How To Force Believers To Shut Up.

[Ben Holmes]

Simply force them to explain the evidence...


The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?

So why do *YOU* care?

And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?

Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO? Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?

And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.

Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions...

And *that* is how you shut believers up...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Simply force them to explain the evidence...
>
>
> The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?
>
> So why do *YOU* care?
>
> And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?
>
> Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:
>
> Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT.

> Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Support your claim that the WC buried those findings.

> Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?

See above.

> Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Support you claim that this was the cause of his firing.

> Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

Support the claim that the intent of the FBI was to intimidate witnesses to get the statements they wanted.

> What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

Support the claim that nobody saw the object.

> How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

Support your claim that the spine must be broken if a bullet transits.

> Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Support you claim they were forbidden.

> Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Support your claim that x-rays are missing.

> Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

They liked the truth.

> Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Support your claim that the limo was the scene of the crime.

> Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Tomlinson said the bullet looks like the one he found.

> Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?

No Minox in evidence photos.

> Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why did they say.

> Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

So vague as to be meaningless.

> Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

The jet effect is a demonstrable phenomenon. Eyewitness unreliability is a demonstrable phenomenon. That photographs are more reliable than witness impressions is a demonstrable phenomenon.

What do conspiracy retards have against reality.

> Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

Support that Chaney is never seen in the position he is seen in Altgens in the z-film.

> Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Support that a slowdown is undetectable.

> Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

What is the context of each individual observation?

> Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

Explained by Boswell, I believe.

> When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?

This one is a puzzler. But since you can`t show that it impacts whether Oswald shot Kennedy it becomes trivial.

> And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.

Go through your list and give your "credible" explanation of each item. And I will write up a similar list and you can give your "credible" explanation for those things. After we are done that it should be clear to even the most casual observer that you are batshit crazy.

> Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions...
>
> And *that* is how you shut believers up...

We don`t really have to do any. We can just take note that you can go nowhere with your ideas. They are dead in the water, every one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Simply force them to explain the evidence...
> >
> >
> > The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?
> >
> > So why do *YOU* care?
> >
> > And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?
> >
> > Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:
> >
> > Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
>
> Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT.

That wasn't the question.

So you're simply refusing to answer.

Again... sheer cowardice on your part.

> > Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
>
> Support your claim that the WC buried those findings.

Nope. *YOU* need to produce 'em.

Once again we see your cowardice ...

> > Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?
>
> See above.

Once again, your cowardice & dishonesty forbids you from simply answering the PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE question.

If you believe it's not an honest question, THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO PRODUCE WHAT I CLEARLY STATED WAS NOT RELEASED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.

So why aren't you citing it?

Once again, we see nothing but cowardice...

> > Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?
>
> Support you claim that this was the cause of his firing.

Nope.

Don't need to.

Because *YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CITE OTHERWISE*.

Or even answer the question.

Still a coward...

> > Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?
>
> Support the claim that the intent of the FBI was to intimidate witnesses to get the statements they wanted.

Nope. Once again we see your abject cowardice on display. It's BEYOND ALL REFUTATION to any honest person that the FBI engaged in a pattern of witness intimidation.

You refuse to explain why.

Still a coward...

> > What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?
>
> Support the claim that nobody saw the object.

Nope. Don't have to. Because you already know this fact, and refuse to even TRY to refute it.

Once again you refuse to answer the question.

Your cowardice is certainly beyond any question...

> > How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?
>
> Support your claim that the spine must be broken if a bullet transits.

Already been done. The CAT scans quite conclusively demonstrate this.

But once again, you refuse to answer the question.

It seems needless to point out yet again your amazing cowardice!!!

> > Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
>
> Support you claim they were forbidden.

No.

It's been done repeatedly. Now you're simply lying.

> > Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...
>
> Support your claim that x-rays are missing.

Been there, done that... you're *still* running from the evidence....

> > Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?
>
> They liked the truth.

YOUR FIRST ANSWER!!!

You acknowledge that the CIA had a program of harrassment of U.S. citizens who wrote criticism of the WCR, and justify it by claiming that the CIA "liked the truth."

