Fourth Bullet

[borisba...@gmail.com]

During JFK's autopsy, "postmortem expert" Commander Humes found a fourth bullet which he never acknowledged in his report, and in which he told the WC he did not find any other bullets.

But the bullet is mentioned in the receipt given to Bethesda's commanding officer by O'Neill and Sibert. This receipt was released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Nov. 22, 1963
From: Francis X. O'Neill, Jr., Agent FBI
James W. Sibert, Agent FBI

To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle [sic] removed by Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN, on this date.

(signed)
Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.
(signed)
James W. Sibert

The fourth bullet.

[Bud]

As Boris plays the "explain this to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit" card once more.

You had the chance to include this in the case you guys will never make.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Nov. 22, 1963
> > From: Francis X. O'Neill, Jr., Agent FBI
> > James W. Sibert, Agent FBI
> >
> > To: Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
> >
> > 1. We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle [sic] removed by Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN, on this date.
> >
> > (signed)
> > Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.
> > (signed)
> > James W. Sibert
> >
> > The fourth bullet.
>
> As Boris plays the "explain this

Explaining it would be a nice change of pace for LN retards. But ignore it if you like, changes nothing of the evidence.

[Bud]

Correct.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

<snicker> Weird admission of defeat. And, of course, it does complement the bullet as reported by James Young.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/HRe6_Vqt_9U/7Kb_rOwLBwAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:38:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

"Chickenshit" once again shows his cowardice.

He knows he *should* be able to explain these facts, but he can't. The
Warren Commission never addressed it.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is evidence that
fails to support the official story.

But "Chickenshit" can't publicly admit this.

[Bud]

The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.

[donald willis]

So the 4th bullet was just a part of a bullet?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.

The explanation is Sibert, O'Neill and Young are all liars.

Just like everyone else who knows above and beyond what the official story narrates.

A boring and cliched LN retard response.

[Bud]

Fragments.

[Bud]

Otherwise known as the truth.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > So the 4th bullet was just a part of a bullet?
>
> Fragments.

Naturally, when Sibert and O'Neill say "a missile", the retard thinks it means "fragments of a missile."

He won't say which missile, though. Snicker.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Otherwise known as the truth.

The LN trolls express their fears and frustrations differently.

Schmucky Schuyler goes off on winded tangents reminiscent of rambling street bums. bub keeps his mouth shut, and the House of Bud goes eerily silent.

Chuck gets loquacious.
Bud gets laconic.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > So the 4th bullet was just a part of a bullet?
> >
> > Fragments.
>
> Naturally, when Sibert and O'Neill say "a missile", the retard thinks it means "fragments of a missile."

Where in the autopsy report does it say a whole bullet was recovered?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 6:49:40 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Otherwise known as the truth.
>
> The LN trolls express their fears and frustrations differently.
>
> Schmucky Schuyler goes off on winded tangents reminiscent of rambling street bums. bub keeps his mouth shut, and the House of Bud goes eerily silent.

I said all that needed to be said.

"The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy."

That you don`t recognize the truth when you see it is a small matter.

> Chuck gets loquacious.
> Bud gets laconic.

I can use a lot of words or a little and you will remain just as stupid.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:26:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So the 4th bullet was just a part of a bullet?
> > >
> > > Fragments.
> >
> > Naturally, when Sibert and O'Neill say "a missile", the retard thinks it means "fragments of a missile."
>
> Where in the autopsy report does it say a whole bullet was recovered?

The retard is apparently confused and unable to read entire sentences, lurkers, in particular the **very first sentence** of my post, in which..."Commander Humes found a fourth bullet which he never acknowledged in his report, and in which he told the WC he did not find any other bullets."

But now let's all watch as the LN retard subtly shifts his position from "fragments" to "what bullet?"

Whereas I would just combine the two and say, "fragments from what bullet?" The LN retard can't say, lurkers, snicker.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I said all that needed to be said.

Calling Sibert and O'Neill liars is all you feel you need to say, but it's not enough and, like the rest of you, comes up short.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:40:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:26:28 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > So the 4th bullet was just a part of a bullet?
> > > >
> > > > Fragments.
> > >
> > > Naturally, when Sibert and O'Neill say "a missile", the retard thinks it means "fragments of a missile."
> >
> > Where in the autopsy report does it say a whole bullet was recovered?
>
> The retard is apparently confused and unable to read entire sentences, lurkers, in particular the **very first sentence** of my post, in which..."Commander Humes found a fourth bullet which he never acknowledged in his report, and in which he told the WC he did not find any other bullets."

An idiot has decided to look at the wrong things incorrectly, what else is new?

> But now let's all watch as the LN retard subtly shifts his position from "fragments" to "what bullet?"

I`m going to stick to the obvious truth, that no whole bullet was found at the autopsy.

