The WC weren't human?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

A question posed in the other forum asks: What is the number one reason people believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case?

THE resident moron Chuck has the answer:

"The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
where there is none."

As far as I know, the Warren Commission was made up of seven humans, all of whom failed to succumb to their "nature" and find any patterns whatsoever, even when they were repeatedly slapped across the face with pattern after pattern after pattern. It's almost as if they had no...."desire".....to find a pattern, and keep things as simple as possible.

But one is free to read Chuck's post in full. You should see how it's worded. The Idiot pontificates, like it thinks it's smart. Literally sad.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol, the Truther has even resorted to creeping on me at other discussion boards. What's next? A defaced copy of 'Case Closed' mailed to my house?

I live rent-free in this Truther's mind, 24/7.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
>
> Lol, the Truther

Another charge unanswered by a LNer. Add it to the list.

>
> I live rent-free in this Truther's mind, 24/7.

Oh, it's not free. It's costing you your dignity.

[David Healy]

you actually disgrace yourself posting elsewhere?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 10:01:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Lol, the Truther
>
> Another charge unanswered by a LNer. Add it to the list.

As if your "charges" are worthy of my time.

>
> >
> > I live rent-free in this Truther's mind, 24/7.
>
> Oh, it's not free. It's costing you your dignity.

Says the guy who chases me around the internet.

But I guess when the sum-total of one's adulthood primarily consists of researching Dorothy Kilgallen's "mysterious death" and being consumed over the lack of WTC7 mentions at the 911 museum, following me around like a lost puppy is a big improvement.

Hey, maybe you're the one Fetching the Stick.

My fan club president is obviously a little annoyed tonight!

Spark a bowl and chill, Truther. Mommy's going to bring a Hot Pocket down to the basement while you continue your investigoogling well into the night. Alert the media when you figure out the significance of what the Parkland witnesses saw.

What a moron!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Another charge unanswered by a LNer. Add it to the list.
>
> As if your "charges" are worthy of my time.

No, just your endless and inane responses at 12:30 at night.

> >
> > >
> > > I live rent-free in this Truther's mind, 24/7.
> >
> > Oh, it's not free. It's costing you your dignity.
>
> Says the guy who chases me around the internet.

Sounds like Chuck is desiring to find a pattern where this is none. He seems to be conflicted with a disease known as conspiracism.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nice try. Maybe the drunk and the midget will buy it.

Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.

Should I alert you the next time I'm going to post somewhere so you can press your nose to the glass and creep on me?

What a pathetic waste of cells you are. I'll bet your dad won't be picking up the phone tomorrow if you bother to call.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > >
> > > > > I live rent-free in this Truther's mind, 24/7.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, it's not free. It's costing you your dignity.
> > >
> > > Says the guy who chases me around the internet.
> >
> > Sounds like Chuck is desiring to find a pattern where this is none. He seems to be conflicted with a disease known as conspiracism.
>
> Nice try. Maybe the drunk and the midget will buy it.
>
> Sounds like I hit the nail on the head.
>
> Should I alert you the next time I'm going to post somewhere so you can press your nose to the glass and creep on me?
>
> What a pathetic waste of cells you are. I'll bet your dad won't be picking up the phone tomorrow if you bother to call.

Ooh, sounds like I hit the nail on the head with this one. I live rent-free in Truther Chuck's mind, 24/7.

And still, Shmucky's amateur analysis of "human nature" remains debunked and undefended.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

"The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order

where there is none." - Idiot Schuyler

And yet the "human nature" of the Warren Commission was such that it found no patterns. Must have been their lack of "desire" to do so.

Flush.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 9:55:55 AM UTC-7, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> A question posed in the other forum asks: What is the number one reason people believe in a conspiracy in the JFK case?
>
> THE resident moron Chuck has the answer:
>
> "The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
> where there is none."
>
> As far as I know, the Warren Commission was made up of seven humans, all of whom failed to succumb to their "nature" and find any patterns whatsoever, even when they were repeatedly slapped across the face with pattern after pattern after pattern.

One example. Counsel David Belin asked four witnesses how wide the depository shooter's window was open. Three--Brennan, Fischer, Edwards--said the window was all the way open. A fourth--Couch--wasn't sure, but he thought he remembered it being wide open. What did Belin do with his knowledge? Answer: nothing.

dcw

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:07:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> "The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
> where there is none." - Idiot Schuyler

Look like the experts agree with me, Boris Dunning-Kruger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Conspiracism

https://www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/what-is-conspiracism/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/qa-jonathan-kay-on-our-vast-conspiracist-subculture-83624/

>
> And yet the "human nature" of the Warren Commission was such that it found no patterns.

The WC was comprised of non-kooks.

>Must have been their lack of "desire" to do so.

Or the lack of a conspiracy to find.


"Something else happened on 11-22-63, somehow." --Boris the Truther

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:06:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:07:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
>> where there is none." - Idiot Schuyler
>
>Look like the experts agree with me, Boris Dunning-Kruger.

No, you're lying again, Chuckles... here's the proof:


On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:46:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 4:07:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:47:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:14:23 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> In a post (previously ignored by ALL lone nutters collectively), resident imbecile Chuck "No Confederates" Schuyler claimed conspiracy theorists all suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, pretending that we claim to know more than "the experts." Of course when pressed, none of these "experts" are ever identified by believers. When we identify them, believers cry they are "the wrong ones". And despite thread after thread of critics posting findings contrary to the LN narrative which experts agree with, the Idiot returns to this well again and again. It's the surest sign of a loser who can't stop being a loser.
>>>>
>>>> So let's see if critics agree with the experts....or if "Biff" Schuyler does....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I refuse to accept what the experts say." --Chuckles Dunning-Kruger [not a real quite, but as we'll soon find out it might as well be]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. DULLES - Just one other question. Am I correct in assuming from
>>>> what you have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a
>>>> wound that might have been administered if the shot were fired from in
>>>> front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind the
>>>> President?
>>>>
>>>> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have
>>>> been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than
>>>> behind.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes,
>>>> could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment
>>>> passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
>>>> Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor
>>>> Connally's right wrist?
>>>>
>>>> Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely ... The reason I
>>>> believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either
>>>> of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket
>>>> appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could
>>>> possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given
>>>> us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399,
>>>> could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally's thigh?
>>>>
>>>> Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which
>>>> inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
>>>>
>>>> Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments
>>>> described in that wrist.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have
>>>> inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at
>>>> this point to the wound of the President's neck?
>>>>
>>>> Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all
>>>> of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing
>>>> more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of
>>>> the bullet. (Discussion off the record.)
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However,
>>>> examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations
>>>> and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either
>>>> effecting identification or a determination that the print was not
>>>> identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply
>>>> was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
>>>> was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
>>>>
>>>> Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Perry: "There was an entrance wound in the neck..."
>>>>
>>>> Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"
>>>> Perry: "It appeared to be coming at him."...
>>>>
>>>> Question: "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the
>>>> front in the throat?"
>>>>
>>>> Perry: "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
>>>> throat; yes, that is correct.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a
>>>> cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive
>>>> wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and
>>>> portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of
>>>> underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that
>>>> I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in
>>>> such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and
>>>> I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been
>>>> extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of
>>>> the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp
>>>> and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as
>>>> well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral
>>>> haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way
>>>> that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see
>>>> that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior
>>>> cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted
>>>> out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly
>>>> from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted
>>>> open.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head
>>>> wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
>>>>
>>>> Dr. CARRICO - Sure.
>>>> This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital
>>>> region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area,
>>>> with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable
>>>> slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more
>>>> profuse bleeding from this wound.
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************
>>>>
>>>> This is a very small handful of examples stemming from a much
>>>> broader pattern. In the past few days, LNers have gone from lauding
>>>> the names of Humes, Boswell and Finck (EXPERTS in "postmortem
>>>> medicine"), to having been reduced to calling them all mistaken. An
>>>> incredibly ridiculous fall from grace. But LNers don't believe any of
>>>> the experts. All they can do is project that bias onto others.
>>>
>>>Let's see if Boris...
>>
>>
>> Nothing Boris can do or not do will change the fact that you have JUST
>> REFUSED TO ACCEPT ANY OF THIS EXPERT TESTIMONY!
>
>I "accept" this expert testimony.


Then you lied when you claimed that there was no large wound on the
back of JFK's head.