You've demonstrated your dishonesty, you've demonstrated your cowardice, now you want to shoot for moron, right?

> > Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?
>
> Support your claim that the limo was the scene of the crime.

This is *BEYOND* moron...

Still refusing to answer legitimate questions... tell us "Bud" - was JFK shot on 11/22/63?

> > Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
>
> Tomlinson said the bullet looks like the one he found.

You didn't answer the question, "Bud."

Want another try at it?

> > Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?
>
> No Minox in evidence photos.

Ran from the question AGAIN!!!

This post will stand for all time as the premier example of believer cowardice.

> > Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?
>
> Why did they say.

Still a coward, eh "Bud?"

> > Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??
>
> So vague as to be meaningless.

No, you're lying again, "Bud."

I've been very specific as to the lies told by the WC and HSCA. You know it, and now you're lying about it.

> > Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?
>
> The jet effect is a demonstrable phenomenon. Eyewitness unreliability is a demonstrable phenomenon. That photographs are more reliable than witness impressions is a demonstrable phenomenon.
>
> What do conspiracy retards have against reality.

Once again you evaded the question.

> > Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?
>
> Support that Chaney is never seen in the position he is seen in Altgens in the z-film.

Once again you run like the little yellow coward you are...

> > Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?
>
> Support that a slowdown is undetectable.

Still the coward, eh "Bud?"

> > Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?
>
> What is the context of each individual observation?

Your cowardice is now legendary!!!

> > Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?
>
> Explained by Boswell, I believe.

Nope... you're lying again.

> > When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?
>
> This one is a puzzler. But since you can`t show that it impacts whether Oswald shot Kennedy it becomes trivial.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.
>
> Go through your list and give your "credible" explanation of each item. And I will write up a similar list and you can give your "credible" explanation for those things. After we are done that it should be clear to even the most casual observer that you are batshit crazy.

No, you'll *NEVER* answer these questions... you're too much the gutless liar & coward to even attempt to do so.

There are quite obvious answers to the majority of these questions, ones that no believer will ever admit.

Which simply goes to show that "honest" and "believer" are incompatible.

> > Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions...
> >
> > And *that* is how you shut believers up...
>
> We don`t really have to do any. We can just take note that you can go nowhere with your ideas. They are dead in the water, every one.

Actually, you've just shown your amazing cowardice.

My point has been made.

[Jason Burke]

If the point you're trying to make is that you are batshit crazy,
Holmie-boy, why then yes, yes you made your point.

Anything else? Well, not so much.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Simply force them to explain the evidence...
> > >
> > >
> > > The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?
> > >
> > > So why do *YOU* care?
> > >
> > > And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?
> > >
> > > Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:
> > >
> > > Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
> >
> > Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT.
>
>
> That wasn't the question.
>
> So you're simply refusing to answer.

No, I asking you to support your claim.

> Again... sheer cowardice on your part.
>
>
> > > Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
> >
> > Support your claim that the WC buried those findings.
>
>
> Nope. *YOU* need to produce 'em.

Nope. Your claim to support.

> Once again we see your cowardice ...
>
>
> > > Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?
> >
> > See above.
>
>
> Once again, your cowardice & dishonesty forbids you from simply answering the PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE question.

Your claim to support.

> If you believe it's not an honest question, THEN IT'S UP TO YOU TO PRODUCE WHAT I CLEARLY STATED WAS NOT RELEASED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.

Wrong.

> So why aren't you citing it?
>
> Once again, we see nothing but cowardice...
>
>
> > > Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?
> >
> > Support you claim that this was the cause of his firing.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> Don't need to.

Of course not, you can opt to not support your claim.

> Because *YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO CITE OTHERWISE*.
>
> Or even answer the question.
>
> Still a coward...
>
>
> > > Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?
> >
> > Support the claim that the intent of the FBI was to intimidate witnesses to get the statements they wanted.
>
>
> Nope. Once again we see your abject cowardice on display. It's BEYOND ALL REFUTATION to any honest person that the FBI engaged in a pattern of witness intimidation.