> Whereas I would just combine the two and say, "fragments from what bullet?" The LN retard can't say, lurkers, snicker.

The bullet that hit Kennedy in the head.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 7:45:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I said all that needed to be said.
>
> Calling Sibert and O'Neill liars is all you feel you need to say, but it's not enough and, like the rest of you, comes up short.

I`m not responsible that you don`t understand what I say.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > The retard is apparently confused and unable to read entire sentences, lurkers, in particular the **very first sentence** of my post, in which..."Commander Humes found a fourth bullet which he never acknowledged in his report, and in which he told the WC he did not find any other bullets."
>
> An idiot has decided to look at the wrong things incorrectly, what else is new?

How so?

>
> > But now let's all watch as the LN retard subtly shifts his position from "fragments" to "what bullet?"
>
> I`m going to stick to the obvious truth, that no whole bullet was found at the autopsy.

And therefore the interdependent obvious truth that Sibert and O'Neill lied to Captain Stover.

>
> > Whereas I would just combine the two and say, "fragments from what bullet?" The LN retard can't say, lurkers, snicker.
>
> The bullet that hit Kennedy in the head.

Interesting, so when the FBI said Humes removed a missile, what they meant was the little tiny dust splinters that, at the time of the head x-ray, were still in his head.

There's your double-whammy of LN retardation, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

It's an "explanation" that doesn't really explain the evidence.

What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:10:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > The retard is apparently confused and unable to read entire sentences, lurkers, in particular the **very first sentence** of my post, in which..."Commander Humes found a fourth bullet which he never acknowledged in his report, and in which he told the WC he did not find any other bullets."
> >
> > An idiot has decided to look at the wrong things incorrectly, what else is new?
>
> How so?

By you being an idiot.

> >
> > > But now let's all watch as the LN retard subtly shifts his position from "fragments" to "what bullet?"
> >
> > I`m going to stick to the obvious truth, that no whole bullet was found at the autopsy.
>
> And therefore the interdependent obvious truth that Sibert and O'Neill lied to Captain Stover.

Is that what you think? You`re an extremely poor thinker.

> >
> > > Whereas I would just combine the two and say, "fragments from what bullet?" The LN retard can't say, lurkers, snicker.
> >
> > The bullet that hit Kennedy in the head.
>
> Interesting, so when the FBI said Humes removed a missile, what they meant was the little tiny dust splinters that, at the time of the head x-ray, were still in his head.

By all means, show your established chronology of the two events.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.
> >
> >The explanation is Sibert, O'Neill and Young are all liars.
> >
> >Just like everyone else who knows above and beyond what the official story narrates.
> >
> >A boring and cliched LN retard response.
>
>
> It's an "explanation" that doesn't really explain the evidence.

I'd be pleased if the retard explained how Sibert and O'Neill's receipt to Stover can be both completely false and NOT a lie.

>
> What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
> case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.

One's qualifications are independent from utter zealotry. They "can" examine it. They just "won't".

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.
> >
> >The explanation is Sibert, O'Neill and Young are all liars.
> >
> >Just like everyone else who knows above and beyond what the official story narrates.
> >
> >A boring and cliched LN retard response.
>
>
> It's an "explanation" that doesn't really explain the evidence.

Of course it does. Everything in evidence is exactly how it is when no whole bullet is found during the autopsy. Now if you want to know why they choose the word "missle" to describe what they received, you`d have to ask them. I know Sibert has said that no whole bullet was found at the autopsy, but I really didn`t need him to say that to know that, and him saying that will do you no good at all.

> What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
> case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.

My ability to reason and critically examine the evidence tells me no whole bullet was found during the autopsy. Your childish way of thinking leads you to entertain all manner of nonsense.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Of course it does. Everything in evidence is exactly how it is when no whole bullet is found during the autopsy. Now if you want to know why they choose the word "missle" to describe what they received, you`d have to ask them.

I did ask them, and they said "missile, as in literally a heat-seeking missile like fighter jets fire." Then they told me to stop asking stupid questions, or else face more silly answers. I got the point quickly. But some learn faster than others, and some are still LN retards

>
> > What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
> > case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.
>
> My ability to reason and critically examine the evidence tells me no whole bullet was found during the autopsy.

And the witnesses who found and handled the bullet tell me at least one other one was found.

Their firsthand experiences...or your "ability to reason".

Which to believe?

Snicker.

[David Healy]

too many general's and admirals in the autopsy suite has a way of fucking with prosector's minds... tell us that's not nonsense!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:49:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course it does. Everything in evidence is exactly how it is when no whole bullet is found during the autopsy. Now if you want to know why they choose the word "missle" to describe what they received, you`d have to ask them.
>
> I did ask them, and they said "missile, as in literally a heat-seeking missile like fighter jets fire." Then they told me to stop asking stupid questions, or else face more silly answers. I got the point quickly. But some learn faster than others, and some are still LN retards

You should try to hide the fact that you are just playing silly games with the deaths of these men better.

