tough to conquer. Read 'Beyond the Truthers,' by Jonathan Kay.

No one was ever able to "refute" Bob Harris' theory of a shooter from the storm drain, Braden in the Dal-Tex building firing shots, Ruby as a Mob killer, and his "startle reactions" theory. The burden is on you to produce a case. So far, you're silent. But maybe you can recruit somebody new to answer your begged questions at Fair Play for JFK.

>
> >
> > I have no doubt that this is the worst site on the internet to discuss the JFK assassination. It's a guilty pleasure for me.
>
> What a strange comment to make, from someone who regularly whines that this is "just a game" to CTers.

Why is it a strange comment to make? It is game to me, and it is a game to you, too. One of us acknowledges it, the other is convinced they're doing real research that will crack this open someday or result in another official investigation, or whatever.

My interest in the case is more as a generalist who is amazed that grown men could actually believe the things they allege could even be pulled off, and then kept quiet for over five decades. There seems to be no self-awareness of how ridiculous most of the claims are, no thought process as to the WHY the events as alleged to have happened needed to even occur. This all falls under something I've mentioned before, conspiracism, and not the more specific allegation of a conspiracy. Nineteen muslims flying planes into buildings on 911 is a conspiracy. Bush/Chaney, the NYPD, FDNY, Port Authority, unknown demo companies, the military, Larry Silverstein, etc. plotting 911 for an insurance scam, oil profits, a New World Order, etc. is conspiracism.

Why not induce a heart attack in JFK with a pill or something?

No answers.

Why not have the evildoers sit him down and say, "Look, Jack. You're not running for a second term or we go public with the affairs with interns, the other scandals, and so on. You're done politically." You know, somewhat"normal" political hardball.

No answers. Actually the answer CTs trot out is that the media wouldn't printed these types of stories in 1963/64 (not true) because they were all friendly with the Kennedys. But WAIT: CTs say the media has been covering up for the assassination for decades. What's your phrase, Boris? Cognitive dissonance?

Why not wait until the 64 elections to see the results?

No answers. Well, actually CTs say JFK would've cruised to re-election in 64. Really? Does the 'Dewey Defeats Truman' banner headline on the front of the Chicago Tribune (I think it was the Trib) ring a bell from 1948? How about a more recent example with Trump over Hillary?

The usual CT tripe is that JFK needed to be "publicly executed" to show those in power where the real power resided...but WAIT: wasn't the idea to pin this on a warped lone gunman? If pulled off successfully, how is any message sent? It's all kept mum, pulled off by a few people, and no wider message is sent. And you kooks think LBJ was behind it! So was LBJ sending a message to HIMSELF?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:05:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:50:40 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I
>> >> pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but
>> >> you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have
>> >> been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.
>> >
>> > We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you
>> > demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided
>> > it, which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour
>> > stretch, and then faced with the evidence too damaging to challenge,
>> > decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I
>> > have never brought up, now or any other time.
>>
>> Yep... that's me. And Chuckles is TERRIFIED of debate with me, I
>> simply know far more about the case than he ever learned. So for some
>> strange reason, he thinks your easier pickins...
>>
>> Not true, of course.
>
>No one is "afraid" of you, idiot.
>
>Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.

Certainly. And we'll do so in a BACK AND FORTH manner. It's not merely
you listening, you will be FORCED to participate.

And the very first item that must be established is the time that the
coffin arrived at Bethesda.

Since I KNOW that you'll refuse to answer, I'll tell you. It arrived
at around 1835.

Now, you'll AGREE to that time, or you'll refute it with citations.

Then we can continue.

(You'll run, of course... you're TERRIFIED of debate with me.)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No, it won't continue, we'll just go back-and-forth arguing about what time the body arrived.


Ben is Shifting the Burden. For the rare lurker, this is an old, old, old conspiracist trick. The kook wants to bait someone into an endless argument on a minor issue that probably can't be successfully resolved with specificity to the minute, thus allowing the kook to claim some hollow victory in their game and avoid providing a positive case for a very complex claim they've made: that JFK's corpse was somehow kidnapped and secretly transported to Bethesda for a secret autopsy. State your damn case for Boris and I that JFK's body was snatched. Provide an affirmative case for what you allege.

Boris and I will decide if your case has any merit, right Boris?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 07:53:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

As I stated, you'll run, of course.... You're TERRIFIED of debate with
me, and this is simply more evidence for that fact.

You can't agree to that time, nor can you refute it. YOU SIMPLY DON'T
KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE EVIDENCE TO DEFEND YOUR FAITH.

> Ben is Shifting the Burden. For the rare lurker, this is an old,
> old, old conspiracist trick. The kook wants to bait someone into an
> endless argument on a minor issue that probably can't be successfully
> resolved with specificity to the minute,

You're lying again, Chuckles... no such specificity was demanded. I
stated "AROUND 1835."

You have evidence for 1840? Fine... GIVE IT.

But don't excuse your cowardice with lies.