What a meaningless pronouncement.

> You refuse to explain why.
>
> Still a coward...
>
>
> > > What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?
> >
> > Support the claim that nobody saw the object.
>
>
> Nope. Don't have to.

That is true, you don`t have to support your claims.

> Because you already know this fact, and refuse to even TRY to refute it.
>
> Once again you refuse to answer the question.
>
> Your cowardice is certainly beyond any question...
>
>
> > > How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?
> >
> > Support your claim that the spine must be broken if a bullet transits.
>
>
> Already been done. The CAT scans quite conclusively demonstrate this.

Piling one meaningless claim on top of another doesn`t advance the idea one bit.

> But once again, you refuse to answer the question.
>
> It seems needless to point out yet again your amazing cowardice!!!
>
> > > Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
> >
> > Support you claim they were forbidden.
>
>
> No.

OK, don`t support your claim.

> It's been done repeatedly. Now you're simply lying.
>
>
>
> > > Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...
> >
> > Support your claim that x-rays are missing.
>
>
> Been there, done that...

More meaningless pronouncements.

> you're *still* running from the evidence....
>
>
> > > Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?
> >
> > They liked the truth.
>
>
> YOUR FIRST ANSWER!!!
>
> You acknowledge that the CIA had a program of harrassment of U.S. citizens who wrote criticism of the WCR, and justify it by claiming that the CIA "liked the truth."
>
> You've demonstrated your dishonesty, you've demonstrated your cowardice, now you want to shoot for moron, right?

Ad hominem.

> > > Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?
> >
> > Support your claim that the limo was the scene of the crime.
>
>
> This is *BEYOND* moron...

You are employing ad hominem when you should be supporting your claim.

> Still refusing to answer legitimate questions... tell us "Bud" - was JFK shot on 11/22/63?
>
>
> > > Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
> >
> > Tomlinson said the bullet looks like the one he found.
>
>
> You didn't answer the question, "Bud."

Tomlinson found the bullet, he "originally handled it". Tomlinson said the bullet in evidence looks like the bullet he found.

> Want another try at it?
>
>
> > > Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?
> >
> > No Minox in evidence photos.
>
>
> Ran from the question AGAIN!!!

The evidence was photographed. There is no Minox camera in the photos of the evidence. There is a light meter in the photographs of the evidence. This draws into question whether there was ever a Minox camera among Oswald` possessions. Your questions assumes something there is evidence against.

> This post will stand for all time as the premier example of believer cowardice.
>
>
>
> > > Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?
> >
> > Why did they say.
>
>
> Still a coward, eh "Bud?"

Your question calls for speculation. What reason did they give?

> > > Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??
> >
> > So vague as to be meaningless.
>
> No, you're lying again, "Bud."
>
> I've been very specific as to the lies told by the WC and HSCA. You know it, and now you're lying about it.

I don`t see any clarification there.

> > > Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?
> >
> > The jet effect is a demonstrable phenomenon. Eyewitness unreliability is a demonstrable phenomenon. That photographs are more reliable than witness impressions is a demonstrable phenomenon.
> >
> > What do conspiracy retards have against reality.
>
>
> Once again you evaded the question.

Show that none of these phenomenon were known of before this case.

> > > Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?
> >
> > Support that Chaney is never seen in the position he is seen in Altgens in the z-film.
>
>
> Once again you run like the little yellow coward you are...

Ad hominem isn`t support for your claims.

> > > Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?
> >
> > Support that a slowdown is undetectable.
>
>
> Still the coward, eh "Bud?"

You seem not to be interested in supporting your claims.

> > > Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?
> >
> > What is the context of each individual observation?
>
>
> Your cowardice is now legendary!!!

You find context unimportant?

> > > Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?
> >
> > Explained by Boswell, I believe.
>
>
> Nope... you're lying again.

As I recall he said it was his hand holding up the scalp.