> > > What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
> > > case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.
> >
> > My ability to reason and critically examine the evidence tells me no whole bullet was found during the autopsy.
>
> And the witnesses who found and handled the bullet tell me at least one other one was found.

An idiot will always go with "This allows me to believe stupid things".

> Their firsthand experiences...or your "ability to reason".

What good is information when you have no ability to think?

> Which to believe?

I always go with my ability to reason.

> Snicker.

[Bud]

You accidentally hit on another thing that speaks loudly in favor of the autopsy being on the up and up, the shear number of unnecessary people present.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:35:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.
>>>
>>>The explanation is Sibert, O'Neill and Young are all liars.
>>>
>>>Just like everyone else who knows above and beyond what the official story narrates.
>>>
>>>A boring and cliched LN retard response.
>>
>>
>> It's an "explanation" that doesn't really explain the evidence.
>
> Of course it does.

You're lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:32:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

How many of them knew anything at all about the procedure being done
in front of them?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

This is *NOT* an explanation of the evidence listed above, indeed,
it's CONTRADICTED by the evidence.

This is simply a naked assertion by you that has no evidence,
citation, or logical argument to support it.

It is, in other words, merely your faith.

[Bud]

What do you and Boris know about conducting an autopsy?

And what do you need to know about conducting an autopsy to see a bullet found during the autopsy?

If you are planning malfeasance you wouldn`t allow a bunch of needless witnesses.

[Bud]

Reasoned deduction.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I suppose we could believe Sibert.

At around 18:20 and going forward:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

By the way, a little further down, there's an interview with O'Neill, too, conducted in 1979 by Bill O'Reilly of all people.

O'Neill also says there was no extra bullet(s).

So now that this is straightened out, I expect Boris to never again bring up O'Neill and Sibert and the extra bullets nonsense. Cross it off your list, Boris...you're making progress today! One step closer to unmasking JFK's real killers!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:48:51 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

So the next time we use a witness statement from a dozen years later,
you'll refrain from crying?

There's a reason that intelligent people hesitate to use statements
from years later that contradict the earliest contemporary accounts.

Do you know why?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Sibert never said a whole bullet or bullets were given to anyone. The so-called missile in the receipt issued by the corpsman was just two tiny fragments in an envelope.

Try to refrain from crying.

> There's a reason that intelligent people hesitate to use statements
> from years later that contradict the earliest contemporary accounts.
>
> Do you know why?

I sure do.

And now you're going to break that rule in your attempt to discredit Sibert.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I suppose we could believe Sibert.

Yeah. But you don't.


https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsibertW.htm

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> By the way, a little further down, there's an interview with O'Neill, too, conducted in 1979 by Bill O'Reilly of all people.

1979? Oh, then it's definitely more reliable than a document they both co-signed TOGETHER, on the **very day** of the assassination.

>
> O'Neill also says there was no extra bullet(s).

You don't believe O'Neill either.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoneillFX.htm

>
> So now that this is straightened out, I expect Boris to never again bring up O'Neill and Sibert and the extra bullets nonsense.

Of course I will. It complements Young so well:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/HRe6_Vqt_9U/7Kb_rOwLBwAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:24:51 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

>Sibert never said ...


You've affirmed that you won't cry the next time we use a witness
statement made a dozen years later.

Good...

>Try to refrain from crying.

I'm not the one who'll be crying. I'm using *YOUR* established rules.

>> There's a reason that intelligent people hesitate to use statements
>> from years later that contradict the earliest contemporary accounts.
>>
>> Do you know why?
>
>I sure do.

Empty claim, dumbass.

[Bud]

It is called weighing information, and you just can`t do it.

[David Healy]

weigh this Einstein, 6 piece crispy chicken w/mashed, gravy and an extra biscuit. Hold the butter and honey? That ought to get DVP's chicken fat flowin'.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 9:27:31 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

> weigh this Einstein, 6 piece crispy chicken w/mashed, gravy and an extra biscuit. Hold the butter and honey? That ought to get DVP's chicken fat flowin'.

Our resident Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome affected drunk stumbles in to the local Vegas library for some free internet, utters his usual word salad at acj, and stumbles back down the street to T-Mobile Arena, eager to find a Zamboni machine to climb under for some relaxing fumes.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So Boris moves the goalposts.

Both O'Neill and Sibert are on tape and answer your wacky claim. They'e not CHANGING their story years later.

No missile. No fourth bullet.

Move on now and stop wallowing in your grief. JFK is dead and he isn't coming back. Neither is your hero Oswald.

[David Healy]

you're a second place type of guy always playing catchup. You let 1964 WCR defenders down, but we knew that from the get-go! ROTFLMFAO!

[David Healy]

just for you tootsie-roll:
3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.
If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.

Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.

Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.

Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.

source (smooches):

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/5/

[Jason Burke]

Oh, shit. The fucktard lives near me. Good thing I'm in a gated
community and I'm fairly heavily armed.

Though the waste-case is probably so far out of it that it'd take at
least three taps to the back of the head to put his ass down.

(I DO enjoy looking at the shithole he "lives" in.)

[David Healy]

my black racist brother in jfk research is upset. .john suspend your stipend asshat? LMFAO!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> So Boris moves the goalposts.

Not at all. You said, "I suppose we could believe Sibert." But you don't. Nor O'Neill. And I proved it with both.

>
> Both O'Neill and Sibert are on tape and answer your wacky claim. They'e not CHANGING their story years later.

Hey imbecile, do you know why Sibert *AND* O'Neill were sent, as opposed to Sibert *OR* O'Neill?

>
> No missile. No fourth bullet.

Since their recollection complements precisely what James Young also found, I'm going to use corroborative deduction and conclude that not one, but two men, know what a "missile" is.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
>
> Oh, shit. The fucktard lives near me. Good thing I'm in a gated
> community

This means "jail"

>
> and I'm fairly heavily armed.

This means "a toothbrush sharpened at both ends"

[David Healy]

lmfao!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

We know your interpretation of "missile" is what you think hit the Pentagon on 911. You're retarded that way. You are not to be trusted to interpret anything or get any details correct. You've proven it time after time. You have no theory, no case, no idea on the number of shots, the shooter, etc. All you've ever said (to Hank at aaj.)was that Oswald was complicit, which means G-U-I-L-T-Y, which means death penalty, which you immediately regretted saying and then flew away as fast as the propeller on your tinfoil beanie could carry you.

But I digress.


You're moving the goalposts, Boris. Sibert and O'Neill both say fragments, not a bullet or bullet or a missile. The subject of your original post in this thread is centered around that claim, and Sibert and O'Neill are on tape saying you're wrong.

Wear it.

Boris Dunning-Kruger is apparently smarter than the men who were there, who handled the fragments, who are on tape saying they were fragments, and who are on tape saying they didn't handle an extra bullet.

Stop claiming Sibert and O'Neill turned over a bullet to be inventoried. They didn't. They never said they did. They're on tape saying they didn't.

So stop saying it.

[David Healy]

*flush* tootsie-roll!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:45:52 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:

> *flush* tootsie-roll!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

[A lot of blathering, addresses no points made]

>
> But I digress.

Don't let me stop you. We've established what your verbosity means.

>
>
> You're moving the goalposts, Boris. Sibert and O'Neill both say fragments, not a bullet or bullet or a missile. The subject of your original post in this thread is centered around that claim, and Sibert and O'Neill are on tape saying you're wrong.

And I have Marina on tape saying *you're* wrong. Who cares? Signed documents attest to their findings. And nothing from you about James Young's finding either, I see. Surprising.


>
> Boris Dunning-Kruger

Nope. You don't get to say this anymore.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Sure I do. Boris Dunning-Kruger thinks he's smarter than Sibert and O'Neill. Boris Dunning-Kruger hand-waves away what they say in favor of what Boris Dunning-Kruger wants to believe.

History laughs at you, kook.

And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.

Bad news for you; Sibert and O'Neill, on tape, explaining there was no missile, just fragments. That, plus we really did land on the moon.

Bad week for you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Oh look, Chuck ran from EVERY POINT that I made. And brought his imbecilic verbosity with him.

These are called "tells", lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.

What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).

Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.

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

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:25:34 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
>
> What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).

Equivocation fallacy, fallacy of a false comparison, fallacy of composition, etc. etc. etc.

They all thought Oswald was guilty. And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.

How do I arrive at this conclusion?

Well, you told Hank at aaj. that Oswald was complicit. Would it be fair for me to state that you agree with the WC?

>
> Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ

Apples and oranges.

Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > >
> > > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
> >
> > What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
>
> Equivocation fallac

Not when it's exactly the same and, oh, look! Chuck is now...."moving the goalposts."

Another irony.

>
> They all thought Oswald was guilty.

So do I, so what's your point?

>
> And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.

No, because the WC were busy building a narrative, and the means by which this was done was not only dishonest, but because of Dulles's involvement, bordering on treason.

>
> >
> > Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ
>
> Apples and oranges.

No. It's signatures and signatures. Now, did Sibert and O'Neill sign off on what they found? And do James Young's findings corroborate what they found?

Yes? Or no?

>
> Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.

You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after. I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically. You're just target practice to me. I'm not expected or able to change your mind, you're a sparring punching bag, and that's about it.