> thus allowing the kook to claim some hollow victory in their game
> and avoid providing a positive case for a very complex claim
> they've made:

You can read detailed and cited explanation in many books, the fun in
this forum is to demonstrate the cowardice and dishonesty of all
believers.

I'm doing quite well thanks to your help.

> that JFK's corpse was
> somehow kidnapped and secretly transported to Bethesda for a secret
> autopsy. State your damn case for Boris and I that JFK's body was
> snatched. Provide an affirmative case for what you allege.
>
>Boris and I will decide if your case has any merit, right Boris?

If you cannot even have enough guts to accept the evidence in this
case, then of *course* nothing will ever be accomplished.

But it's not needed to convince *YOU*... it's only necessary to
illustrate yet again that believers, you included, are TERRIFIED of
debate with knowledgeable critics.

Even McAdams ran away from this forum when he got caught in a blatant
lie.

I'm meeting my burden... you aren't. Carry your burden coward!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.
>
> Explain to Boris and I when it happened that day and where, who did it, what the proof is for the kidnapping, and so on.
>
> Boris and I agree there was no JFK body snatching.

Eww, it's trying to attach itself to me. Shoo, lamprey, shoo!

>
> Make your case. Boris and I are ready to comment on it.
>
> Boris and I are allies now.

My friends answer questions.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You didn't provide consilience. Examples were given earlier. A mish-mash of reports of a bullet being found on top of a building years later etc. isn't consilience.

This has been fun, but now I think it's about time you look that word up in the dictionary.

>
> Okay I missed the citation (a/k/a a kook claim)

AKA the FBI documentation, you mean.

>
> about how a bullet found was linked to a CIA rifle with a silencer. Where is the citation?

FBI Doc #62-109060-5898 (12/13/67)

You (meaning NOT you) can read about it here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/silencers-sniper-rifles-the-cia

Careful, there's lots of science in there. Yucky, yucky science.

>
> Asking you to put forward a case requires you to have enough respect for the consideration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom you accuse of being up to his eyeballs in the murder of JFK, and later, RFK. At least have enough respect to do it well.

I don't respect LBJ, and I wish you were one of his enemies, so that you wouldn't be here right now.

> > >
> > > although properly, you should be fitting it together in a narrative and making a positive case for what you think occurred. When and where were these bullets found, and how do you know they were used on a "silenced" rifle? Oh yeah, your theory requires rifles with silencers so you're making your "evidence" fit your theory.

In this case, the evidence came before the theory.

>
> Because it's a game. Specifics sink you.

What specifically sinks me?

(In amusing irony, watch Chuck run from "specifics" now).

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

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
> > > > >
> > > > > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick
> >
> > I've ignored nothing. In a previous post I stated an obvious deductive FACT that either the conclusion or the examination were wrong.
>
> Dunning-Kruger effect on full display here.

The other thing that's on full display is the back of JFK's head with no wound, contrary to the findings of the autopsy report and all the medical experts. This observation is about as obvious as it gets.

> > > >
> > > > All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?
> > >
> > > Not allowed there, expected over here. Go to Jim Hess's site and you'll be treated very fairly.
> >
> > Ah, so you're telling me if I took Monday's post over there, you'd stand up and refute it like a man?

Chuck avoids the question.

>
> I think they require a real name, so that probably leaves you out.

Dumb Fuck Chuck thinks I don't have a real name.

>
> It can't be refuted to your satisfaction Boris.

Science rarely can.

>
> You're the judge and jury of your theories.

You must think I was born with these theories.

>
> Admitting you're wrong at this point in your adult life would require an introspection that you probably don't possess.

What was that idiotic comment about irony?

>
> Once the disease of conspiracism takes root, it is very, very tough to conquer. Read 'Beyond the Truthers,' by Jonathan Kay.

More whining. No borrowing the car for you this weekend.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:10:24 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>>
>> Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.
>>
>> Explain to Boris and I when it happened that day and where, who did it, what the proof is for the kidnapping, and so on.
>>
>> Boris and I agree there was no JFK body snatching.
>
>Eww, it's trying to attach itself to me. Shoo, lamprey, shoo!

No envy here... He's all yours!

(Yeah, I know... with friends like me...)

>> Make your case. Boris and I are ready to comment on it.
>>
>> Boris and I are allies now.
>
>My friends answer questions.

My friends are honest. And cowardice isn't in their nature. I think
Chuckles simply wants an honest friend...

[Bud]

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:35:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:05:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:50:40 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I
> >> >> pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but
> >> >> you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have
> >> >> been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.
> >> >
> >> > We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you
> >> > demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided
> >> > it, which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour
> >> > stretch, and then faced with the evidence too damaging to challenge,
> >> > decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I
> >> > have never brought up, now or any other time.
> >>
> >> Yep... that's me. And Chuckles is TERRIFIED of debate with me, I
> >> simply know far more about the case than he ever learned. So for some
> >> strange reason, he thinks your easier pickins...
> >>
> >> Not true, of course.
> >
> >No one is "afraid" of you, idiot.
> >
> >Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.
>
> Certainly. And we'll do so in a BACK AND FORTH manner. It's not merely
> you listening, you will be FORCED to participate.