> > > When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?
> >
> > This one is a puzzler. But since you can`t show that it impacts whether Oswald shot Kennedy it becomes trivial.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

In what way?

> > > And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.
> >
> > Go through your list and give your "credible" explanation of each item. And I will write up a similar list and you can give your "credible" explanation for those things. After we are done that it should be clear to even the most casual observer that you are batshit crazy.
>
> No, you'll *NEVER* answer these questions... you're too much the gutless liar & coward to even attempt to do so.
>
> There are quite obvious answers to the majority of these questions, ones that no believer will ever admit.

Give your answers then. Let the lurkers see what a crackpot your really are.

>
> Which simply goes to show that "honest" and "believer" are incompatible.
>
>
> > > Watch as believers absolutely REFUSE to respond to these questions...
> > >
> > > And *that* is how you shut believers up...
> >
> > We don`t really have to do any. We can just take note that you can go nowhere with your ideas. They are dead in the water, every one.
>
> Actually, you've just shown your amazing cowardice.
>
> My point has been made.

Take one of the issues you raised above and go somewhere with it.

Or prove my point.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 4:33:21 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 5:32:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 1:04:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Simply force them to explain the evidence...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?
> > > >
> > > > So why do *YOU* care?
> > > >
> > > > And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?
> > > >
> > > > Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:
> > > >
> > > > Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
> > >
> > > Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT.
> >
> >
> > That wasn't the question.
> >
> > So you're simply refusing to answer.
>
> No, I asking you to support your claim.

You ran from 'em all. This first question is a perfect example - IT'S A SIMPLE HISTORICAL **FACT** THAT JAMES CHANEY WITNESSED THE MURDER OF JFK FROM LESS THAN A DOZEN FEET AWAY - AND WAS NEVER QUESTIONED FOR THE WARREN COMMISSION.

You have no explanation for that fact, so you dodge and weave and run away.

YOU'RE A COWARD, "BUD"... and it's no wonder that you're too embarrassed to be publicly known by your real name.

The fact that you run from legitimate explanations merely shows your extreme cowardice & dishonesty - you don't even *try* to deny it. These are legitimate and supported questions... you're simply a sad sad liar to even *try* to assert otherwise.

More than 50 years, and you can't answer even the most *basic* of questions about the evidence in this case...

Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

Why can't you offer **ANY REASON AT ALL** for why James Chaney wasn't questioned for the Warren Commission?

[Bud]

[Ben Holmes]

Been there, done that.

Tell you what, will you state PUBLICLY that you accept EVERYTHING that James Chaney is reported to have stated?

And why can't you answer the question? (Other than the obvious cowardice...)

[Jason Burke]

More than 50 years, and you retards still don't have a spec of evidence
that there was a conspiracy.

[Bud]

Meaningless claim.

> Tell you what, will you state PUBLICLY that you accept EVERYTHING that James Chaney is reported to have stated?

I weigh all evidence on its merits. But this is about *you* supporting *your* words.

[Ben Holmes]

The truth isn't a "meaningless claim". (As proven by your refusal to accept what James Chaney said...)

> > Tell you what, will you state PUBLICLY that you accept EVERYTHING that James Chaney is reported to have stated?
>
> I weigh all evidence on its merits. But this is about *you* supporting *your* words.

In other words, "no."

This *PROVES* with no further information needed that *YOU* know that James Chaney would have testified in contradiction to your faith.

Yet you've been pretending not to know that fact.

Quite the liar, aren't you?

> > And why can't you answer the question? (Other than the obvious cowardice...)

Crickets...

[Bud]

If it was true you would have supported it instead of this endless string of non-responses.

> (As proven by your refusal to accept what James Chaney said...)

What did he say that I refuse to accept?

> > > Tell you what, will you state PUBLICLY that you accept EVERYTHING that James Chaney is reported to have stated?
> >
> > I weigh all evidence on its merits. But this is about *you* supporting *your* words.
>
> In other words, "no."

I`m not responsible for what your retarded mind translates my words into, I gave my answer. Here it is again...