>> Why the cowardice Chuckles?
>
>Why can't you go anywhere with the freaky looking sh!t you keep posting?


Just did. Proved you a liar.

*******************************************************

Chuckles read the above, and flat refused to address it.

He's lying, of course... and lies are very hard to support.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:06:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:06:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:07:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> "The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
> >> where there is none." - Idiot Schuyler
> >
> >Look like the experts agree with me, Boris Dunning-Kruger.
>
> No, you're lying again, Chuckles... here's the proof:

The topic was about conspiracism. The Truther disagrees that conspiracism is--in part--a desire from the adherent to find order and meaning where there is none.

Try and keep up.

--The Management

[Ben Holmes]

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 16:08:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:12:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:57:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 1:20:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 31 May 2019 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:54:24 -0700 (PDT), David Healy
>>>>>>> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 8:26:59 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> onsdag den 29. maj 2019 kl. 20.30.20 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:55:38 -0700 (PDT), David Healy
>>>>>>>>>> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:24:25 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> onsdag den 29. maj 2019 kl. 17.18.10 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taken from the censored forum:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 May 2019 20:01:30 -0400, Edward Bauer <eb...@md.metrocast.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 1:38:03 PM UTC-4, BOZ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://historical.ha.com/itm/autographs/u.s.-presidents/lee-harvey-oswald-marine-corps-rifle-score-book/a/692-35179.s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you want to open doors to solving the JFK assassination (and some in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>this newsgroup don’t), read and understand every page of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oswald’s Marine Corps Score Book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All marksmen know the indispensable requirement to always zero your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>firearm (adjust the windage and elevation screws), especially if it had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>been disassembled as Oswald’s had been. Lee was trained in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>USMC to zero often. A study of his Score Book shows that he re-zeroed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>before 25?30% of his slow fire shots and in at least five
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>instances even re-zeroed during rapid fire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>His first shot missed JFK because it was used to zero the scope. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>aimed at the south curb of Main Street and caused the fresh bullet gouge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>seen by Walthers, Sweatt, Tague and others. It took Oswald exactly 9.5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>seconds to zero, operate the bolt, aim and fire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is another moron who clearly knows nothing about the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Mannlicher Carcano did not have any way to adjust zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's windage & elevation were FIXED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This moron makes the same mistake that the Warren Commission did...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> presuming that Oswald used the scope. But no real Marine Corps
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trained shooter would be stupid enough to try to use the scope (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the wrong *sized* scope at that!) to shoot a moving target at that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> range. Try this argument in any rifle forum and stand back for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> laughter that's coming your way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What these morons never do is actually *get* their hands on a 4x18
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope, and try to make shots at a moving target. Indeed, far better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experts that Oswald EVER was ... completely failed to hit the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as Oswald is claimed to have done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How unusual. Ben seems to be implying that Oswald's shooting feat
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't quite as difficult as many of his fellow conspiracy believers
>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of morons, here's another one. He reads: "Indeed, far better
>>>>>>>>>> experts that Oswald EVER was ... completely failed to hit the target
>>>>>>>>>> as Oswald is claimed to have done." and thinks that I'm "implying"
>>>>>>>>>> that the alleged feat isn't quite as difficult.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That takes a true moron to read into what I said the precise opposite
>>>>>>>>>> of what I stated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow. Look at Ben dishonestly trying to squirm his way out of this. The WC concluded that the scope was a "substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing." Ben, however, disputes this, arguing that even experts "completely failed to hit the target" when they used the scope. He thinks that under the circumstances a Marine Corps trained shooter like Oswald would have used the iron sights, and that the WC therefore (inadvertently) made the shooting feat more difficult than it probably was.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mark Lane pointed this out... and believers have been lying about it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever since.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And CB darling Mark Lane pointed out that the WC inadvertently
>>>>>>>>>>>> exaggerated the difficulty of the shots?!? I must be dreaming. This
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be happening.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, only a true moron can take what I wrote, and end up thinking I
>>>>>>>>>> said the precise opposite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to Ben, Mark Lane agreed with him that the WC (inadvertently) exaggerated the difficulty of the shots by assuming that Oswald used the scope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'll notice in this moron's last paragraph that he does what all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believers do, he supplies speculation as if it were fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that fact tells the tale...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben is hardwired to call other people liars and morons, but at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least he is educating his fellow CBs in the process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I only call those who lie "liars." That would, of course,
>>>>>>>>>> make *YOU* a liar ... since nothing I said would lead an honest person
>>>>>>>>>> to believe that the alleged shooting was *EASIER* rather than far more
>>>>>>>>>> difficult than the WC led people to believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't the WC conclude that Oswald probably used the scope? Do you agree with that, or do you believe that the iron sights under the circumstances would have been the more likely choice of a Marine Corps trained shooter? Would using the iron sights have made the shooting easier or more difficult, in your opinion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> only WCR/LHO did it all by his lonesome faithful agree it was simple
>>>>>>>> shooting that day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A moving target reacquisition with the use of a scope at that
>>>>>>>> TSBD-Elm St. distance, after shot 1, is difficult at best and
>>>>>>>> impossible at worst
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting to note that the NRA rated "Masters" who couldn't hit the
>>>>>>> head or neck of the target using the scope WERE FIRING AT STATIONARY
>>>>>>> TARGETS!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought shooters were taught to shoot center mass.
>>>>>
>>>>> The shooters were attempting to duplicate "Oswald's" alleged shooting
>>>>> feat.
>>>>
>>>> Show that the shooter were told to try for one head shot and one
>>>> body shot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Show that Oswald was attempting to try to hit JFK in the head, and in
>>> the body.
>>
>> I doubt he was. I think he was trying to make kill shots. Just like those other shooters did.
>>
>>
>>>>> They didn't aim at the target's feet.
>>>>
>>>> Notice Ben cowardice. He doesn`t address my actual query...
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice "Chickenshit's" constant cowardice, he *NEVER* addresses what I
>>> state.
>>
>> You are looking at things incorrectly, and demand I do also. Those shooters duplicated Oswald`s shooting in that they put killing shots on target. Just like Oswald did.
>>
>>>
>>>> "I thought shooters were taught to shoot center mass."
>>>>
>>>> A short search turns up this...
>>>>
>>>> https://www.quora.com/Are-any-infantry-soldiers-trained-for-head-shots
>>>>
>>>> The third answer down is from a Marine Sergeant. Cops and soldiers
>>>> are generally taught to shoot center mass. Ben knows this, but it
>>>> interferes with his game playing so he disregards it, instead focusing
>>>> on some silly undefined "duplicate" criteria. Oswald didn`t duplicate
>>>> the shooting of the other shooters, either, did he fail?
>>>
>>>
>>> This is what happens when a non-shooting moron tries to teach an
>>> expert marksman about shooting.
>>
>> You might be an expert shooter but you are an idiot when it comes to applying information.
>>
>>> "Center mast" on the targets used would put the shots in the neck.
>>
>> How about the head?
>>
>> There is no reason for the shooters who took part in this shooting test should be trying to make wounds where Oswald made wounds. That is just silly. Doubtful Oswald`s plan was "I`m gonna shoot Kennedy once in the body and once in the head". Likely he was trying to make kill shots. Just like these other shooters accomplished.
>>
>>
>>> "Chickenshit" probably knows this, but is desperate to refute what a
>>> *REAL* expert has to say.
>>>
>>> And my 10th award Expert badge makes me an expert.
>>
>> And these guys were experts. And they put kill shots on target, just like Oswald did. You want to apply some stupid criteria, like matching the wounds Oswald inflicted.
>>
>>>>> Notice that "Chickenshit" ignored the point I made... that the NRA
>>>>> rated "Masters" attempted to duplicate the shooting ...
>>>>
>>>> Support that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure... just as soon as you publicly deny it.
>>
>> I`ll just assume you are lying.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> but had
>>>>> tremendous ADVANTAGES... and still couldn't duplicate it.
>>>>
>>>> They duplicated his results, a dead victim. It would be silly to
>>>> think if one of his shots hit Kennedy in the ear the other shooters
>>>> would have to match that.
>>>
>>>
>>> My statement remains unrefuted.
>>
>> And stupid.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Hence, it should have been even *easier*...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But they failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were they aiming at the head?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Quote them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't need to. I know the target.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Only Oswald was good enough!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These shooters put kill shots on target, same as Oswald did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite for your claim... Dumbass!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
>>>>
>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144b.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> You cited the proof that you lied.
>>
>> These targets don`t show kill shots, stupid?
>>
>>> Mark Lane was the first one to
>>> point out that they were unable to hit the head or the neck.
>>
>> So you it is your and Mark Lane`s contention that if one of Oswald`s shots hit Kennedy in the toe, any failure of these shooter to duplicate this shot would somehow mean that Oswald didn`t?
>>
>> They made kill shots.
>>
>>> He was right, and you're a provable liar. Because now we *KNOW* that
>>> you were lying when you were making your "center mast" claims.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> (way to many unknowns, way to many limo possible
>>>>>>>> reactions)--in fact, rumors being what they are, one could surmise a
>>>>>>>> TSBD shooter completely missed Kennedy with a rushed shot 2 and hit
>>>>>>>> Connelly. Then it's back to the target-scope reacquisition process
>>>>>>>> AGAIN for the alleged rushed third shot from the alleged TSBD snipers
>>>>>>>> nest. Chaos ensues, If the limo did not stop on Elm St after the
>>>>>>>> alleged 2nd shot I doubt Oswald could of hit even the Elm Street
>>>>>>>> railroad overpass with his alleged 3rd shot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The scope makes a bad situ worse (time wise/shot wise-especially), if not impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we know this for a FACT - because the Warren Commission was kind
>>>>>>> enough not to classify the tests conducted showing it to be highly
>>>>>>> improbable at best.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chickenshit" had nothing to say...
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way to silence "Chickenshit" is to just keep referencing the
>>>>> evidence... Works every time!
>>>>
>>>> I told you, if you don`t put the information out there that
>>>> supports your claim I just assume you are lying.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're lying again, "Chickenshit."
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As a critic, I suspect Ben has done nothing more than waking you and
>>>>>>>>>>> other WCR faithful *up*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, what I've ended up doing is forcing these morons to tell
>>>>>>>>>> whoppers about what I've stated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because they can't deal with what I *ACTUALLY* say...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The walls of WCR report/ deceit are crumbling.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Lane is the bearer of bad news for your .john, lone nut tribe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, the fact that I've posted hundreds of quotes from him -
>>>>>>>>>> completely UNANSWERED AND UNREFUTED shows that they know they've lost.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just got through posting Mark Lane's illustration of Chief Warren
>>>>>>>>>> outright lying ... and this moron couldn't refute it.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 10:06:36 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 01:06:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:07:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> "The answer lies in human nature and the desire to find patterns and order
>> >> where there is none." - Idiot Schuyler
>> >
>> >Look like the experts agree with me, Boris Dunning-Kruger.
>>
>> No, you're lying again, Chuckles... here's the proof:
>
> The topic was about conspiracism. The Truther disagrees that
> conspiracism is--in part--a desire from the adherent to find order and
> meaning where there is none.
>
>Try and keep up.
>
>--The Management