Beb is just being retarded here, lurkers. *THIS* is how it works. Beb puts his idea up, and we look at it and see if it is valid.

> And the very first item that must be established is the time that the
> coffin arrived at Bethesda.

Let Beb use any information he likes in support of his idea, lurkers.

> Since I KNOW that you'll refuse to answer, I'll tell you. It arrived
> at around 1835.

What is the significance of that time, lurkers? Beb doesn`t say. He doesn`t say how the time supports any ideas he has.

> Now, you'll AGREE to that time, or you'll refute it with citations.

Why can`t we just wait until Beb puts this idea of his on the table for consideration, lurkers?

> Then we can continue.
>
> (You'll run, of course... you're TERRIFIED of debate with me.)

How can we examine Beb`s ideas if he is afraid to say what they are, lurkers?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More misdirection. My Fan Club President Boris and myself would like you to lay out your case that JFK's body was kidnapped. Let's hear it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:00:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

How silly! Once again, you run.

Does cowardice run in your family? Or are you the only coward?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:24:08 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You didn't provide consilience. Examples were given earlier. A mish-mash of reports of a bullet being found on top of a building years later etc. isn't consilience.
>
> This has been fun, but now I think it's about time you look that word up in the dictionary.
>
> >
> > Okay I missed the citation (a/k/a a kook claim)
>
> AKA the FBI documentation, you mean.
>
> >
> > about how a bullet found was linked to a CIA rifle with a silencer. Where is the citation?
>
> FBI Doc #62-109060-5898 (12/13/67)
>
> You (meaning NOT you) can read about it here:
>
> https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/silencers-sniper-rifles-the-cia
>
> Careful, there's lots of science in there. Yucky, yucky science.

Okay, I read the piece. Nothing in there about the bullet being linked to a CIA rifle with a silencer. Re-read it for comprehension this time.

>
> >
> > Asking you to put forward a case requires you to have enough respect for the consideration of Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom you accuse of being up to his eyeballs in the murder of JFK, and later, RFK. At least have enough respect to do it well.
>
> I don't respect LBJ, and I wish you were one of his enemies, so that you wouldn't be here right now.

I think he was a horrible president, but if you're going to accuse him of masterminding the murder of his predecessor (and of ordering RFK's death, too), you need to put a case forward instead of engaging in a five decade-plus smear campaign.

>
> > > >
> > > > although properly, you should be fitting it together in a narrative and making a positive case for what you think occurred. When and where were these bullets found, and how do you know they were used on a "silenced" rifle? Oh yeah, your theory requires rifles with silencers so you're making your "evidence" fit your theory.
>
> In this case, the evidence came before the theory.

Your article does not link the bullet to a CIA rifle fitted with a silencer, doofus. Nor can you explain why rounds of different calibers would be used to then pin this on a lone gunman. The entire thing is retarded.

>
>
> >
> > Because it's a game. Specifics sink you.
>
> What specifically sinks me?
>
> (In amusing irony, watch Chuck run from "specifics" now).

We could sit here all day and do this. Using the Z film for reference, at what frame was the shot from the south knoll fired through the windshield on the limo?

Why did the Parkland doctors filmed by NOVA in 1988 agree the wounds they were shown from the autopsy photos were as they remembered the wounds in the operating room?

What devastating information could Karyn Kupcinet possibly have had regarding the assassination that lead LBJ's murderous henchmen to silence her?

Why wasn't the Zapruder film simply destroyed?

What proof do you have that LBJ was afraid of a corruption charge or being dropped from the ticket and thus decided to murder LBJ?

Who was Jack Thompson and where was he on November 22nd when JD Tippit was killed?

>
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy report, pg. 3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the autopsy in favor of something he can cherry-pick
> > >
> > > I've ignored nothing. In a previous post I stated an obvious deductive FACT that either the conclusion or the examination were wrong.
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger effect on full display here.
>
> The other thing that's on full display is the back of JFK's head with no wound, contrary to the findings of the autopsy report and all the medical experts. This observation is about as obvious as it gets.

Yet the pre-autopsy autopsy didn't correct this. Why? Yet the Parkland doctors in 1988 agreed the wounds were as they remembered them. Why? Yet every investigation that has ever looked at the medical evidence has said there's no proof the x-rays and photos were tampered with and that the conclusion the head shot was fired from above and behind is correct. Why?

It's Boris and Ben against the world, arms akimbo, shaking their tiny fists towards the heavens and cursing the AmeriKKKa that dare kill Camelot with silenced weapons, and five years later, MLK Camelot and Bobby Camelot, killed with secret mind control projects and girls in red polka-dot dresses.