"I weigh all evidence on its merits."

I`d elaborate, but you would only jump on the opportunity to muddy the water in a weak attempt to obscure the fact that you are not supporting your own words.

> This *PROVES* with no further information needed that *YOU* know that James Chaney would have testified in contradiction to your faith.

Repeating your claim is not supporting your claim.

> Yet you've been pretending not to know that fact.

Why don`t you establish this "fact"?

> Quite the liar, aren't you?
>
>
> > > And why can't you answer the question? (Other than the obvious cowardice...)


>
> Crickets...

The question is loaded, and contains unestablished assumptions. You can`t expect me to answer until you have shown all of the components contained in the question are valid. Get to work.

[Ben Holmes]

If you had any courage or honesty, you'd answer the question.

[Bud]

Cut and run from the points I made, the lurkers are used to see you doing that by now. But it might hurt this persona you are trying to project.

[Ben Holmes]

If you don't answer the question, you have no "points" to make.

You want me to waste time, I have no interest in wasting time... I'll simply point out again your cowardice, then move on.

You refuse to give ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL why James Chaney wasn't questioned for the Warren Commission.

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he would have testified contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, and refuse to admit that you don't believe him.

Your cowardice and dishonesty are well shown here.

And that tells the tale.

[Bud]

I made several points that you ran away from.

> You want me to waste time, I have no interest in wasting time...

This is why I ignore you. You don`t think you have to support the things you say, you think whatever pronouncement you make should be accepted as fact merely because *you* accept it as fact. If questioned you use the cop-out that your position is accepted by honest people everywhere. All your arguments are dishonest and riddled with fallacies.

But it comes down to this... If you can`t support the things you say, why should anyone listen to you?

> I'll simply point out again your cowardice, then move on.
>
> You refuse to give ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL why James Chaney wasn't questioned for the Warren Commission.

Why are you misdirecting towards that strawman?

> You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he would have testified contrary to the Warren Commission's theory,

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to support that this is true.

> and refuse to admit that you don't believe him.
>
> Your cowardice and dishonesty are well shown here.
>
> And that tells the tale.

Pronouncements. Retard figuring. Never any support.

[Ben Holmes]

Actually, I don't even read them...

As I've stated a number of times, I often simply go to the first lie, answer it, then snip everything else.

You don't have the *RIGHT* to demand any answers from me.

Until you have the courage to actually answer what I say, then you certainly cannot expect me to pay any attention to what you say.

It's really just that simple.

[Bud]

I`ve adopted that same approach to much of what you write. You aren`t going to support much of what you say and you can`t discuss ideas so there isn`t much point. You want to make pronouncements and since you can`t go anywhere with your ideas you are utterly irrelevant.

> As I've stated a number of times, I often simply go to the first lie, answer it, then snip everything else.
>
> You don't have the *RIGHT* to demand any answers from me.

I asked you to support the very thing that you`ve written. You opted to run instead.

> Until you have the courage to actually answer what I say, then you certainly cannot expect me to pay any attention to what you say.
>
> It's really just that simple.
>
> Why can't you offer **ANY REASON AT ALL** for why James Chaney wasn't questioned for the Warren Commission?

Strawman. Your claim was that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT", and I haven`t seen you produce a speak of evidence for that assertion.

[Ben Holmes]

Still a coward...

[Bud]

Yes you are. You just will not support your claims.

> Why can't you offer **ANY REASON AT ALL** for why James Chaney wasn't questioned for the Warren Commission?

Strawman. You need to support your claim that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT".

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Did the Warren Commission give a reason?

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

I didn`t serve on the Warren Commission.

[Ben Holmes]

Believers are famous for speculating... you refuse to even offer a speculation...

What a COWARD!!!

[Bud]

Conspiracy retards are famous for looking at all the wrong things and then looking at those wrong things incorrectly.

> you refuse to even offer a speculation...

If you insist. They wanted to give conspiracy retards in the future something to obsess about. It is why the "first frame flash" was removed also. They figured the Republic was better off if idiots were occupied.