Once again, the coward snips the proof that he's a liar.

Understandable, one supposes...

Liars probably hate themselves for the lies they tell.

The topic can be anything at all, and a liar will do what a liar does
best...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:07:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

A recent article on conspiracy theory/conspiracism:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282974/

[David Healy]

I'd be looking for an excuse to change the subject if I was YOU too! Case evidence getting a little tough for the nutter colony?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Look like the experts agree with me, Boris Dunning-Kruger.

Experts in what? The JFK assassination? The evidence? Are they medical experts? Witnesses? Primary source accounts? Let's see...

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Conspiracism
>
> https://www.dummies.com/education/politics-government/what-is-conspiracism/
>
> https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/qa-jonathan-kay-on-our-vast-conspiracist-subculture-83624/

Nope.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The topic was about conspiracism.

The topic is the Warren Commission.

>
> The Truther disagrees that conspiracism is--in part--a desire from the adherent to find order and meaning where there is none.

Actually, you disagreed, and I proved it.

>
> Try and keep up.
>
> --The Management

I started this thread. I'm the management. I know what the topic is. You're changing it, because you lack the knowledge and the evidence to defend your position.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> A recent artic

Bzzt. Nothing in there about the evidence.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 1:26:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > A recent artic
>
> Bzzt. Nothing in there about the evidence.

The evidence that the WC members weren't human?

Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.

Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 1:26:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > A recent artic
> >
> > Bzzt. Nothing in there about the evidence.
>
>
> The evidence that the WC members weren't human?

Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.

>
> Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.

Right here:

https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87

>
> Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.

Lincoln's assassination.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I don't have a position separate from the standard studies on the issue. If you'd like to go against the null hypothesis on the subject of conspiracism, go ahead.

I'll wait.

Alas, I think the propeller on your tinfoil beanie is speeding up for a quick dash down to mommy's basement for a nice microwaved Hot Pocket and the comfort of an Alex Jones special on nano-thermite and the dastardly Jews. It fills the emptiness of your childless, partnerless adulthood with a feeling that you belong to a community of special investigooglers, capable of seeing what the ordinary sheeple can't see.

The world is a scary place with dastardly Jews and hidden snipers on knolls, MK Ultra super-assassins and chemtrails, but you've got mommy's basement for sanctuary from a cruel world.

Boris:

On the Trail of the Assassins!

KUTGW!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I don't have a position separ

Yes you do. You disagree with the experts. These ones:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

And many more.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:35:40 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 1:26:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A recent artic
> > >
> > > Bzzt. Nothing in there about the evidence.
> >
> >
> > The evidence that the WC members weren't human?
>
> Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.

What did they conclude?

Run.

What did you conclude?

Run faster.

>
>
> >
> > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.
>
> Right here:
>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87
>
> >
> > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.
>
> Lincoln's assassination.

Sort of a word salad typing belch by our resident 911 Truther.

Odd. What does Lincoln's assassination have to do with your jab at me on my observation on the subject of conspiracism, and what does it have to do with the JFK assassination?

Is this another drive-by post where you spray inanity and scoot for mommy's basement and a warm Hot Pocket, or are you going to actually flesh out one of your answers for the first time in two years?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What did they conclude?

Run.

What do you conclude?

Run faster.

[David Healy]

YOU are one sick puppy Chuckles! Even when you try to be funny...

It's simply amazing Lurkers what happens when Lone Nutter's of Chuckles persuasion are told NO

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
>
> What did they conclude?

Probable conspiracy.

>
> Run.
>
> What did you conclude?

I agree with the experts.

>
> Run faster.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.
> >
> > Right here:
> >
> > https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87

Silence is what I thought.

> >
> > >
> > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.
> >
> > Lincoln's assassination.
>
> Sort of a word salad typing belch by our resident 911 Truther.

Only a moron thinks a two-word sentence is a word salad.

>
> Odd. What does Lincoln's assassination have to do with your jab at me on my observation on the subject of conspiracism,

Was it a conspiracy or wasn't it?

>
> and what does it have to do with the JFK assassination?

Just demonstrated how you and your "professors" and "doctors" (Appeal to Authority fallacy, BTW) are doing nothing but poisoning the well with their worthless opinions, which among things intend to prove that conspiracies are just whacko tinfoil fantasies.

Here are some more examples which disprove your "doctors":

The Gulf of Tonkin incident
9/11
Operation North Woods
The 2005 London bombings
Watergate
Iran/Contra
These assassinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassinations
The multiple plots to kill Castro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts
USS Cole

But do tell me, since your guys are so credible, what is their knowledge base on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination? Do they have any knowledge? Or are they too busy poisoning the well for idiots like you to lap up?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> YOU are one sick puppy Chuckles! Even when you try to be funny...

He's funny every post. I find his cockiness the most hilarious part.

>
> It's simply amazing Lurkers what happens when Lone Nutter's of Chuckles persuasion are told NO

He doesn't like the evidence, and he HATES the experts. Dummy-Kruger.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> >
> > What did they conclude?
>
> Probable conspiracy.

Can you narrow it down? And they wonder why they are mocked.

>
> >
> > Run.
> >
> > What did you conclude?
>
> I agree with the experts.

Which theory? The Mob? CIA? Cubans? anti-Castro Cubans? How many shots? Explain the BoH wound?

>
> >
> > Run faster.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.
> > >
> > > Right here:
> > >
> > > https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87
>
> Silence is what I thought.

Ditto. Put it together, Truther. Try and make an argument without making it about anyone else.