>
> > > > >
> > > > > All you're doing is mocking me. What does your Fair Play for JFK Facebook Group have to say about that?
> > > >
> > > > Not allowed there, expected over here. Go to Jim Hess's site and you'll be treated very fairly.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you're telling me if I took Monday's post over there, you'd stand up and refute it like a man?
>
> Chuck avoids the question.

Sure. Post over there. It'll be fun, but no, I can't refute you to your satisfaction. That's impossible. No committed Truther has ever lost an argument. When faced with something that would force them to question their faith, they just expand the conspiracy to include the new information, thus this is a game. Nothing gets resolved, nothing is ever narrowed down.

>
> >
> > I think they require a real name, so that probably leaves you out.
>
> Dumb Fuck Chuck thinks I don't have a real name.

What's your real name, or should I just look for the profile pic of a fat, old white guy under a tinfoil beanie with a spinning propeller on top wearing an 'Investigate 911' shirt?

>
> >
> > It can't be refuted to your satisfaction Boris.
>
> Science rarely can.

Boris is smarter than science.

>
> >
> > You're the judge and jury of your theories.
>
> You must think I was born with these theories.

I think some people are pre-disposed to believe in conspiracism. You're apparently one of them. 911, RFK, JFK, etc. are all unsolved mysteries in your mind.

>
> >
> > Admitting you're wrong at this point in your adult life would require an introspection that you probably don't possess.
>
> What was that idiotic comment about irony?

Touche, but when I was in HS in the 70s, I once believed a conspiracy took JFK's life. I believed the HSCA. But I grew up. Introspection. I've been to Dealey Plaza, and once you see how close the shots were, how exposed the knoll shooter position is to where Zapruder was standing, etc. it puts a different spin on it, in my opinion. The shots weren't tough, the distances weren't far, the shooter behind the stockade fence is an untenable position, a ridiculous spot to put a hit team. To top it off per the HSCA, this knoll guy fired a shot THAT MISSED. Hurry, GO FIND THAT GUY, and we can all go home.

>
> >
> > Once the disease of conspiracism takes root, it is very, very tough to conquer. Read 'Beyond the Truthers,' by Jonathan Kay.
>
> More whining. No borrowing the car for you this weekend.

Not whining at all. Read the book. You and Ben are on almost every page.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

That wasn't the topic, moron.

You're reading too quickly, and desperate to find something wrong with
everything I post.

And when you don't even realize what the topic is, you end up looking
stupid.

The topic was how frequently believers like you demand evidence far
beyond that necessary to make the case. There's no "begging the
question" involved, this followed a specific case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:28:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Anyone notice Puddy's fear of answering too?

>> >> If a subject broached incriminating, they subtly and swiftly
>> >> changed the topic, or led the witness elsewhere. They just didn't
>> >> address it anymore. It happened a lot. Being lawyers smarter than me,
>> >> they knew how to divert quite well. A number of FBI statements were
>> >> altered, however, as stated firsthand by the witnesses themselves. All
>> >> the "mistaken" ones.
>>
>> A good example is James Chaney - who went on record just hours after
>> the event.
>
> Saying the shots came from behind him, lurkers. he was a good
> witness for the conclusions of the WC.

You're lying again, Puddy. And this lie has PREVIOUSLY come up, too.

So you *KNOW* you're lying.

>> The Warren Commission was DEATHLY afraid of his testimony,
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

Nope. It's the only *CREDIBLE* explanation. You refuse to even *try*
to explain, because you know you can't.

>> so they refused to call him.
>>
>> > Apparently not all the mistaken ones, as they left in the juicy ones
>> > which "prove" conspiracy to you.
>>
>> Proves it to you, too. Since you clearly have no credible and
>> non-conspiratorial explanations for the evidence we raise, you know
>> you CANNOT explain it.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> So you realize that it *DOES* support a conspiracy.
>
> Why isn`t Ben using it in his case showing conspiracy in this
> event, lurkers. What does his failure to do this have to do with
> anyone else?

The failure to call James Chaney clearly shows that the Warren
Commission was evading evidence when they could, that would show the
conspiracy that they were covering up.

>> >>> Nah. The wacky stuff was listened to, weighed, and ultimately
>> >>> given less weight than the substantial stuff that had CONSILIENCE
>> >>> (there's that word again).
>> >>
>> >> Yup, so little consilience there’s a veritable Gish Gallop's worth
>> >> of corroborative statements for you to choose from and deny.
>> >
>> > Corroborate what? Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Who? How many shots?
>> > Fired from where and using the Z film frames for reference, when?
>>
>> Boris just got through schooling you on the evidence for more than
>> simply three shots, and you just RAN from half of them, and denied the
>> rest.
>
> There was evidence there was a dog in the limo, lurkers.

Non sequitur.

>> And just after Puddles schools you on the fact that you can't see
>> bullets in the Z-film, you go and demand to be shown where they are.
>>
>> How silly of you, Chucky!
>>
>> > I'm not denying the statements, Truther, and neither did the WC
>> > "deny" the statements. They're in the report
>>
>> Now you're merely lying. The Warren Commission never even knew of most
>> of these extra bullets, and even those they knew about - THEY DIDN'T
>> EXPLAIN AWAY. They called no eyewitnesses to testify.
>
> Beb should use these extra bullets in the case he will never make, lurkers.