> What a COWARD!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Simply force them to explain the evidence...


The *real* question is why believers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?

So why do *YOU* care?

And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are LNT'ers famous for not supporting their own words?

Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO? Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

When and where did Chaney speak with Curry? Why don't any photos or videos show this?

And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? I can give REASONABLE and CREDIBLE explanations for the evidence, believers cannot. It's that simple.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:58:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Simply force them to explain the evidence...

Fringe reset.

You REFUSE to support the assumptions contained in these loaded questions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:15:47 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:58:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Simply force them to explain the evidence...
>
> Fringe reset.

Simply showing yet again your cowardice...

Stop whining and simply answer the questions...

Or run again... who cares?

[Bud]

Stop running and support the the assumptions contained in these questions.

[Ben Holmes]

What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?

Be specific.

[Bud]

I *quoted* the specific portion *several* times now you gutless coward.

[Ben Holmes]

Then simply cut & paste your answer.

Once again, what "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?

CITE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION - OR BE PROVEN A LIAR YET AGAIN.

[Bud]

No. I`m not going to keep repeating myself.

> Once again, what "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?
>
> CITE YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION -

Try to focus. We are talking about the assumptions contained in the questions. They have to be dealt with before I can answer.

> OR BE PROVEN A LIAR YET AGAIN.

First you have to go back to the question as you first wrote it, not what you changed it to. Then you have to look at my response.

[Ben Holmes]

Then you're a proven liar.

[Bud]

You`re a gutless coward. If you can`t support the things you say why should anyone listen to you?

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

I did. I specified the portion I felt contained the assumption several time. I even put quotes around the specific thing I was referring to. Lie and say I didn`t, you have no credibility to lose.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Just to show the lurkers that you are a gutless wonder and I did quote the specific portions I was referring to several times (even quoting the relevant portion) and that you are merely an intellectual coward who is lying through his teeth, I will cut and past those portions again, knowing full well you will probably snip and run from them like you did when I posted them the first time....

Ben said this...

"Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?"

I responded with this...

"Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."

This is the first challenge to the idea that Ben expressed. Predictably, he ran from the challenge. For a few posts I badgered him to support his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. Then I repeated the challenge...

"Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."

Ben made several attempts to misdirect to other issues, trying to avoid supporting his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. I said this...

"Strawman. Your claim was that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT", and I haven`t seen you produce a speak of evidence for that assertion."

Notice I put in quotes what I was referring to. I repeated the exact same thing in my next response. Ben merely ducked the issue again and attempted more misdirection.

So, after cutting and running from this for many posts he comes back with...

"What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?

Be specific."

Suddenly Ben was struck with amnesia, he demanded what I had specifically pointed out many times to him be repeated. Naturally I balked, but just to further establish his credentials as an intellectual coward I`ve decided to elaborate.

So lurkers, all we`ve been witnessing these several months is the bluff and bluster of an intellectual coward. When pressed to support the very things he says he cuts and runs. Why would anyone pay attention to anything this retard has to say?

[Ben Holmes]

Actually, I proved it.

I did so by forcing you to refuse to accept what Chaney stated. Your memory seems strangely silent on that concept.

> "Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."
>
> Ben made several attempts to misdirect to other issues, trying to avoid supporting his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. I said this...

Actually, as stated above, I simply forced you to admit that you wouldn't accept what he stated.

> "Strawman. Your claim was that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT", and I haven`t seen you produce a speak of evidence for that assertion."
>
> Notice I put in quotes what I was referring to. I repeated the exact same thing in my next response. Ben merely ducked the issue again and attempted more misdirection.

Ditto.

> So, after cutting and running from this for many posts he comes back with...
>
> "What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?
>
> Be specific."
>
> Suddenly Ben was struck with amnesia, he demanded what I had specifically pointed out many times to him be repeated. Naturally I balked, but just to further establish his credentials as an intellectual coward I`ve decided to elaborate.

Quoting the post is *NOT* the answer to the question.

