For Ben aned Boris:

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Ben and Boris, this is you. Different conspiracy, but the same stuff. You both have a disease called conspiracism. Fight it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fighting-the-sandy-hook-lies/ar-AAAvWWR?ocid=iehp



Six-year-old Jesse Heslin was looking forward to Christmas. "Every holiday was a special event for Jesse," said his dad, Neil Heslin.

David Wheeler's son, Benny, was also only six years old. Wheeler said, "Benny had a bit of a cold that morning, he woke up with the sniffles." But he went to school anyway.

In December 2012, a young man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, and opened fire.

"They were just little babies," said Heslin. "They were no more than babies. They had no self-defense, or knew what self-defense was."

Those are the facts of the story, and every day since then, the entire community of Newtown – and all 26 families who lost a child or a loved one – have slowly tried to move forward.

But Heslin and Wheeler are part of a small band of Sandy Hook families that feel they have no choice but to look back, to stare down an outlandish myth and the people who spread it.

For years the online provocateur Alex Jones and others have suggested that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary never actually happened … that it was staged, with paid "actors" including Heslin and Wheeler themselves, as well as dozens of other people. Residents, law enforcement and journalists … all actors.

And as for the children who died, the fiction argues they never lived in the first place.

Wheeler said, "For me personally, it has, in my more vulnerable moments, felt like a complete denial of my life. In my more vulnerable moments, it has felt like salt in the wounds. And it can take a big chunk out of your faith in humanity, if you let it."

Which is why, earlier this year, both fathers, along with other Sandy Hook families, filed lawsuits against Alex Jones, whom they feel is mainly responsible for spreading all these bogus stories.

"As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said 30 years ago, many times, repeatedly, 'You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts,'" said Kurt Andersen. "He was kind of joking back then. And we've come to this place where many, many, many millions of people feel absolutely entitled to their own facts."

Andersen, the author of "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire" (Random House), a history of delusional thinking in our country, says all sorts of unusual ideas took hold after the free-wheeling Sixties, such as "I can think what I want," or "What you say is true isn't my truth."

It then exploded with the rise of the internet.

"Suddenly, those hundreds and then thousands and then tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of people could find each other, recruit more people, set up websites, put out legitimate-looking arguments for these things," Andersen said.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

So Chuck is just ignoring this then:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/p0rY5H_79iU/IX2DRNtcCwAJ

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You linked to a thread where I was asking you about your claim of the "science" behind aural consilience.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/p0rY5H_79iU/IX2DRNtcCwAJ

>
>
> You linked to a thread where I was asking you about your claim of the "science" behind aural consilience.

No, I linked to a post you won't answer to, because you're too stupid and afraid.

Watch the Idiot bring up once again that the Warren Commisson "all agreed Oswald killed JFK alone." I give the Idiot between 4 and 7 days before he recycles this canard again.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Did they all sign off on it?

Yes or no.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

It doesn't matter, because they didn't believe it and **said so.** That's FACT, provable and undeniable. Which means their signatures do not represent them. Which also makes your statement a lie, and you a liar. But that's hardly a surprise either.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:51:46 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:44:35 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:11:44 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/p0rY5H_79iU/IX2DRNtcCwAJ
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You linked to a thread where I was asking you about your claim of the "science" behind aural consilience.
> > >
> > > No, I linked to a post you won't answer to, because you're too stupid and afraid.
> > >
> > > Watch the Idiot bring up once again that the Warren Commisson "all agreed Oswald killed JFK alone." I give the Idiot between 4 and 7 days before he recycles this canard again.
> >
> >
> > Did they all sign off on it?
> >
> > Yes or no.
>
> It doesn't matter, because they didn't believe it and **said so.**

They asserted their beliefs when they signed it, stupid. You think lawyers don`t understand what it means to sign off on a document?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> They asserted their beliefs when they signed it, stupid. You think lawyers don`t understand what it means to sign off on a document?

They asserted their beliefs when they SAID WHAT THEY BELIEVED. Bud the anti-science boy thinks he knows what the WC members meant better than the WC members when they expressed their dissent. Or he's calling them all liars again. Bud loves to lie, lurkers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Calm down, Truther.

It does matter.