And here we have another coward, unwilling to publicly admit that
Chuckles was just caught lying.

>> You won't cite any - so the proof that you lied is crystal clear.
>>
>> You claim that "They're in the report," but you're a liar. You'll
>> NEVER cite for that claim.
>>
>> Have you even *read* the Warren Commission Report???
>>
>> > (that you malign) for you to cherry-pick and use as tinker toys to
>> > build your unique conspiracy.
>>
>> Yep... like most of America, we "malign" the WCR. You are in the
>> minority.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.

You're lying again, Puddles. Anyone can view the polling data for
themselves.

>> > (Whatever that may be. You still haven't shared it.)
>>
>> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. Deal with it.
>
> Just one, lurkers. Now what?

"One" is not "multiple."

>> Or run away again as you usually do.
>>
>> > The statements which still frighten you almost 55 years later do
>> > not do is provide (drumroll) CONSILIENCE for other parts of the case
>> > to come together.
>>
>> Can you QUOTE these alleged statements that frighten us?
>
> Heres one, lurkers...
>
> Roger Craig`s testimony...
>
> Mr. BELIN - How many shells did you see there?
>
> Mr. CRAIG - I saw three.
>
> Lurkers watch as Beb handwaves this away or misdirects somewhere else.

Why would that "frighten me?" I have no problem with such testimony.

Indeed, you HATE Roger Craig's testimony, much of which you don't
accept.

>> I know I can easily quote statements that YOU run from, been doing so
>> for many years... (indeed, there's a good example in this very post)
>> but I've never seen something that I run from.
>>
>> Where is it Chuckles?
>>
>> Make Puddles laugh, quote something that frightens me.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>>> Or be proven a liar yet again.
>>
>> >> > No consilience for what Boris trots out. None.
>> >>
>> >> Well....some.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm#boswell
>> >>
>> >> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
>> >> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>> >> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>> >> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
>> >> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter." - JFK Autopsy
>> >> report, pg. 3
>> >
>> > Ah, and it's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to his little Linus
>> > blanket, the 13cm defect.
>>
>> And it's ad hominem time for the single sentence from the Autopsy
>> Report that invariably forces believers to run away.
>
> Have lurkers seen these guys go anywhere with this information?
> They quote it, but they can`t seem to use it is support of an idea.

You're lying again, Puddles. It's frequently used to point out that
the BOH photo is a fake.

>> > Boris the Truther somehow manages to ignore the conclusions of the
>> > autopsy
>>
>> Boris, and any intelligent honest man, will easily disregard
>> "conclusions" that aren't supported by the evidence.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> But **YOU** don't even believe the Autopsy Report. You're TERRIFIED
>> each time this topic comes up.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> > in favor of something he can cherry-pick and build his conspiracy
>> > involving LBJ, Hoover and the FBI, the CIA, Mob, MIC, SS, and so on,
>> > which not only killed JFK, but also took Bobby's life five years later
>> > involving an assassin under an MK Ultra mind-control project ensuring
>> > LBJ's role in the JFK assassination could be kept quiet.
>>
>> This is what I like to call verbal vomit. It invariably comes out when
>> the topic is something that terrifies believers.
>
> These are the sorts of ideas these guys hold, lurkers. But they
> don`t let you see them because they know they are ridiculous, and they
> are ashamed of them.

We aren't ashamed of what we actually *DO* say.

Why would we be?

>> The Autopsy Report invariably brings it out. You **NEED** the Autopsy
>> Report to get your "two shots from the rear" - but you HATE the fact
>> that you really don't believe that statement quoted by Boris.
>
> He quoted it, what idea did he support with it, lurkers?

It proves the BOH photo is a fake.

>> And you're TERRIFIED of admitting that fact publicly. You NEED that
>> Autopsy Report.
>

>I'm a retard.

>
>> > But they didn't account for investigoogler Boris and Scooby and the
>> > rest of those pesky kids in the Mystery Machine. Curses! The New World
>> > Order is foiled again!
>>
>> More silliness by Chuckles to evade the fact that he's got nothing to
>> say about the Autopsy Report.
>>
>> And can't explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
>
> Let Beb use whatever he likes in this case he will never make, lurkers.

Been there, done that, you ran.

>> > By the way, the question involved the issue of consilience. How does
>> > the 13cm defect in the autopsy report provide consilience
>>
>> Tut tut tut, moron. DEFINE "consilience" - then let Boris simply
>> repost what he posted.
>
> Lurkers...
>
> "the linking together of principles from different disciplines especially when forming a comprehensive theory."
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> > for what you allege when you can't even specify what it is you
>> > allege? This defect PROVES a second shot to JFK's head? From where?
>> > The HSCA said the knoll shooter missed and Oswald Alone was
>> > responsible for the wounds.
>>
>> You don't believe the HSCA, so why bother to cite it?
>

> They found that the same idea valid that the WC found valid...