[David Healy]

the drunk has you running for Bud's skirts. The drunk outted you as a vet hater. I stand convicted. Admit it, you're in love with Bud's thighs, ya freak! LMFAO!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
> > >
> > > What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
> >
> > Equivocation fallac
>
> Not when it's exactly the same and, oh, look! Chuck is now...."moving the goalposts."
>
> Another irony.
>
>
> >
> > They all thought Oswald was guilty.
>
> So do I, so what's your point?
>
> >
> > And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.
>
> No, because the WC were busy building a narrative, and the means by which this was done was not only dishonest, but because of Dulles's involvement, bordering on treason.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
>
> No. It's signatures and signatures. Now, did Sibert and O'Neill sign off on what they found? And do James Young's findings corroborate what they found?
>
> Yes? Or no?

Chuck produced Sibert and O`Neil saying no full bullet was found during the autopsy. You produced Sibert and O`Neil *not* saying a full bullet was found during the autopsy.

And Young doesn`t corroborate a full bullet found during the autopsy.

> >
> > Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.
>
> You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after.

Idiots?

> I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically.

<snicker> I love it when you guy pretend you are applying logic and critical thinking with your ideas, what follows is always a great example of poor thinking.

So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud. All of this weight is supposedly supported by a single word, "missile". Or, an idiot is using this to do what conspiracy idiots always do, and using it as an excuse to believe stupid shit.

[David Healy]

it's getting to you eh, old man?

> > You're just target practice to me. I'm not expected or able to change your mind, you're a sparring punching bag, and that's about it.

and old Bud is not good being that punching bag anymore.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:25:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
> > > >
> > > > What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
> > >
> > > Equivocation fallac
> >
> > Not when it's exactly the same and, oh, look! Chuck is now...."moving the goalposts."
> >
> > Another irony.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > They all thought Oswald was guilty.
> >
> > So do I, so what's your point?
> >
> > >
> > > And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.
> >
> > No, because the WC were busy building a narrative, and the means by which this was done was not only dishonest, but because of Dulles's involvement, bordering on treason.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ
> > >
> > > Apples and oranges.
> >
> > No. It's signatures and signatures. Now, did Sibert and O'Neill sign off on what they found? And do James Young's findings corroborate what they found?
> >
> > Yes? Or no?
>
> Chuck produced Sibert and O`Neil saying no full bullet was found during the autopsy. You produced Sibert and O`Neil *not* saying a full bullet was found during the autopsy.

<snicker> LN retards looking at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

>
> And Young doesn`t corroborate a full bullet found during the autopsy.

How so?

>
> > >
> > > Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.
> >
> > You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after.
>
> Idiots?

Using big words again?

>
> > I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically.
>
> <snicker> I love it when you guy pretend you are applying logic and critical thinking with your ideas, what follows is always a great example of poor thinking.

<snicker> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. Let bub show the fantastic ideas he is trying to express.

>
> So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud.

Several pieces of evidence were destroyed.
Several pieces of evidence "got disappeared."
Several pieces of evidence had a broken chain of custody.
Let bub show **who** was actually "punished" for anything.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Failing at his Sibert and O'Neill and a "missile" fiasco, Boris the Truther simply moves the goalposts, shifts the burden on to Bud, plops a Hitchens's Razor into the mix with his evidence-less claims, and on and on.

In other words, it's just Boris being Boris.

Okay, cue Healy the Drunk with the faux hipster word salad.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > >
> > > So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud.
> >
> > Several pieces of evidence were destroyed.
> > Several pieces of evidence "got disappeared."
> > Several pieces of evidence had a broken chain of custody.
> > Let bub show **who** was actually "punished" for anything.
>
>
> Failing at

bub swears that there was too much risk of punishment for tampering with evidence, including the removal of a full bullet and breaking the chain of custody.

So I'll just simply remove your stupid worthless shit of an answer, and await bub to step up to the challenge and show us who in this epic tale has ever been reprimanded, despite my factual claims of evidence gone missing or tampered.

Let's work through this together, lurkers, if Chuck doesn't want to.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:48:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 5:25:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And notice your subtle falsehood with your claim that "signed documents attest to their findings" bit. The signed document is a receipt issued by the corpsman. Yes, they signed it, but I'm sure they didn't give a fuck about future kooks like you trying to make mountains out of molehills.
> > > > >
> > > > > What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
> > > >
> > > > Equivocation fallac
> > >
> > > Not when it's exactly the same and, oh, look! Chuck is now...."moving the goalposts."
> > >
> > > Another irony.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > They all thought Oswald was guilty.
> > >
> > > So do I, so what's your point?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And since you like to make these logically fallacious arguments and comparisons, you also agree with the WC.
> > >
> > > No, because the WC were busy building a narrative, and the means by which this was done was not only dishonest, but because of Dulles's involvement, bordering on treason.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck's rebuttal seemed to suggest that a signature means something.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/O4_o6g-TL4A/PclgcoAXDAAJ
> > > >
> > > > Apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > No. It's signatures and signatures. Now, did Sibert and O'Neill sign off on what they found? And do James Young's findings corroborate what they found?
> > >
> > > Yes? Or no?
> >
> > Chuck produced Sibert and O`Neil saying no full bullet was found during the autopsy. You produced Sibert and O`Neil *not* saying a full bullet was found during the autopsy.
>
> <snicker> LN retards looking at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

To an idiot listening to the people who handled the evidence are the wrong people to ask about that evidence, or get a clarification of that evidence.