They signed off on it, and they all thought Oswald killed JFK.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:24:35 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > They asserted their beliefs when they signed it, stupid. You think lawyers don`t understand what it means to sign off on a document?
>
> They asserted their beliefs when they SAID WHAT THEY BELIEVED. Bud the anti-science boy thinks he knows what the WC members meant better than the WC members when they expressed their dissent. Or he's calling them all liars again. Bud loves to lie, lurkers.

Some had doubts about the SBT.

Everyone thought Oswald killed JFK.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 10:24:35 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > They asserted their beliefs when they signed it, stupid. You think lawyers don`t understand what it means to sign off on a document?
>
> They asserted their beliefs when they SAID WHAT THEY BELIEVED.

Being lawyers, rather than retards, they knew what signing off on something means.

Has anyone ever heard of a case where someone successfully contested the signing of a document based on that person not "believing" in what they signed? Try that one on a loan.

> Bud the anti-science boy thinks he knows what the WC members meant better than the WC members when they expressed their dissent.

What dissent? They all signed off on it.

This is just another case of a conspiracy retard looking at the wrong things incorrectly. The signatures trump all, that is their purpose.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Calm down, Truther.
>
> It does matter.
>
> They signed off on it, and they all thought Oswald killed JFK.

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

That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?

Yes or no?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Some had doubts about the SBT.
>
> Everyone thought Oswald killed JFK.

Notice Chuck left out the word "alone" at the end of that sentence.

That wasn't an accident.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/p0rY5H_79iU/IX2DRNtcCwAJ

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Bud enjoys hurting animals, lurkers. How can someone with no empathy objectively judge the results of a murder, lurkers?

[Bud]

You were good enough to tell me what bothers you. I appreciate it.

> How can someone with no empathy objectively judge the results of a murder, lurkers?

How can someone with an emotional and childlike outlook do so?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Oh, the irony.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Yes.

And you know what the autopsy concluded. One shot to the neck, fired from behind, one shot to the head fired from behind.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > "there is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> >
> > That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?
> >
> > Yes or no?
>
> Yes.

Time to show Chuck that BOH autopsy photo again, folks? Or shall we grant the Idiot mercy as a gift for FINALLY answering a question?!

>
> And you know what the autopsy concluded. One shot to the neck, fired from behind, one shot to the head fired from behind.

Yup, at least one shot fired from behind, and a neck wound they could not adequately examine.

Thanks for coming out.

Mercy rescinded....

https://goo.gl/images/KuoTBq

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Yet the commission did indeed conclude he acted on his own. They were actually extremely fair with their conclusions, writing in part in the summary:

"Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission.

"In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.

"On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone."

They signed off on this Boris. They did.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that … the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

Johnson: I don’t either.

Russell: And so *****I couldn’t sign it.***** And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary, and I’m not going to approve of that. So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so. And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile. … But anyhow, that’s just a little thing, but we …

http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report

But Chuck knows more about what Richard Russell was thinking when he signed it, than Richard Russell.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:31:25 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

"Several years after [Hale Bogg's] death in 1972, a colleague of his wife Lindy (who was elected to fill her late husband's seat in the Congress) recalled Mrs. Boggs remarking, 'Hale felt very, very torn during his work [on the Commission] ... he wished he had never been on it and wished he'd never signed it [the Warren Report].'"
--Bernard Fensterwald

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

This is from his conversation with LBJ, correct?

The conversation where he tells LBJ that they put together a pretty good report?

Some dissension!

Does Russell realize that when he's talking to LBJ he's actually talking to the "mastermind" of the entire assassination?

Oh, this is painful for you, but being a JFK Truther, you'll soldier on. The hobby will survive.

Quit now while you're behind.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Spooky music. And hearsay too. Even better for a JFK Truther.

Can someone show up and help little Boris the Truther out? The propeller on his tinfoil beanie seems to have feathered to a stop. Ben? Healy? 19eee?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This is from his conversation with LBJ, correct?
>
> The conversation where he tells LBJ that they put together a pretty good report?
>
> Some dissension!

Yes, it was, especially since the part he was dissenting against was the ***entire crux of the SBT!!!!*** ...which is kind of an important detail to have a disagreement about, don't you think? And since we're discussing the sacrosanctity of signatures in particular, it would be pertinent to discuss the specific topic which hesitated him from penning that signature in the first place.

And it's not exactly an unimportant topic, is it?

>
> Does Russell realize that when he's talking to LBJ he's actually talking to the "mastermind" of the entire assassination?