No, they didn't. They came to contradictory conclusions regarding
conspiracy.

This is why you rarely see believers citing the HSCA.

>> > And again, WHY was the description of the 13cm defect not modified
>> > in the report
>>
>> It provably was.
>>
>> You're a PROVABLE liar.
>>
>> I'll bet that even you, were you honest enough, could tell us what the
>> ORIGINAL size of that wound as "found" in the autopsy was.
>
> Beb seems to have an idea but is ashamed to say what it is, lurkers.

Not "ashamed" at all, coward. You know the answer too, yet you refuse
to point out that Chuckles lied.

>> Go ahead, Chuckles - TELL US WHAT THE *LARGER* WOUND DESCRIPTION WAS,
>> and where it can be found.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> Or run away like a coward from your lie ...
>>
>> >which was also allegedly under "military control"
>>
>> Some people might excuse such a lie based on you never having served
>> in the military. But I don't.
>

> I'm a retard.


You're now answering the part of the post that Chuckles snipped.

>> The average American certainly realizes that an autopsy conducted by
>> military officers, directed by their superiors, on a military base -
>> constitutes "military control."
>
> So they could have said "Shoot everyone in the gallery" and the
> soldiers on duty just would. Nobody has any control of their own
> action under such conditions.
>
> Nonsense.

Indeed it is. Puddy is now whining that the military are filled with
morons.

> And Jackie picked Bethesda over Walter Reed on a whim

You're lying again, Puddy.

> are we to believe three other prosectors could be called there and
> they would just as easily fall in line? Not people at all, really,
> just robots following orders.

Your idea of the military is vastly deficit. You'll have everyone
who's ever served laughing at you.

>> But a moron like you blatantly denies the obvious.
>
> The obvious, lurkers, is that if someone would have approached
> Humes to do the things Beb alleges, he could have told them to stick
> it up their ass, and there wouldn`t have been a damned thing they
> could do to him.

They're laughing at you, slacker... you're not even good enough to be
a REMF.

>> That can only be a desperate lie on your part.
>>
>> > and also allegedly
>> > involved planners literally willing to risk EVERYTHING by kidnapping
>> > JFK's corpse at some point and ordering HB&F to "play ball" and
>> > perform a pre-autopsy autopsy?
>>
>> Ah! But you *BELIEVE* this to be true. If you didn't, you'd be HAPPY
>> to tell me when the coffin arrived at Bethesda.
>
> Why doesn`t Beb use that time to put forth a compelling argument, lurkers?

And another believer proves his cowardice...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 11:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:27:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 10:49:33 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 07:43:39 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:22:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 21:59:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >At another post, Boris wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Your challenge is a "moving the goalpost" fallacy waiting to happen.
>> >> >> > But there's no need to recreate anything. It was done the first time,
>> >> >> > on Nov. 22 1963, and that was enough. All the evidence is there. Would
>> >> >> > you like to revisit some of it? I'll be sporting and let you decide
>> >> >> > which evidence we can discuss.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks Boris, I appreciate you being a good sport and letting me
>> >> >> > decide which evidence we can discuss.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, you RUN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD at each of these topics. Why
>> >> >> is that, coward?
>> >> >
>> >> > Not helping your cause that thousands killed JFK in a multi-city,
>> >> > multi-agency plot that also claimed the life of RFK years later.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You'll have to fight your own strawmen.
>> >>
>> >> I've never said anything like that, nor would I.
>> >
>> > Um, yeah, you've been saying it right here (or words to the same
>> > effect) for almost twenty years.
>>
>>
>> You've been claiming to molest children & animals right here (or words
>> to the same effect) as long as you've been posting.
>>
>> And I'll CITE it as soon as you cite for my words.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > Let's talk about consilience, and no, not your misidentified "aural"
>> >> >> > consilience claim that we all had a good laugh over recently.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The WC concluded three shots were fired at the motorcade. Evidence
>> >> >> > is strongest when there is consilience, and here are some of the
>> >> >> > things that strengthen the conclusion three shots were fired:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Watch as you start in lying...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 1.) Most earwitnesses who were questioned or expressed an opinion as
>> >> >> > to the number of shots stated three shots were fired.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This argument from the very morons who despite opinion polls on the
>> >> >> JFK case???
>> >> >
>> >> > Opinion polls thought Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (spelling?) was
>> >> > telling the truth about Kavanaugh.
>> >>
>> >> Don't you just HATE our American justice system? You know, the one
>> >> that regards everyone as innocent until *PROVEN* guilty?
>> >
>> > Oswald never had a trial.
>>
>>
>> Associate Justice Kavanaugh never had a trial.
>>
>>
>> >He is historically guilty.
>>
>>
>> Oh? Where is that found in our Constitution?
>>
>>
>> >> >> > 2.) News reports were on the air in the immediate minutes after the
>> >> >> > attack stating three shots fired.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This argument from the very morons who whine that there was confusion
>> >> >> in the early moments?
>> >> >
>> >> > Cherry picking fallacy. Early reports did indeed broadcast three
>> >> > shots fired in their bulletins. Consilience.
>> >>
>> >> I'll save this for the next time you whine that the earliest reports
>> >> were driven by confusion.
>> >
>> > Which accounts for so much of the misinformation.
>>
>>
>> Tut tut tut, Chuckyypicker...
>>
>>
>> >> >> >3.) An earwitness on the floor below who described three shots above
>> >> >> > him and the bolt working, "BOOM, click-click. BOOM, click-click. BOOM,
>> >> >> > click-click.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of course, what Chuckles forgets to mention is that Harold Norman made
>> >> >> no mention of this until 12 days later, after Elmer Moore helped coax
>> >> >> a new story out of him... the same Elmer Moore who convinced Malcolm
>> >> >> Perry into changing his story.
>> >> >
>> >> > So Elmer Moore is part of the conspiracy? I'll add that to your
>> >> > Benny tracker 2018 list.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone notice that Chuckles refused to apologize for lying to us?
>> >>
>> >> Or refuting the evidence I mentioned?
>> >
>> >Word salad.
>>
>>
>> Caught lying again, weren't you?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Nor does Chuckles mention the photo showing just *TWO* empty shells.
>
> Crime scene photo taken the day of the assassination, lurkers. The
> shells were circled by Luke Mooney, the officer who found the shells.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce510.jpg