Nor were you honest enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION... indeed, you *STILL* haven't answered it.

What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?

You can keep running "Bud," but don't pretend to anyone that you're the injured party and victim here.

> So lurkers, all we`ve been witnessing these several months is the bluff and bluster of an intellectual coward. When pressed to support the very things he says he cuts and runs. Why would anyone pay attention to anything this retard has to say?

What we have is that "Bud" still refuses to answer the question... he's given several shady answers, but still refuses to go on record.

"Bud'" simply a coward pretending to be a victim.

[Bud]

Meaningless assertion.

> I did so by forcing you to refuse to accept what Chaney stated.

You didn`t produce anything Chaney stated, stupid. In fact, you couldn`t.

> Your memory seems strangely silent on that concept.

My memory is quite clear. You said some things. I challenged you to support the things you said. You ran away.

> > "Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."
> >
> > Ben made several attempts to misdirect to other issues, trying to avoid supporting his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. I said this...
>
>
> Actually, as stated above, I simply forced you to admit that you wouldn't accept what he stated.

I`m not responsible for things that only exist in your imagination.

> > "Strawman. Your claim was that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT", and I haven`t seen you produce a speak of evidence for that assertion."
> >
> > Notice I put in quotes what I was referring to. I repeated the exact same thing in my next response. Ben merely ducked the issue again and attempted more misdirection.
>
>
> Ditto.

So you decide to lie twice. You never addressed the issue I challenged you on. You opted to run. And you are still running.

> > So, after cutting and running from this for many posts he comes back with...
> >
> > "What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?
> >
> > Be specific."
> >
> > Suddenly Ben was struck with amnesia, he demanded what I had specifically pointed out many times to him be repeated. Naturally I balked, but just to further establish his credentials as an intellectual coward I`ve decided to elaborate.
>
>
> Quoting the post is *NOT* the answer to the question.

That is a strawman. I challenged you on the claim you made in the question.

> Nor were you honest enough to ANSWER THE QUESTION... indeed, you *STILL* haven't answered it.

It is a loaded question. You asked me to explain why it was a loaded question, and I did. You ignore that and want to go back to demanded I answer the question.

Tell me Ben, why did Oswald give a communist salute while in custody?

> What "assumption" is contained in the question of whether or not a policeman observed JFK being shot roughly a dozen feet away?

Lurkers note that "watched" has changed to "observed". Maybe if Ben makes enough subtle changes it will become something he can support.

> You can keep running "Bud," but don't pretend to anyone that you're the injured party and victim here.
>
>
> > So lurkers, all we`ve been witnessing these several months is the bluff and bluster of an intellectual coward. When pressed to support the very things he says he cuts and runs. Why would anyone pay attention to anything this retard has to say?
>
> What we have is that "Bud" still refuses to answer the question... he's given several shady answers, but still refuses to go on record.
>
> "Bud'" simply a coward pretending to be a victim.

I`ve tried to engage an intellectual coward on the very issues he brings up. All he does is cut and runs. Ben said...

"Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?"

I challenged him to support that Chaney "would have testified in contradiction to the SBT". He cut and ran. he changed the wording to the question to...

"Was there a policeman watching from a dozen feet away when JFK was shot?"

I challenged Ben to support that Chaney watched Kennedy get shot. He ran from that also. He want the components of his questions to be accepted as fact, but he can`t seem to be able to show that they are fact. That is why the questions a loaded, they contain aspects that are presumed to be established that have not been established. I`ve explained this several times in several ways and Ben keeps asking me to show how they are loaded. I suspect the lurkers understand, even if Ben feigns ignorance.

[Ben Holmes]

Don't need to. We both know what Chaney said.

Your refusal to accept what he said shows that YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION!!!

Run "Bud," RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!

[Bud]

You can`t.

> We both know what Chaney said.

Empty claim.

> Your refusal to accept what he said shows that YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION!!!
>
> Run "Bud," RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!