Strawman.

>
> Oh, this is painful for you, but being a JFK Truther, you'll soldier on. The hobby will survive.

It's not painful, I've known about this stuff for a while. But you believe signing a document ends all question to the content of the document therein (which if that were true, there would be no such thing as contract disputes after the fact). But your arrogance is annoying. So I'll have to remind you about the legitimacy of signatures again....

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

> > That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?
> >
> > Yes or no?
>
> Yes.

Here's the BOH wound, Idiot. What do you have to say?

https://goo.gl/images/KuoTBq

Bud was smart enough to run tonight. You're not. So now I will punish you, while you are left to fend for yourself, with NO facts, NO evidence, and NO brains to back you up. Remember when I said I didn't have to use *my* evidence against you, when I could use *yours*?

Go to bed, anti-science boy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:15:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is from his conversation with LBJ, correct?
> >
> > The conversation where he tells LBJ that they put together a pretty good report?
> >
> > Some dissension!
>
> Yes, it was, especially since the part he was dissenting against was the ***entire crux of the SBT!!!!*** ...which is kind of an important detail to have a disagreement about, don't you think? And since we're discussing the sacrosanctity of signatures in particular, it would be pertinent to discuss the specific topic which hesitated him from penning that signature in the first place.
>
> And it's not exactly an unimportant topic, is it?

Neither is the 13cm defect you constantly harp on entirely unimportant, but in true conspiracist fashion, you focus on the anomalies and things that you pick and choose to highlight, and ignore the broader conclusions. The autopsy says JFK was shot twice from behind, with one shot hitting him in the head. Russell and the rest all thought Oswald killed JFK, and signed off on the report, the conclusions which very fairly say that if there was a conspiracy, it was beyond the reach of their investigation to find one.

>
> >
> > Does Russell realize that when he's talking to LBJ he's actually talking to the "mastermind" of the entire assassination?
>
> Strawman.

Baloney. Central to your delusional fantasy. You've got LBJ agreeing in the conversation that HE has doubts with the findings to Russell, yet you and Ben have LBJ as the mastermind! It's hard to escape the contradictions. What's your explanation, is LBJ acting?

>
> >
> > Oh, this is painful for you, but being a JFK Truther, you'll soldier on. The hobby will survive.
>
> It's not painful, I've known about this stuff for a while. But you believe signing a document ends all question to the content of the document therein (which if that were true, there would be no such thing as contract disputes after the fact). But your arrogance is annoying. So I'll have to remind you about the legitimacy of signatures again....
>
> > > "there is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> > >
> > > That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?
> > >
> > > Yes or no?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Here's the BOH wound, Idiot. What do you have to say?
>
> https://goo.gl/images/KuoTBq

I'd say the autopsy conclusion is correct. In fact, I don't have to say it. HB&F already did.

>
> Bud was smart enough to run tonight. You're not. So now I will punish you, while you are left to fend for yourself, with NO facts, NO evidence, and NO brains to back you up. Remember when I said I didn't have to use *my* evidence against you, when I could use *yours*?

Amazing that the team which altered the Z film to hide the extra shots or shooters didn't alter the autopsy summary (the doctors were under the plotter's control and performed a fake "pre-autopsy autopsy" when JFK's stolen corpse arrived early) to hide the true nature of the wounds, isn't it? If there is something suspicious, why is it in the autopsy report?

>
> Go to bed, anti-science boy.

Boris the Truther is full of science. Like aural consilience, and nano-thermite bringing down the WTCs, and first frame over-exposure proving the Z film was altered, and powder burns on RFK proving more than the involvement of Sirhan. I'll bet you're a top-notch astrology expert, and there's NO WAY a 757 jet could plunge into the Pentagon and leave that small of a hole, right? Science.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:34:38 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 11:31:25 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:42:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some had doubts about the SBT.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone thought Oswald killed JFK.
> > >
> > > Notice Chuck left out the word "alone" at the end of that sentence.
> > >
> > > That wasn't an accident.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/p0rY5H_79iU/IX2DRNtcCwAJ
> >
> > Yet the commission did indeed conclude he acted on his own. They were actually extremely fair with their conclusions, writing in part in the summary:
> >
> > "Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission.
> >
> > "In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official.
> >
> > "On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone."
> >
> > They signed off on this Boris. They did.
>
> Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that … the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.
>
> Johnson: I don’t either.
>
> Russell: And so *****I couldn’t sign it.*****

<snicker> The retard highlights this, even though it was said *after* Russell had already signed it. Once more a conspiracy retard looks at the wrong thing incorrectly.