If you can.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.
> > >
> > > Lincoln's assassination.
> >
> > Sort of a word salad typing belch by our resident 911 Truther.
>
> Only a moron thinks a two-word sentence is a word salad.

Note "sort of" lurkers.

>
> >
> > Odd. What does Lincoln's assassination have to do with your jab at me on my observation on the subject of conspiracism,
>
> Was it a conspiracy or wasn't it?

Yes. What's your point?

>
> >
> > and what does it have to do with the JFK assassination?
>
> Just demonstrated how you and your "professors" and "doctors" (Appeal to Authority fallacy, BTW) are doing nothing but poisoning the well with their worthless opinions, which among things intend to prove that conspiracies are just whacko tinfoil fantasies.

Fallacy of a False Comparison. You're confusing conspiracies with conspriracism, are the words are sometimes used interchangeably.

>
> Here are some more examples which disprove your "doctors":
>
> The Gulf of Tonkin incident

Not conspiracism.

> 9/11


Here either.

> Operation North Woods

Or here.

> The 2005 London bombings

Or here, and ditto the rest.

> Watergate
> Iran/Contra
> These assassinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassinations
> The multiple plots to kill Castro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts
> USS Cole

All of these events happened. They are specific and acknowledged.

>
> But do tell me, since your guys are so credible, what is their knowledge base on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination? Do they have any knowledge? Or are they too busy poisoning the well for idiots like you to lap up?

Their knowledge base on the malady known as CONSPIRACISM is high; they are the ones studying the subject and submitting peer-reviewed papers.

If you'd take off the tinfoil beanie for five minutes, you MIGHT learn something, and no, not from me, which I'm sure you'd find to be impossible, but from the real EXPERTS, of which I am not.

So listen, jerk, it goes like this:

Nineteen pissed-off Muslims hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is a CONSPIRACY. Everyone acknowledges this, asshole. CONSPIRACIES happen. The conspirators we're ID'd, the source of the conspiracy chased out of Afghanistan and later hunted down by SEAL Team 6.

Believing the WTCs were brought down by nano-thermite or an energy-pulse weapon (Jim Fetzer) or that Larry Silverstein cooperated with Muslims or George Bush to enlist the FDNY to "pull" building 7 for an insurance scam or to destroy secret documents housed by government agencies in WTC 7, and/or that the planes were possibly landed first with passengers disgorged, and that a missile hit the Pentagon, and on and on and on, is NOT a conspiracy THEORY. It falls under the category of CONSPIRACISM.

If you think Oswald shot JFK but he possibly had help of some form or that there was a second shooter who missed everyone on the knoll, that could be possibly developed into a plausible conspiracy THEORY.

If you think Oswald was innocent and the CIA, Mob, FBI, LBJ and on and on and on plotted/planned/covered-up JFK's murder with 8-12 shots whizzing around the knoll and secret autopsies and extra plotters in Florida and Chicago, and on and on, you don't have a conspiracy THEORY. You have the malady known as CONSPIRACISM.

To overturn the historical narrative that Oswald alone shot JFK, or that we landed on the moon, or that Sirhan Sirhan acted alone, or that the DC Pizza shop wasn't Ground Zero for Hillary Clinton's pedophilia ring, or that the Protocols of the Elder's of Zion isn't a forgery based on earlier anti-Semitic tropes and writings, and on and on, then it is incumbent upon YOU to put forward a positive case for what you allege, and not on me to prove a negative.

And you can't do it.

No conspiracist at this board has ever shown the SLIGHTEST interest in solving the case or even gaining a better understanding of the case. Ever single conspiracist is here to get someone to play Fetch the Stick. They are looking for validation from other CTs, and they are looking for someone to stand in as a proxy for the WC. That's it.

If you want to elevate yourself above the rabble, produce something. If you can't, you may want to read the links I provided about conspiracism and see if you fit in that category. I think you do.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:25:25 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > >
> > > What did they conclude?
> >
> > Probable conspiracy.
>
> Can you narrow it down? And they wonder why they are mocked.

Did you not like my answer? Or did I not "run" as fast as you predicted?

> >
> > >
> > > Run.
> > >
> > > What did you conclude?
> >
> > I agree with the experts.
>
> Which theory?

I agree with their assessment of the evidence.

> >
> > >
> > > Run faster.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.
> > > >
> > > > Right here:
> > > >
> > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87
> >
> > Silence is what I thought.
>
> Ditto. Put it together, Truther. Try and make an argument without making it about anyone else.

Sigh. The gif still applies, I'm afraid.

>
> If you can.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.
> > > >
> > > > Lincoln's assassination.
> > >
> > > Sort of a word salad typing belch by our resident 911 Truther.
> >
> > Only a moron thinks a two-word sentence is a word salad.
>
> Note "sort of" lurkers.

So your point was nothing then.

> >
> > >
> > > Odd. What does Lincoln's assassination have to do with your jab at me on my observation on the subject of conspiracism,
> >
> > Was it a conspiracy or wasn't it?
>
> Yes. What's your point?

Looks like Chuck is suffering from conspiracism, lurkers.

> >
> > >
> > > and what does it have to do with the JFK assassination?
> >
> > Just demonstrated how you and your "professors" and "doctors" (Appeal to Authority fallacy, BTW) are doing nothing but poisoning the well with their worthless opinions, which among things intend to prove that conspiracies are just whacko tinfoil fantasies.
>
> Fallacy of a False Comparison. You're confusing conspiracies with conspriracism, are the words are sometimes used interchangeably.

If the former provably exists in several incarnations, that makes the latter bullshit science. Which we all know you are using to divert attention away from the evidence as posted here.

> >
> > Here are some more examples which disprove your "doctors":
> >
> > The Gulf of Tonkin incident
>
> Not conspiracism.

It was touted as a legitimate attack, and this was a historically accepted narrative. Anyone who knew and said otherwise would, by definition, be a tinfoil hat kook guilty of conspiracism.

>
> > 9/11
>
>
> Here either.

Was it a conspiracy or not?

>
> > Operation North Woods
>
> Or here.

Anyone claiming the government intended to attack its own country would be touted as a kook, were it not for this document.

>
> > The 2005 London bombings
>
> Or here, and ditto the rest.

Coward.

>
> > Watergate
> > Iran/Contra
> > These assassinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassinations
> > The multiple plots to kill Castro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts
> > USS Cole
>
> All of these events happened. They are specific and acknowledged.

Which version of each event, kook?

> >
> > But do tell me, since your guys are so credible, what is their knowledge base on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination? Do they have any knowledge? Or are they too busy poisoning the well for idiots like you to lap up?
>
> Their knowledge base on the malady known as CONSPIR

So the answer is, they don't know anything about the evidence pertaining to the JFK assassination, and right now you're committing the logical fallacies of the Red Herring, Changing the Subject, Appealing to Authority and Poisoning the Well. Waste of time. Acknowledge these, please:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:38:26 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I don't have a position separate from the standard studies on the issue.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:37:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:25:25 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > > >
> > > > What did they conclude?
> > >
> > > Probable conspiracy.
> >
> > Can you narrow it down? And they wonder why they are mocked.
>
> Did you not like my answer?

I liked your answer just fine. Now tell us about your "probable" conspiracy, since it's undoubtably different than the one the HSCA settled on. Be sure to be as specific as possible and cite for your claims, the backstory, and all of the evidence in such a way that leaves fewer assumptions than the historically accepted case. Your burden isn't less than the WC or HSCA's burden. Carry it.

>Or did I not "run" as fast as you predicted?

I didn't predict your speed, just that you would. You ran just fine.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Run.
> > > >
> > > > What did you conclude?
> > >
> > > I agree with the experts.
> >
> > Which theory?
>
> I agree with their assessment of the evidence.

Whose assessment of what evidence? Be specific. Or run. Feel free to set your own pace.

>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Run faster.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show they weren't human, lurkers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://images.app.goo.gl/FYwFrC5bRmmq7HS87
> > >
> > > Silence is what I thought.
> >
> > Ditto. Put it together, Truther. Try and make an argument without making it about anyone else.
>
> Sigh. The gif still applies, I'm afraid.

Translation: Boris the Truther will not be making a positive argument for what he thinks happened that doesn't involve asking me to answer a question.