You're lying again, Puddy.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/warren2.htm


>> >> > More cherry-picking. Consilience shows three shots from the TSBD,
>> >> > plenty of evidence for it.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone notice that Chuckles couldn't explain the known facts, and
>> >> refused yet again to apologize for lying?
>> >
>> >Word salad.
>>
>>
>> Caught lying again...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > 4.) Three spent shells were found on the floor above where the
>> >> >> > earwitness heard three shots.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Originally, of course - the evidence only showed *two* shells.
>> >> >
>> >> >Define originally
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> o?ig??al?y
>> >>
>> >> adverb
>> >>
>> >> 1. from or in the beginning; at first.
>> >
>> >Like the original reports of three shots fired?
>>
>> Like the original reports of shots from the Grassy Knoll?
>
> Some people expressed this...


So we must accept it, because it's EXACTLY like the "original reports
of three shots fired."

Good of you to admit it.


>> >> > On 911, it was "originally" reported that a small plane had hit the
>> >> > WTC.
>> >>
>> >> What's your point, moron? Are you asserting early confusion??? Moments
>> >> after dismissing it?
>> >
>> >I don't dismiss it.
>>
>>
>> Ah! So our forum's moron thinks it was a small plane that hit the WTC.
>>
>> Puddy will explain to you the error of looking at the wrong evidence
>> wrongly.
>
> It is the exact thing to focus on...


I knew Puddy would get excited...


>> >> >> >5.) The shells are a ballistic match to the rifle that was found.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would be quite stupid of the plotters were this not so... but once
>> >> >> again, Chuckles refuses to mention the evidence showing that one of
>> >> >> those shells wasn't fired from the Mannlicher Carcano.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yet it was concluded that those shells were fired from Oswald's
>> >> > rifle. Consilience. Forensics. Common sense. Occam's Razor.
>> >>
>> >> It was, of course, physically impossible for CE 543 to have been fired
>> >> in the Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.


Don't need to support a claim you refuse to publicly state isn't true.


>> >Yet ...
>>
>>
>> There's *NOTHING* you can say that allows a physical impossibility to
>> occur. Unless, of course, you're appealing to a miracle. If you did,
>> Puddy would have words with you...


And Puddy remains silent...



>> >> >> > 6.) The wounds to JFK and JBC can be explained by three shots or
>> >> >> > less.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not by the evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yet it was concluded that the wounds to JFK and JBC could be
>> >> > explained by three shots or less.
>> >>
>> >> Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.
>> >
>> >Yet ...
>>
>>
>> Not, however, by utilizing the evidence.
>>
>>
>> >> >> >There is much, much more, but I'll stop.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Of *COURSE* you'll stop. Telling lies really takes it out of you,
>> >> >> particularly when you know you'll be challenged to cite.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's your job. Start citing for the consilience of the evidence
>> >> > that seven or eight shots were fired at the motorcade. Get moving,
>> >> > it's going on 55 years now.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Such a coward, eh Chucky!?
>> >
>> >The Loser's Admission.
>>
>>
>> Being called a "loser" by a proven coward isn't very damaging, is it
>> Chuckles?
>>
>>
>> >> >> > What is the body of evidence--consilience--for seven or eight shots
>> >> >> > or more or whatever you thinks was fired at the limo?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The witnesses.
>> >> >
>> >> > Most witnesses reported three shots. How many reported seven or
>> >> > eight? Consilience leans towards three, only two or three shots are
>> >> > needed to explain the crime.
>> >>
>> >> Most Americans accept a conspiracy in this case.
>> >>
>> >> Which fallacy is this again?
>> >
>> >Argumentum ad Populum.
>>
>>
>> So why are you asserting what "most witnesses" reported?
>>
>>
>> >> >>The limo.
>> >> >
>> >> > The limo does not provide consilience for seven or eight shots. The
>> >> > damage can be explained with the three shots (or less) that was
>> >> > concluded were fired from Oswald's rifle.
>> >>
>> >> Then you'll be able to explain why the limo was illegally taken out of
>> >> the jurisdiction of the crime committed, and rebuilt before the WC
>> >> even met for the first time.
>> >>
>> >> But I predict you'll run.
>> >
>> >You're begging the question.
>>
>>
>> Since you failed to refute it, or even *disagree* with the fact that
>> the limo was illegally removed from its rightful jurisdiction, you
>> know you lost, don't you?
>
> It is up to Ben to establish these things, lurkers.