> >
> > And Young doesn`t corroborate a full bullet found during the autopsy.
>
> How so?

Young`s bullet was supposedly found in the limo, not in Kennedy.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.
> > >
> > > You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after.
> >
> > Idiots?
>
> Using big words again?

Might be too big for your "demographic".

> >
> > > I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically.
> >
> > <snicker> I love it when you guy pretend you are applying logic and critical thinking with your ideas, what follows is always a great example of poor thinking.
>
> <snicker> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. Let bub show the fantastic ideas he is trying to express.

They exist only in your feverish imagination.

> >
> > So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud.
>
> Several pieces of evidence were destroyed.
> Several pieces of evidence "got disappeared."
> Several pieces of evidence had a broken chain of custody.
> Let bub show **who** was actually "punished" for anything.

Speaking on this specific issue, is your idea that if they had been caught removing a bullet from the chain of evidence nobody would have been legally culpable?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> To an idiot listening to the people who handled the evidence are the wrong people to ask about that evidence, or get a clarification of that evidence.

<snicker> Careful, moron. Next time we discuss Bardwell Odum, Darrell Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, J.M. Poe, Jerry Hill, George Whitaker, the officers who handled the Walker shells, or **anyone** else, I might be so inclined as to resurrect this comment of yours, at which time you'll be forced to backpedal like the idiot you are. Fashion your responses wisely.

>
> > >
> > > And Young doesn`t corroborate a full bullet found during the autopsy.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Young`s bullet was supposedly found in the limo, not in Kennedy.

<snicker> Thanks for admitting he found one, retard. Of course, what Young's bullet corroborates is that there WAS a fourth bullet. As in, at *least* four bullets.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep trying Boris. The drunk and the midget buy it, but that's about it.
> > > >
> > > > You're a retard. So let's get that straight off the bat. I wouldn't **want** you to buy it, because you are not the demographic I'm after.
> > >
> > > Idiots?
> >
> > Using big words again?
>
> Might be too big for your "demographic".
>
> > >
> > > > I'd rather be on the side of researchers who have the added skill of being able to think critically.
> > >
> > > <snicker> I love it when you guy pretend you are applying logic and critical thinking with your ideas, what follows is always a great example of poor thinking.
> >
> > <snicker> Bluff and bluster, lurkers. Let bub show the fantastic ideas he is trying to express.
>
> They exist only in your feverish imagination.

Empty claim.

>
> > >
> > > So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud.
> >
> > Several pieces of evidence were destroyed.
> > Several pieces of evidence "got disappeared."
> > Several pieces of evidence had a broken chain of custody.
> > Let bub show **who** was actually "punished" for anything.
>
> Speaking on this specific issue, is your idea that if they had been caught removing a bullet from the chain of evidence nobody would have been legally culpable?

My idea is that several pieces of evidence were destroyed, vanished, had their chain of custody broken (historically factual), and you can't name anyone who was legally culpable for any of it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
>
>Equivocation fallacy, fallacy of a false comparison, fallacy of composition, etc. etc. etc.

It's amusing how a fact can be so many different "fallacies."

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I agree. You guys have that rare gift.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever. Let's ask the moron to tell us how Oswald was "complicit" in the murder of JFK, and we'll work through Boris the Truther's scenario together, lurkers.

You've been running for months from this, Truther. Man up and tell us how Oswald was complicit.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.

Worked for you so far. Do continue.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:43:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.
>
> Worked for you so far. Do continue.

Great.

Tell us how Oswald was complicit.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Actually let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You're the gift that keeps giving, Boris.

"Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK. Prove me wrong David Healy and Ben Holmes!" --Boris the Truther

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You're the gift that keeps giving, Boris.

That gift being a kick to your balls.

>
> "Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK. Prove me wrong David Healy and Ben Holmes!" --Boris the Truther

Why would they do that? Oswald's culpability does not exclude conspiracy. Yours is the false dichotomy of a zealot, with all the blind faith of a fanatic, and none of the understandings of the text.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You're the gift that keeps giving, Boris.
>
> That gift being a kick to your balls.

Boris just can't stop winning. Soundly defeating nutters here, at other boards he's got the 911 Deniers tied up in knots with his nano-thermite logic, and at yet another board the sheeple can't answer to Boris's satisfaction his questions about why there are no stars in the background of the Apollo 11 lunar photos.