>
> >
> > If you can.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let Boris Dunning-Kruger show the professors and doctors who have weighed in on the topic of conspiracism and are considered go-to experts in their field are wrong, lurkers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lincoln's assassination.
> > > >
> > > > Sort of a word salad typing belch by our resident 911 Truther.
> > >
> > > Only a moron thinks a two-word sentence is a word salad.
> >
> > Note "sort of" lurkers.
>
> So your point was nothing then.

I matched yours. This whole discussion board is nothing.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Odd. What does Lincoln's assassination have to do with your jab at me on my observation on the subject of conspiracism,
> > >
> > > Was it a conspiracy or wasn't it?
> >
> > Yes. What's your point?
>
> Looks like Chuck is suffering from conspiracism, lurkers.

Misstating my position doesn't help yours. Learn the difference between conspiracy and conspiracism.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and what does it have to do with the JFK assassination?
> > >
> > > Just demonstrated how you and your "professors" and "doctors" (Appeal to Authority fallacy, BTW) are doing nothing but poisoning the well with their worthless opinions, which among things intend to prove that conspiracies are just whacko tinfoil fantasies.
> >
> > Fallacy of a False Comparison. You're confusing conspiracies with conspriracism, are the words are sometimes used interchangeably.
>
> If the former provably exists in several incarnations, that makes the latter bullshit science.

Dunning-Kruger.

>Which we all know you are using to divert attention away from the evidence as posted here.

I'm not diverting any attention away from any evidence. I'm simply pointing out that you aren't able to develop any of this hard-hitting "evidence" that Dorothy Kilgallen was murdered or that there was hanky-panky with the autopsy, or that a shot from the South Knoll through the windshield hit JFK, or that LBJ ordered RFK's murder to hide LBJ's involvement in JFK's murder, etc. into a working theory.

Far from diverting attention away from it, I continually call you to highlight what it means. I've been asking you for two years.

Don't lay your cowardice at my feet, Truther. By all means, work up a plausible scenario. Let's hear it.

>
> > >
> > > Here are some more examples which disprove your "doctors":
> > >
> > > The Gulf of Tonkin incident
> >
> > Not conspiracism.
>
> It was touted as a legitimate attack, and this was a historically accepted narrative.

Liar. The second incident on August 4th 1964 was never historically accepted as an attack. It was POLITICALLY promoted as an attack in the immediate aftermath. The first incident involving the Maddox on August 2nd occurred, dumbass. LBJ swept them into one narrative to promote going to war. The August 2nd incident occurred, blame whom you want, or the fog of war. The August 4th incident was ghost images on radar and jumpy sailors.

>Anyone who knew and said otherwise would, by definition, be a tinfoil hat kook guilty of conspiracism.

Er, that would be you.

>
> >
> > > 9/11
> >
> >
> > Here either.
>
> Was it a conspiracy or not?
>
> >
> > > Operation North Woods
> >
> > Or here.
>
> Anyone claiming the government intended to attack its own country would be touted as a kook, were it not for this document.

Operation Northwoods is a favorite of the kooks, even though they don't understand it. I won't try explaining it since it wouldn't penetrate your fog, but I do acknowledge there was a paper called Operation Northwoods, and I acknowledge the historical record that JFK rejected this type of idiocy as a possible provocation to justify war against Cuba.

>
> >
> > > The 2005 London bombings
> >
> > Or here, and ditto the rest.
>
> Coward.

Child molester.

>
> >
> > > Watergate
> > > Iran/Contra
> > > These assassinations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Assassinations
> > > The multiple plots to kill Castro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts
> > > USS Cole
> >
> > All of these events happened. They are specific and acknowledged.
>
> Which version of each event, kook?

Why the historically accepted versions, of course.

Sorry. You won't get me to say that conspiracies and high level corruption doesn't occur. It does. If there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, you've got to put forward a case, Truther. Saying that something else happened, somehow, doesn't cut it. Running from any attempt to pinch any pus from the pimple that sits on top of your neck and actually STATE what you think happened just makes you out as another garden-variety kook. You want to be seen as a talented investigoogler, but you don't want to pay the price of taking a stand and defending your positions.

And that marks YOU as the coward, doesn't it?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I liked your answer just fine.

Great. Acknowledge these please:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I acknowledge them. In fact, how 'bout this: I "validate" your feelings about the assassination. Does that makums you feelums better, widdle teeny-weeny Boris Boo-Boo?

Now develop it into something.

Or run.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:30:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> You want to be seen as a talented investigoogler, but you don't
> want to pay the price of taking a stand and defending your positions.
>
>And that marks YOU as the coward, doesn't it?

Chuckles has declared himself a coward...

Amusing!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I liked your answer just fine.
>>
>> Great. Acknowledge these please:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>
>I acknowledge them.

Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
do is *BELIEVE* them.

Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Great. Acknowledge these please:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>
> I acknowledge them.

Excellent. And are they right? Wrong? Mistaken? Remember, your answer will determine whether or not you have the right to ever accuse anyone of Dunning-Kruger again.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Keep telling yourself that.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:54:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> >
> > What did they conclude?
>
> Probable conspiracy.

With one conspirator named, the person they determine to have ended Kennedy`s life. Lee Harvey Oswald.

> >
> > Run.
> >
> > What did you conclude?
>
> I agree with the experts.

Good. Then you idiots should put your meager talents towards tracking down Oswald`s poor shooting accomplice.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I liked your answer just fine.
> >>
> >> Great. Acknowledge these please:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >
> >I acknowledge them.
>
> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
> do is *BELIEVE* them.

You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:19:38 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:54:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > >
> > > What did they conclude?
> >
> > Probable conspiracy.
>
> With one conspirator named, the person they determine to have ended Kennedy`s life. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yes, Oswald may well have been one of the conspirators.

>
> > >
> > > Run.
> > >
> > > What did you conclude?
> >
> > I agree with the experts.
>
> Good. Then you idiots should put your meager talents towards tracking down Oswald`s poor shooting accomplice.

You should put your meager talents towards pretending you have me on ignore better.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/neoW7XkiLjk/1rXXz2hvBQAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:51:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:43:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I liked your answer just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Great. Acknowledge these please:
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>>>
>>>I acknowledge them.
>>
>> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
>> do is *BELIEVE* them.
>>
>> Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
>> critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.
>
>
>Keep telling yourself that.

I'm not telling myself that. I'm making an observation of the facts...
facts that you're unable to refute.

And all it would take is a public statement by you that you ACCEPT AS
TRUE HISTORICAL FACT the information given by those experts given in
the citation above.

But you can't do it.

So it is *YOU* who are exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Provably.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I liked your answer just fine.
>> >>
>> >> Great. Acknowledge these please:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>> >
>> >I acknowledge them.
>>
>> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
>> do is *BELIEVE* them.
>
> You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.

Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

>> Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
>> critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.

Watch "Chickenshit" run again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:51:00 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

I predict that Chuckles and "Chickenshit" won't answer... they know
that their honest answer convicts them of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

So they'll twist and turn, attempt to change the topic, or simply
refuse to even answer this post.

[David Healy]

LMAO! The WCR published their findings in 1964, you moron are stuck defending the confines of those findings-results and any damn piece of the alleged case evidence we chose to explore.

Get a grip asshole, ya wanna pull lone nut pud, take your perfectly formed sentences and your *bots* over to .john's den of insanity. <snarf>

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:33:45 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:19:38 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:54:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > > >
> > > > What did they conclude?
> > >
> > > Probable conspiracy.
> >
> > With one conspirator named, the person they determine to have ended Kennedy`s life. Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Yes, Oswald may well have been one of the conspirators.

Kennedy`s murderer. That is what the HSCA determined.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 1:58:09 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:33:45 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:19:38 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:54:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > > > >
> > > > > What did they conclude?
> > > >
> > > > Probable conspiracy.
> > >
> > > With one conspirator named, the person they determine to have ended Kennedy`s life. Lee Harvey Oswald.
> >
> > Yes, Oswald may well have been one of the conspirators.
>
> Kennedy`s murderer. That is what the HSCA determined.

<snicker> Look at bub pretend to put me on ignore, then run from all the points I make, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:55:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I liked your answer just fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Great. Acknowledge these please:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >> >
> >> >I acknowledge them.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
> >> do is *BELIEVE* them.
> >
> > You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.
>
>
> Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Then I believe the findings of the autopsy report.

> >> Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
> >> critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.
>
>
> Watch "Chickenshit" run again...