No stupid, it's up to you to publicly deny that the Secret Service
didn't illegally remove evidence from its proper jurisdiction.

Then I'll be happy to spank you again.


>> >> >>The testimony of the doctors.
>> >> >
>> >> >Who concluded JFK was only hit by two shots, from above and behind.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>> >
>> >That's Benspeak for he has no response.
>>
>>
>> No, that's merely me pointing out that you're a provable liar.
>>
>> Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
>> Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three.
>> Mr. DULLES - Why do you say three?
>> Dr. SHAW - He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest,
>> a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
>>
>> Caught lying, and PROVEN by a quote. I can, of course, cite for this
>> if you can't find it.
>
> Was Chuck referring to the doctors who conducted the autopsy, lurkers?


I was. And **I** was the one who mentioned their testimony. Are you so
stupid that you can't follow the debate?



>> >> >> > No Fringe Reset, no begged questions, just discuss the consilience
>> >> >> > of evidence for the seven or eight shots, etc. "your side" alleges
>> >> >> > were fired at the motorcade.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You'll only run again.
>> >> >
>> >> >Lame.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Running, aren't you Chuckles?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > There's no evidentiary consilience for seven or eight shots, period.
>> >> > This was invented by "your side" as part of your triangulation of fire
>> >> > involving hit teams in the TSBD, south knoll and grassy knoll.

>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> >> http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Griffith/Extra_Bullets_and_Missed_Shots.html
>> >
>> > Nothing in there ...
>>
>> About more than three bullets?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:00:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 10:35:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:05:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:50:40 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We were discussing consilience, and you moved the goalposts. I
>> >> >> pointed out that stealing JFK's corpse would've been tricky, too, but
>> >> >> you have no problem believing it because you NEED the body to have
>> >> >> been kidnapped to fit your wacky theory.
>> >> >
>> >> > We were discussing three shots fired, actually, in which you
>> >> > demanded a "body of evidence" pointing to more than that. I provided
>> >> > it, which thankfully resulted in shutting you up for a 24-hour
>> >> > stretch, and then faced with the evidence too damaging to challenge,
>> >> > decided to turn things over to the corpse-snatching thing, which I
>> >> > have never brought up, now or any other time.
>> >>
>> >> Yep... that's me. And Chuckles is TERRIFIED of debate with me, I
>> >> simply know far more about the case than he ever learned. So for some
>> >> strange reason, he thinks your easier pickins...
>> >>
>> >> Not true, of course.
>> >
>> >No one is "afraid" of you, idiot.
>> >
>> >Let's debate your theory that JFK's body was snatched.
>>
>> Certainly. And we'll do so in a BACK AND FORTH manner. It's not merely
>> you listening, you will be FORCED to participate.
>

> I'm retarded.

>
>> And the very first item that must be established is the time that the
>> coffin arrived at Bethesda.
>
> Let Beb use any information he likes in support of his idea, lurkers.

You can cite the relevant documentation as well as I can.

You're too smart to deny it, because you know I have the citation
ready to go.

>> Since I KNOW that you'll refuse to answer, I'll tell you. It arrived
>> at around 1835.
>
> What is the significance of that time, lurkers? Beb doesn`t say.
> He doesn`t say how the time supports any ideas he has.

Nor will I until you cowards man up and acknowledge the facts, one by
one.

You're DESPERATE for something that you can deny. So start with the
time. Let's get step one done before we go to step two.

>> Now, you'll AGREE to that time, or you'll refute it with citations.
>
> Why can`t we just wait until Beb puts this idea of his on the
> table for consideration, lurkers?

Nah... educating you fools isn't my purpose. I've told you time and
time again that my purpose here is to prove believers to be the
cowards and liars that you are.

You illlustrate it time and time again.

>> Then we can continue.
>>
>> (You'll run, of course... you're TERRIFIED of debate with me.)
>
> How can we examine Beb`s ideas if he is afraid to say what they
> are, lurkers?

The same way you're "examining" the time that the coffin arrived at
Bethesda... by running from it.