>
> >
> > "Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK. Prove me wrong David Healy and Ben Holmes!" --Boris the Truther
>
> Why would they do that?

Because the Drunk and the Midget believe Oswald was entirely innocent on 11-22-63. He fired no shots, he killed no cop.

>Oswald's culpability does not exclude conspiracy.

We don't know that based on your statement, Truther. Describe his culpability first. What happened?

(Crickets chirping...)

>Yours is the false dichotomy of a zealot, with all the blind faith of a fanatic, and none of the >understandings of the text.

Boris is just to damn smart, his arguments just too subtle for the sheeple to grasp. Conspiracism says in part that the afflicted see themselves as the right type of person to see the patterns, designs, events, etc. as they uniquely know what to look for. Boris is one of the truly enlightened who can see the truth behind the secret plots. Invisible to the masses happy with the crumbs fed to them by their overlords, these plots would go uncovered if it wasn't for Boris the investigoogler.

Boris on the case!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:40:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.

This has always been the tactic of believers.

But not by intention - merely because YOU CANNOT!

Where is the occipital located?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:48:21 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Why can we easily do what you can't?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:50:16 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:48:22 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:43:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.
>> >
>> > Worked for you so far. Do continue.
>>
>> Great.
>>
>> Tell us how Oswald was complicit.
>
>Actually let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.

Ouch!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:33:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Honest people are laughing at you, Chuckles...

You agree that it's a fact, yet you can't address it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Well, that excludes you.

>
> You agree that it's a fact, yet you can't address it.

Your response makes no sense.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

How was Oswald complicit? You have said many times he is innocent of killing JFK, innocent of wounding JBC, and innocent of killing JDT, and innocent of firing at Walker. In fact, you don't even think he owned the rifle.

Boris says he's complicit, you say he's not.

Boris says he's complicit, you say he's totally innocent.

Which kook is correct?

[David Healy]

On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 10:52:41 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You're the gift that keeps giving, Boris.
> >
> > That gift being a kick to your balls.
>
> Boris just can't stop winning. Soundly defeating nutters here, at other boards he's got the 911 Deniers tied up in knots with his nano-thermite logic, and at yet another board the sheeple can't answer to Boris's satisfaction his questions about why there are no stars in the background of the Apollo 11 lunar photos.
> >
> > >
> > > "Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK. Prove me wrong David Healy and Ben Holmes!" --Boris the Truther
> >
> > Why would they do that?
>
> Because the Drunk and the Midget believe Oswald was entirely innocent on 11-22-63. He fired no shots, he killed no cop.

Put the pipe down tootsie-roll. There's no upside letting the audience know you have a few serious problems including untreated addiction. But that's okay, Brock has returned from his summer retreat. He's here to assist you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:15:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:48:21 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:43:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.
>> >>
>> >> Worked for you so far. Do continue.
>> >
>> >Great.
>> >
>> >Tell us how Oswald was complicit.
>>
>> Why can we easily do what you can't?
>

>How was Oswald...


Tut tut tut, coward... ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Why is it that we easily and credibly answer any question on this case
that you can think to ask, yet you RUN AWAY EACH AND EVERY TIME WE ASK
YOU ANYTHING?

Why can we easily do what you can't?

(I predict Chuckles will run *again*... anyone got any money to put on
it?))

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:01:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:20:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:33:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:16:07 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:42:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> What a strange thing to say. Previously I'd pointed out that nearly half the Warren Commission disagreed with their own report, and would go on to say so later (and "on tape", ironically).
>>>>>
>>>>>Equivocation fallacy, fallacy of a false comparison, fallacy of composition, etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's amusing how a fact can be so many different "fallacies."
>>>
>>>I agree. You guys have that rare gift.
>>
>> Honest people are laughing at you, Chuckles...
>
>Well, that excludes you.

Once you've been proven a liar, most people will take that fact into
account when reading anything you post.

>> You agree that it's a fact, yet you can't address it.
>
>Your response makes no sense.

You've agreed that it's a fact that nearly half of the Warren
Commission disagreed with their own report.

You merely refuse to address it by labeling it as many logical
fallacies as you can think of...

You failed.

You lose.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 4:41:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:15:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 9:18:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:48:21 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:43:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually, let's never answer any of this moron's questions. Ever.
> >> >>
> >> >> Worked for you so far. Do continue.
> >> >
> >> >Great.
> >> >
> >> >Tell us how Oswald was complicit.
> >>
> >> Why can we easily do what you can't?
> >
> >How was Oswald...
>
>
> Tut tut tut, coward... ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>
> Why is it that we easily and credibly answer any question on this case
> that you can think to ask, yet you RUN AWAY EACH AND EVERY TIME WE ASK
> YOU ANYTHING?

That you are asking him anything shows you have nothing to offer.

> Why can we easily do what you can't?