I don`t respond to all of your hot air.

[Bud]

I just presented you with the reality. Now that you are aware of who killed Kennedy you need only focus on determining who conspired with him.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:04:27 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:55:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I liked your answer just fine.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Great. Acknowledge these please:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> > >> >
> > >> >I acknowledge them.
> > >>
> > >> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
> > >> do is *BELIEVE* them.
> > >
> > > You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.
> >
> >
> > Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
>
> Then I believe the findings of the autopsy report.

<snicker> I believe it, lurkers. bub has made it clear multiple times it doesn't even know what the back of the head constitutes.

Did you ask a toddler yet, retard?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

How so?

>
> Now that you are aware of who killed Kennedy you need only focus on determining who conspired with him.

<snicker> bub looks at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:08:14 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:06:09 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 1:59:32 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 1:58:09 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:33:45 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:19:38 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 3:54:57 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Silly. The JFK assassination evidence. The evidence you run from every second of your cowardly life. The evidence which all the experts you pretend you believe sink you on a daily basis, many of which have been cited here in this thread, and ignored multiple times, because you're a coward who doesn't believe them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What did they conclude?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probable conspiracy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With one conspirator named, the person they determine to have ended Kennedy`s life. Lee Harvey Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Oswald may well have been one of the conspirators.
> > > >
> > > > Kennedy`s murderer. That is what the HSCA determined.
> > >
> > > <snicker> Look at bub pretend to put me on ignore, then run from all the points I make, lurkers.
> >
> > I just presented you with the reality.
>
> How so?

How so what?

> > Now that you are aware of who killed Kennedy you need only focus on determining who conspired with him.
>
> <snicker> bub looks at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

Who the HSCA determined killed Kennedy is the wrong thing to idiots.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:55:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I liked your answer just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great. Acknowledge these please:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>>>>>
>>>>>I acknowledge them.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
>>>> do is *BELIEVE* them.
>>>
>>> You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.
>>
>> Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
>
> Then I believe the findings of the autopsy report.

Then you DISBELIEVE the quoted experts... and a liar to imply that you
do.

>>>> Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
>>>> critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.
>>
>> Watch "Chickenshit" run again...
>
> I don`t respond to all of your hot air.

And indeed, "Chickenshit" ran... and REFUSED to address the topic
raised.

Dunning-Kruger proven for "Chickenshit"... and Chuckles too, since he
refuses to answer as well.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Who the HSCA determined killed Kennedy is the wrong thing to idiots.

The prosecution **ALWAYS** presents the evidence against the suspect.

Fortunately, our justice system requires just a tad more...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:51:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 11:55:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 10:43:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I liked your answer just fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Great. Acknowledge these please:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I acknowledge them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately, anyone can "acknowledge" them... what believers can't
> >>>> do is *BELIEVE* them.
> >>>
> >>> You can`t define what you mean by "believe" them.
> >>
> >> Believe: accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
> >
> > Then I believe the findings of the autopsy report.
>
>
> Then you DISBELIEVE the quoted experts...

An idiot who doesn`t look at things correctly might think this.

> and a liar to imply that you
> do.

I look at information in the correct context, that an expert is still a fallible human being. The standard you want to impose, because you love playing crooked games, is that I must believe every utterance a person ever said or else I don`t "believe" them.

> >>>> Dunning-Kruger, although first raised by a believer to insult
> >>>> critics... is actually quite descriptive of believers.
> >>
> >> Watch "Chickenshit" run again...
> >
> > I don`t respond to all of your hot air.
>
>
> And indeed, "Chickenshit" ran... and REFUSED to address the topic
> raised.

You made a meaningless declaration and I ignored it.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Who the HSCA determined killed Kennedy is the wrong thing to idiots.
>
> The prosecution **ALWAYS** presents the evidence against the suspect.

Has what to do with what?

> Fortunately, our justice system requires just a tad more...

A live defendant. Which is why this wasn`t a trial, a concept you can`t seem to comprehend.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> An idiot who doesn`t look at things correctly might think this.

How so?

>
> > and a liar to imply that you
> > do.
>
> I look at information in the correct context, that an expert is still a fallible human being.

Dunning-Kruger.

>
> The standard you want to impose, because you love playing crooked games, is that I must believe every utterance a person ever said or else I don`t "believe" them.

Let bub show he believes the evidence as examined in their testimony.

>
> You made a meaningless declaration and I ignored it.

<snicker> A retard thinks ever relevant thing is meaningless, lurkers.

[David Healy]

you've become *boringgggggg*, Dudster. Which means the 1964 WCReport is an albatross around your neck. Carry on snook'ums....

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:39:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Who the HSCA determined killed Kennedy is the wrong thing to idiots.
> >
> > The prosecution **ALWAYS** presents the evidence against the suspect.
>
> Has what to do with what?

<snicker> The retard is confused again, lurkers.

>
> > Fortunately, our justice system requires just a tad more...
>
> A live defendant. Which is why this wasn`t a trial, a concept you can`t seem to comprehend.

So?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I look at information in the correct context, that an expert is still a fallible human being.

Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.

(And Chuckles doesn't know the evidence well enough...)

Watch... I've predicted it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
> > the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
>
>
> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.

They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical thought.

>
> (And Chuckles doesn't know the evidence well enough...)
>
> Watch... I've predicted it.

I'm done betting against someone who bats a thousand. I'll just concede now.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

In violation of due process and our constitution and its protections, Boris the Canadian Truther thinks a dead Lee Harvey Oswald should've been put on trial.

And they wonder why they're not taken seriously.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:19:21 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:44:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:39:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:54:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Who the HSCA determined killed Kennedy is the wrong thing to idiots.
> > > >
> > > > The prosecution **ALWAYS** presents the evidence against the suspect.
> > >
> > > Has what to do with what?
> >
> > <snicker> The retard is confused again, lurkers.
> >
> > >
> > > > Fortunately, our justice system requires just a tad more...
> > >
> > > A live defendant. Which is why this wasn`t a trial, a concept you can`t seem to comprehend.
> >
> > So?
>
>
> In viol

So, about this...?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:46:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I look at information in the correct context, that an expert is still a fallible human being.
>
> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from the official narrative.

They are human beings. That makes them fallible, stupid.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
> > > the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
> >
> >
> > You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
>
> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical thought.

"We" Oswald Aloners do have it easier. We're not challenging. There is a case out there that answers the questions with as few loose ends as possible.

"You" are challenging. It is not anyone's job to prove an already proven case to YOUR satisfaction that is historically accepted. If you want to overturn the null hypothesis that Oswald fired all of the shots that wounded or killed, and that no conspiracy could be identified, you need to put a case together.

>
> >
> > (And Chuckles doesn't know the evidence well enough...)
> >
> > Watch... I've predicted it.
>
> I'm done betting against someone who bats a thousand. I'll just concede now.

"Something else happened, somehow." --Boris the Truther

"Everyone was in on it. Except Oswald." --Ben the Angry Dwarf

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:21:48 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:46:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I look at information in the correct context, that an expert is still a fallible human being.
> >
> > Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from the official narrative.
>
> They are human beings.

So were the Warren Commission. Remember the OP of this thread? Now don't be calling your High Priests, the Seven Dwarves, fallible now.

>
> That makes them fallible, stupid.

As fallible as a moron who pretends he has me on ignore, but has been interacting with me all day.

>
> > Show one example proving otherwise.

Oops. The retard missed this part, lurkers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What's fishy about this, Boris?

Any idea why published the exchange if it was so damning?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Nothing, if you're me.

>
> Any idea why published the exchange if it was so damning?

These are transcripts, moron.

Do you agree with what these experts had to say?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Okay, I'm going to make a bet with you.

I've been linking to this thread over and over, and the trolls have completely ignored it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

And I'm going to keep doing so.

My bet is that they'll continue to ignore it, wait a couple days, then begin saying, "This has been addressed already."

Bet me.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Why do you care? What could I say that would possibly change the mind of someone who thinks the FDNY "pulled" WTC7 for Larry Silverstein the Jew and his evil insurance con job?

Put their comments into the context of the conclusions, and if you have a problem with the conclusions, develop a different narrative.

Stop laying your cowardice at someone else's feet and then puffing your chest out and announcing that you're going keep laying your cowardice at someone else's feet.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

They're not being ignored.