Says Ben as he runs once more from supporting his assertion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 11:07:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> > > > "Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."
>> > > >
>> > > > This is the first challenge to the idea that Ben expressed. Predictably, he ran from the challenge. For a few posts I badgered him to support his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. Then I repeated the challenge...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Actually, I proved it.
>> >
>> > Meaningless assertion.
>> >
>> > > I did so by forcing you to refuse to accept what Chaney stated.
>> >
>> > You didn`t produce anything Chaney stated, stupid. In fact, you couldn`t.
>>
>> Don't need to.
>
> You can`t.

Are you denying that Chaney made statements that you refuse to accept?

>> We both know what Chaney said.
>
> Empty claim.

Are you denying that you've refused to accept what Chaney stated?

>> Your refusal to accept what he said shows that YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION!!!
>>
>> Run "Bud," RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!
>
> Says Ben as he runs once more from supporting his assertion.

My assertion is proven by your refusal. The fact that you ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to publicly acknowledge as correct what Chaney stated is the
proof needed to show that he would have contradicted the Warren
Commission.

This is irrefutable.

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2017 11:07:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > > > "Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This is the first challenge to the idea that Ben expressed. Predictably, he ran from the challenge. For a few posts I badgered him to support his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. Then I repeated the challenge...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Actually, I proved it.
> >> >
> >> > Meaningless assertion.
> >> >
> >> > > I did so by forcing you to refuse to accept what Chaney stated.
> >> >
> >> > You didn`t produce anything Chaney stated, stupid. In fact, you couldn`t.
> >>
> >> Don't need to.
> >
> > You can`t.
>
>
> Are you denying that Chaney made statements that you refuse to accept?

Are you refusing to support your own words?

> >> We both know what Chaney said.
> >
> > Empty claim.
>
>
> Are you denying that you've refused to accept what Chaney stated?

Tell me what you think he stated and I`ll let you know if I think he stated it.

> >> Your refusal to accept what he said shows that YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE WARREN COMMISSION!!!
> >>
> >> Run "Bud," RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!
> >
> > Says Ben as he runs once more from supporting his assertion.
>
>
> My assertion is proven by your refusal.

Or the full moon. Or tea leaves. Anything but support supplied by you.

> The fact that you ABSOLUTELY
> REFUSE to publicly acknowledge as correct what Chaney stated is the
> proof needed to show that he would have contradicted the Warren
> Commission.

What does this have to do with *you* supporting the things that *you* have said?

> This is irrefutable.

It is irrelevant. I didn`t make you say the things that you did, how can it be about me?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 11:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 May 2017 11:07:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > "Support your claim that Chaney would have testified in contradiction of the SBT."
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > This is the first challenge to the idea that Ben expressed. Predictably, he ran from the challenge. For a few posts I badgered him to support his claim about what Chaney would have testified to. Then I repeated the challenge...
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Actually, I proved it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Meaningless assertion.
>> >> >
>> >> > > I did so by forcing you to refuse to accept what Chaney stated.
>> >> >
>> >> > You didn`t produce anything Chaney stated, stupid. In fact, you couldn`t.
>> >>
>> >> Don't need to.
>> >
>> > You can`t.
>>
>>
>> Are you denying that Chaney made statements that you refuse to accept?
>
> Are you refusing to support your own words?

Lost again...

[Bud]

I don`t see how I can lose, I appear to be in a kicking contest with a man with no legs.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You claim not to see it, but any honest person can.

Indeed, you admit that you lost by employing ad hominem again.

[Bud]

That leaves you out.

> Indeed, you admit that you lost by employing ad hominem again.

You run and claim victory, what kind of response do you think you deserve?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 13:28:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ad hominem is your admission that you lost.

[Bud]

You are too much of an intellectual coward to have an exchange of ideas with.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ad hominem is your admission that you lost. What part did you fail to
understand?

[Bud]

I`ve tried to engage you on issue you have raised and things you yourself have said. You keep cutting and running.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

You claiming this is your admission that you`ve lost.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."