Make any argument you like, we`re listening.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris just can't stop winning.

Appreciate it.

>
> Boris is just to damn smart,

And you're dumb as poodle shit left in the sun too long. Complimenting me won't curry any favor.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> How was Oswald complicit?

You won't be getting an answer from me, because we both know you don't care about the answer or the subject. It's a stonewalling tactic, and also you want other people to do your work for you. But I'm amused by the way you keep asking, because I think you think there's a "gotcha" in there somewhere if I answer. As if you're going to trip me up or something.

For you to accept my answer, you first have to accept that Oswald was Intelligence, provably and even on record. You can't do that. And you know why you can't do that. Because the only one of us scared shitless of the "gotcha" is you.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

<snicker> Didn't bub's failure of a mother teach him that it's rude to ignore other people's posts and run like a gut-shot yellow shit?

[Bud]

She imbued me with enough sense not to follow an idiot with an attention deficiency everywhere his mind wanders. You imagine an invisible conspiracy that can do anything at any time. Why such an entity need to kill Kennedy when they were already many, many times more powerful than he could ever dream of being?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

She should have taught you that you're an idiot failure like her, who likes to believe the people who handled the evidence are **only** the right people if what they say supports the narrative. Now snicker some more like a dummy, and keep running from the House of Boris.

[Bud]

I tried to give you pointers on how to think critically, you weren`t up to it.

> Now snicker some more like a dummy, and keep running from the House of Boris.

In that case it would be the House of Stupid.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I tried to give you pointers on how to think critically, you weren`t up to it.

How so?

>
> > Now snicker some more like a dummy, and keep running from the House of Boris.
>
> In that case it would be the House of Stupid.

Empty claim.

[BT George]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:32:02 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:52:04 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 5:35:43 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 8:12:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 15:13:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The explanation is that no full bullet was found during the autopsy.
> > > > >
> > > > >The explanation is Sibert, O'Neill and Young are all liars.
> > > > >
> > > > >Just like everyone else who knows above and beyond what the official story narrates.
> > > > >
> > > > >A boring and cliched LN retard response.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's an "explanation" that doesn't really explain the evidence.
> > >
> > > Of course it does. Everything in evidence is exactly how it is when no whole bullet is found during the autopsy. Now if you want to know why they choose the word "missle" to describe what they received, you`d have to ask them. I know Sibert has said that no whole bullet was found at the autopsy, but I really didn`t need him to say that to know that, and him saying that will do you no good at all.
> > >
> > > > What it "explains" is why believers aren't qualified to examine this
> > > > case... they can only accept what a bunch of lawyers tell them.
> > >
> > > My ability to reason and critically examine the evidence tells me no whole bullet was found during the autopsy. Your childish way of thinking leads you to entertain all manner of nonsense.
> >
> > too many general's and admirals in the autopsy suite has a way of fucking with prosector's minds... tell us that's not nonsense!
>
> You accidentally hit on another thing that speaks loudly in favor of the autopsy being on the up and up, the shear number of unnecessary people present.

I was thinking about that the other day. Why stoop to secret shenanigans when you can invite half of the Free World to come in and observe the proceedings? Nothing like multiplying potential contradictory witnesses to finish off the great "Coup D'etat"!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:45:04 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I tried to give you pointers on how to think critically, you weren`t up to it.
>
> How so?

"So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud. All of this weight is supposedly supported by a single word, "missile". Or, an idiot is using this to do what conspiracy idiots always do, and using it as an excuse to believe stupid shit."

[BT George]

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 5:45:04 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I tried to give you pointers on how to think critically, you weren`t up to it.
>
> How so?
>

How does an intelligent person adequately explain cluelessness to a moron?

> >
> > > Now snicker some more like a dummy, and keep running from the House of Boris.
> >
> > In that case it would be the House of Stupid.
>
> Empty claim.

Sounds like a substantive one to me---and no doubt to every thinking Lurker who has observed your critical thinking "skills".

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> "So let`s apply some critical thinking to this issue, in order for a full bullet to have been found at the autopsy a few fantastic things are required, with a truckload of other fantastic things implied. The major and most obvious fantastic things are a purposely deceptive autopsy of the President of the United States, the risking of punishment for tampering with evidence of very accomplished individuals, the removal of a full bullet out of the chain of evidence and coordination between diverse agencies and institutions to perpetuate this fraud. All of this weight is supposedly supported by a single word, "missile". Or, an idiot is using this to do what conspiracy idiots always do, and using it as an excuse to believe stupid shit."

Too bad you're a retard, or you might have realized you already said this, and I've already responded to it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/HCEv2P2Fr7I/ZFuRk-IEBQAJ

[Bud]

I said I gave you pointers on critical thinking. You asked "How so?". I repeated the pointers. Add "inability to follow a discussion" to your other faults.