By all means, TELL US what you think it all means and put together a case.

Or run.

Again.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Is that a no?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Do you agree with those statements? Their EXPERT statements?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Do you agree with those statements? Their EXPERT statements?

"Yes" and "no" are the two possible answers. Either answer is perfectly acceptable. Each answer is only one word long.

Let's see how many posts this asshole can drag the issue out without uttering ONE SINGLE WORD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:55:29 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

Actually, it's a vindication of my prediction that neither
"Chickenshit" nor Chuckles would dare answer the question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
>>>> the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
>>>
>>> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
>>
>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
>> thought.

True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
example... he learned his lesson, and now refuses to post in an open
forum against critics that know the evidence just as well as he...

That can't be called stupidity...


Cowardice, maybe... but not stupidity.

> "We" Oswald Aloners do have it easier. We're not challenging. There
> is a case out there that answers the questions with as few loose ends
> as possible.

Once again, Chuckles proves me right, and himself a loser. He's not
man enough to answer the question.

> "You" are challenging. It is not anyone's job to prove an already
> proven case

Nope. It's *NOT* an "already proven" case... indeed, most of America
REJECTS it.

And **YOU** are incapable of defending that case.

So you lose.


> to YOUR satisfaction


To **ANYONE'S** satisfaction. This is the common whining that
believers use to evade questions.


> that is historically accepted.


Already proven a lie. Don't you remember?

> If you
> want to overturn the null hypothesis that Oswald fired all of the
> shots that wounded or killed, and that no conspiracy could be
> identified, you need to put a case together.

That's not the "null" hypothesis... it was merely the original one
that the WC came up with to cover up the facts.

>>> (And Chuckles doesn't know the evidence well enough...)
>>>
>>> Watch... I've predicted it.
>>
>> I'm done betting against someone who bats a thousand. I'll just concede now.

As I said, you can virtually never go wrong predicting that cowards
will run, or that liars will lie.


[Predictable ad hominem snipped...]

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

I've already said it, but I'll be happy to say it again...

What it means is that believers exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect.



This is a proven statement... and Chuckles will CONTINUE to prove it
each time he refuses to publicly state that he believes these expert
witnesses' testimony.


The case has already been put together... and you refuse to respond to
it, or even admit its existence.
("Chickenshit" too...)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:07:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> Do you agree with those statements? Their EXPERT statements?
>
>"Yes" and "no" are the two possible answers. Either answer is perfectly acceptable. Each answer is only one word long.
>
>Let's see how many posts this asshole can drag the issue out without uttering ONE SINGLE WORD.

I predict that you'll never hear Chuckles or "Chickenshit" **EVER**
supply one of those two words to the question.

What they'll do (and have already done) is evade the topic, question
the topic, change the topic, and anything else they can think of to
avoid answering.

This proves them guilty of the Dunning-Kruger effect... they **DON'T**
believe the experts, they *DO* believe their faith superior.

[Bud]

Less noise and more making of assassination related conspiracy arguments.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
> >>>> the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
> >>
> >> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> >> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> >> thought.
>
>
> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> example... he learned his lesson, and now refuses to post in an open
> forum against critics that know the evidence just as well as he...
>
> That can't be called stupidity...
>
>
> Cowardice, maybe... but not stupidity.

You are terrified to enter the big leagues. You`re only trick is name calling, and you can`t do that there.

>
> > "We" Oswald Aloners do have it easier. We're not challenging. There
> > is a case out there that answers the questions with as few loose ends
> > as possible.
>
>
> Once again, Chuckles proves me right, and himself a loser. He's not
> man enough to answer the question.
>
>
> > "You" are challenging. It is not anyone's job to prove an already
> > proven case
>
>
> Nope. It's *NOT* an "already proven" case... indeed, most of America
> REJECTS it.

You can`t even show they`ve read it.

> And **YOU** are incapable of defending that case.

You can`t do better. You won`t even try.

> So you lose.
>
>
> > to YOUR satisfaction
>
>
> To **ANYONE'S** satisfaction.

Not mine. And mine counts more than yours.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:37:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:07:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do you agree with those statements? Their EXPERT statements?
> >
> >"Yes" and "no" are the two possible answers. Either answer is perfectly acceptable. Each answer is only one word long.
> >
> >Let's see how many posts this asshole can drag the issue out without uttering ONE SINGLE WORD.
>
>
> I predict that you'll never hear Chuckles or "Chickenshit" **EVER**
> supply one of those two words to the question.

Idiots like you guys *should* look at the wrong things incorrectly.

> What they'll do (and have already done) is evade the topic, question
> the topic, change the topic, and anything else they can think of to
> avoid answering.

We don`t have to play your silly, crooked games.

> This proves them guilty of the Dunning-Kruger effect... they **DON'T**
> believe the experts, they *DO* believe their faith superior.

I believe their findings.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >>
> >> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> >> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> >> thought.
>
>
> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> example...

That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > This proves them guilty of the Dunning-Kruger effect... they **DON'T**
> > believe the experts, they *DO* believe their faith superior.
>
> I believe their findings.

That's only because you don't know what the back of the head constitutes. In fact, you literally said so. Did you ask a toddler?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You are terrified to enter the big leagues.

<snicker>

>
> You`re only trick is name calling, and you can`t do that there.

<snicker>

>
> You can`t even show they`ve read it.

<snicker>

>
> > And **YOU** are incapable of defending that case.
>
> You can`t do better. You won`t even try.

<snicker>

>
> Not mine. And mine counts more than yours.

<BIG snicker>

[David Healy]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
> > >>>> the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
> > >>>
> > >>> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
> > >>
> > >> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> > >> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> > >> thought.
> >
> >
> > True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> > example... he learned his lesson, and now refuses to post in an open
> > forum against critics that know the evidence just as well as he...
> >
> > That can't be called stupidity...
> >
> >
> > Cowardice, maybe... but not stupidity.
>
> You are terrified to enter the big leagues. You`re only trick is name calling, and you can`t do that there.

fool, an old man like you couldn't even find home plate to take a poke at change ups. Can't even get the bat to your shoulder much let alone get it *off* your shoulder and swing.... sit down and be quiet, idiot!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol, the conspiracy grows.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Never did get that "yes" or "no". Meanwhile, you want a scenario the length of a novel. Hilarious. Chuck "Dunning-Kruger" Schuyler.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:58:09 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

The Idiot needs to look up the meaning of the word "conspiracy."

The personal motives of one coward like McAdams do not a conspiracy make.

But you know what Dunning-Kruger makes? Disagreeing with all the experts.

Like Chuck.

Chuck "Dunning-Kruger" Schuyler.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I'd settle for a few pages. Hell, how about a short paragraph.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:02:53 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:58:09 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> > > > >> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> > > > >> thought.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> > > > example...
> > >
> > > That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.
> >
> >
> > Lol, the conspiracy grows.
>
> The Idiot needs to look up the meaning of the word "conspiracy."
>
> The personal motives of one coward like McAdams do not a conspiracy make.

Ben says he's a disinfo agent for the USG, and a possible CIA asset. Other kooks at this board have said the same thing, so stash the McAdams/conspiracy baloney.

Tell Ben he's wrong and that McAdams doesn't have a role as part of the ongoing "attempt" to stifle the conspiracist view.

>
> But you know what Dunning-Kruger makes? Disagreeing with all the experts.
>
> Like Chuck.
>
> Chuck "Dunning-Kruger" Schuyler.

All the experts?

Sweating and panting, your desperation is showing. It's just under the hemline on your skirt.

Grow a pair that aren't resting on Ben's chin and give us a paragraph on the assassination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
>>>>>> the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
>>>>
>>>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
>>>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
>>>> thought.
>>
>>
>> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
>> example... he learned his lesson, and now refuses to post in an open
>> forum against critics that know the evidence just as well as he...
>>
>> That can't be called stupidity...
>>
>> Cowardice, maybe... but not stupidity.
>
> You are terrified to enter the big leagues. You`re only trick is
> name calling, and you can`t do that there.

How can it be the "big leagues" when they're afraid to post critical
posts?


Indeed, it's Professor McAdams who's the coward. I *HAVE* posted in
his forum, and he's *NEVER* posted in mine. Nor is he man enough to
post here after the schooling he took the last time he tried...

That's a simple fact.

>>> "We" Oswald Aloners do have it easier. We're not challenging. There
>>> is a case out there that answers the questions with as few loose ends
>>> as possible.
>>
>>
>> Once again, Chuckles proves me right, and himself a loser. He's not
>> man enough to answer the question.
>>
>>
>>> "You" are challenging. It is not anyone's job to prove an already
>>> proven case
>>
>>
>> Nope. It's *NOT* an "already proven" case... indeed, most of America
>> REJECTS it.
>
> You can`t even show they`ve read it.

You can't even show that *YOU'VE* read it.

Nor does it make any difference. I daresay you've not read Mein Kampf
either, yet I quite doubt that you're not ready to denounce it.

I could be wrong, however...

>> And **YOU** are incapable of defending that case.
>
> You can`t do better. You won`t even try.

You're telling a provable lie, Chuckles.

>> So you lose.
>>
>>
>>> to YOUR satisfaction
>>
>>
>> To **ANYONE'S** satisfaction.
>
> Not mine. And mine counts more than yours.

You see?

You **DO** want things proven to *YOUR* satisfaction.


That can't happen.

You can't prove things to a liar.

>> This is the common whining that
>> believers use to evade questions.
>>
>>
>>> that is historically accepted.
>>
>>
>> Already proven a lie. Don't you remember?

Evidently not... getting senile, Chuckles?

>>> If you
>>> want to overturn the null hypothesis that Oswald fired all of the
>>> shots that wounded or killed, and that no conspiracy could be
>>> identified, you need to put a case together.
>>
>>
>> That's not the "null" hypothesis... it was merely the original one
>> that the WC came up with to cover up the facts.

Not even an *attempt* at a refutation. (that tells the tale!)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Is this a Fringe Reset? Stop asking me to subsidize your cowardice. Man-up and tell us what you interpret it to mean. Be specific and cite for your claim(s).

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

And here we have an ignorant response.

Chuckles doesn't know the history of the CIA trying to influence
opinion on this topic.

And in order to spank Chuckles - here's the proof of his ignorance:

https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/CIADOC1035960/CIA%20DOC%201035-960.pdf

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:04:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:00:00 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:58:09 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
>>>>>>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
>>>>> example...
>>>>
>>>> That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Lol, the conspiracy grows.
>>
>> Never did get that "yes" or "no". Meanwhile, you want a scenario the length of a novel. Hilarious. Chuck "Dunning-Kruger" Schuyler.
>
>I'd settle for a few pages. Hell, how about a short paragraph.

You're provably lying again, Chuckles.


PROVABLY!!


I've provided FAR MORE than a few pages, and you simply ran away.

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

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 6:23:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:28:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:17:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Experts are only fallible when they say *ANYTHING* deviating from
> >>>>>> the official narrative. Show one example proving otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You ask a question that "Chickenshit" will find impossible to answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> >>>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> >>>> thought.
> >>
> >>
> >> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> >> example... he learned his lesson, and now refuses to post in an open
> >> forum against critics that know the evidence just as well as he...
> >>
> >> That can't be called stupidity...
> >>
> >> Cowardice, maybe... but not stupidity.
> >
> > You are terrified to enter the big leagues. You`re only trick is
> > name calling, and you can`t do that there.
>
>
> How can it be the "big leagues" when they're afraid to post critical
> posts?

It must be the big leagues. It is where you go to steal content to bring here. It is where the people post that you often name.

> Indeed, it's Professor McAdams who's the coward.

I disagree. I think it is you. In fact I don`t think I have ever encountered a bigger intellectual coward than you.

I *HAVE* posted in
> his forum, and he's *NEVER* posted in mine.

Does anyone post in yours?

> Nor is he man enough to
> post here after the schooling he took the last time he tried...
>
> That's a simple fact.

That is your delusional take on things.

>
> >>> "We" Oswald Aloners do have it easier. We're not challenging. There
> >>> is a case out there that answers the questions with as few loose ends
> >>> as possible.
> >>
> >>
> >> Once again, Chuckles proves me right, and himself a loser. He's not
> >> man enough to answer the question.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "You" are challenging. It is not anyone's job to prove an already
> >>> proven case
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. It's *NOT* an "already proven" case... indeed, most of America
> >> REJECTS it.
> >
> > You can`t even show they`ve read it.
>
>
> You can't even show that *YOU'VE* read it.

I haven`t. I`ve read parts.

> Nor does it make any difference. I daresay you've not read Mein Kampf
> either,

I was just looking at it the other day.

> yet I quite doubt that you're not ready to denounce it.
>
> I could be wrong, however...

Mein Kampf is not a report written about the investigation of a crime.

> >> And **YOU** are incapable of defending that case.
> >
> > You can`t do better. You won`t even try.
>
>
> You're telling a provable lie, Chuckles.

I`m not Chuck.

>
> >> So you lose.
> >>
> >>
> >>> to YOUR satisfaction
> >>
> >>
> >> To **ANYONE'S** satisfaction.
> >
> > Not mine. And mine counts more than yours.
>
>
> You see?

Yes, I do.

> You **DO** want things proven to *YOUR* satisfaction.

No stupid. I want to be the judge of what is satisfactorily shown. And I am.

> That can't happen.

Of course it can, nothing else is possible. I *am* the judge at what has been shown to my satisfaction. You think I would leave something that important to an idiot like you?

> You can't prove things to a liar.

I`m content to show that you are one.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 6:29:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> >> > >> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> >> > >> thought.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> >> > example...
> >>
> >> That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.
> >
> >
> >Lol, the conspiracy grows.
>
>
> And here we have an ignorant response.
>
> Chuckles doesn't know the history of the CIA trying to influence
> opinion on this topic.

It`s called "push back".

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/push-back

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Tell Ben he's wrong and that McAdams doesn't have a role as part of
> the ongoing "attempt" to stifle the conspiracist view.

Chuckles just got spanked with my citation of CIA memo 1035-960, and
now he's upset.

He's too stupid to figure out the obvious... what are the odds that
the largest pro-WCR website isn't connected to any of the CIA's
propaganda efforts?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 6:29:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
>>>>>>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
>>>>> example...
>>>>
>>>> That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.
>>>
>>>Lol, the conspiracy grows.
>>
>> And here we have an ignorant response.
>>
>> Chuckles doesn't know the history of the CIA trying to influence
>> opinion on this topic.
>
> It`s called "push back".
>
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/push-back

That's funny, the Secret Service must be guilty. No "push-back" from
them.

Nor, amusingly, did you cry when I spanked you.


Hopefully, we won't have to listen to you speaking ignorantly about
disinformationalists in the future.

>> And in order to spank Chuckles - here's the proof of his ignorance:
>>
>> https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/CIADOC1035960/CIA%20DOC%201035-960.pdf

Tell us Chuckles... can you point to *any* disinformationalists? Or
any argument listed in the above citation that you, "Chickenshit,"
McAdams, and other believers haven't used?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 7:14:38 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 15:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 6:29:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 14:58:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 4:48:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They can't answer anything. They're all fucking stupid. But you
> >>>>>>> don't get to be a genuine LNer using intelligence and critical
> >>>>>>> thought.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> True. But they're not *all* stupid. Look at Professor McAdams, for
> >>>>> example...
> >>>>
> >>>> That's why I said "genuine" LNer. I wonder if maybe McAdams isn't, and only does it for tenure and exposure. I think he's a disinformationalist, like Henry.
> >>>
> >>>Lol, the conspiracy grows.
> >>
> >> And here we have an ignorant response.
> >>
> >> Chuckles doesn't know the history of the CIA trying to influence
> >> opinion on this topic.
> >
> > It`s called "push back".
> >
> > https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/push-back
>
>
> That's funny, the Secret Service must be guilty. No "push-back" from
> them.

Typical of your poor thinking.

> Nor, amusingly, did you cry when I spanked you.

You`re delusional.

> Hopefully, we won't have to listen to you speaking ignorantly about
> disinformationalists in the future.

You don`t even know who you are talking to.

> >> And in order to spank Chuckles - here's the proof of his ignorance:
> >>
> >> https://ia902807.us.archive.org/5/items/CIADOC1035960/CIA%20DOC%201035-960.pdf
>
>
> Tell us Chuckles... can you point to *any* disinformationalists? Or
> any argument listed in the above citation that you, "Chickenshit,"
> McAdams, and other believers haven't used?

Always interesting to see how twisted your thinking gets when you are trying to push a bad idea.