>And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary,

And this is why the WCR *must* have flaws, because human beings were involved. Even though Russel passed the bar and presumably had eight years of law school he inexplicably gave tremendous weight to what this witness related. You can expect this kind of stupidity from a conspiracy retard, but Russel should know better.

> and I’m not going to approve of that.

He equated saying that the information Connally related was inaccurate to calling Connally a liar, and he wasn`t prepared to call Connally a liar. A rookie mistake you`d expect from a conspiracy retard, but not a lawyer and Senator.

> So I finally made them say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of them believed that that wasn’t so.

This is the part that Russell insisted be included...

"However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability..."

> And of course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one … and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head … and not even wound her … why, he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole automobile, but he missed the street!

Poor thinking. Events not in evidence could account for this. Lets say Oswald waited until the last second and snatched up the rifle. He drops it, damaging the scope (a scratch was noted on it). This knocks the scope out of whack. He picks it up and shoots using the scope, but misses badly. Seeing this, he immediately switches to the iron sights, getting better results. Another possibility is that looking through the scope he hit the side of the window and squeezed off a shot. Or the sill. Or the box. Or slipped getting into position. There just isn`t the kind of information available to make the determination on how Oswald missed the first shot. What can be determined is that he hit his target twice. This the WC was able to do.

> Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile. … But anyhow, that’s just a little thing, but we …
>
> http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report
>
> But Chuck knows more about what Richard Russell was thinking when he signed it, than Richard Russell.

Anyone who isn`t a idiot knows what Russel was thinking when he signed off on it. That he approved of the contents.

What the tards don`t understand is that the WCR doesn`t state which shot did what, they didn`t marry themselves to any particular shooting scenario. That is why the report includes this...

"Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally..."

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 13:40:26 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

> Ben and Boris, this is you. Different conspiracy, but the same
> stuff. You both have a disease called conspiracism. Fight it.

It's a logical fallacy to link the JFK case with kooky stuff.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:21:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:40:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Calm down, Truther.
>> >
>> > It does matter.
>> >
>> > They signed off on it, and they all thought Oswald killed JFK.
>>
>>
>> "there is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>>
>> That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?
>>
>> Yes or no?
>
>Yes.

And is it true?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

There is a shared thread, an entitlement to your own facts for example, and that's what I'm referring to. I'm not claiming Lee Harvey Oswald or LBJ or whatever are linked to Sandy Hook.

You know this, but decide to chime in with a non sequitur.

You really should read Beyond the Truthers, by Jonathan Kay. It's you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Until you come up with something better, it most certainly is true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:14:21 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 20:21:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 9:40:20 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Calm down, Truther.
>> >> >
>> >> > It does matter.
>> >> >
>> >> > They signed off on it, and they all thought Oswald killed JFK.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "there is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>> >>
>> >> That's from the autopsy report. Did Humes, Boswell, and Finck sign off on it?
>> >>
>> >> Yes or no?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> And is it true?
>
>Until you come up with something better, it most certainly is true.

So now all you have to do is explain how to reconcile what you believe
is true with the BOH photo.

You won't, of course.

And be sure to tell David "Chester" Pein that there **WAS** a large
wound in the back of JFK's head. He doesn't believe what you've just
asserted is true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

You're desperate to link the JFK conspiracy to kooky ones.

This is your only way to debate... logical fallacies, lies, and simply
refusing to answer. (running away...)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nah.

You know what I mean, you're just writing stuff to write stuff.

If you believe tons of people and groups killed JFK, if you can't identify how it happened and test it, you don't have a conspiracy THEORY, you have the disease of conspiracism.

If you believe Bush, Cheney, Silverstein, the FDNY, NYPD, Port Authority, US military, etc. cooperated to bring about/cover up 911 with planted demo and missile strikes on the Pentagon, you don't have a conspiracy THEORY, you have the disease of conspiracism.

Ditto Sandy Hook was about gun control, Obama is a secret Muslim/anti-Christ, FDR let Pearl Harbor happen, Chemtrails are a secret poison to control the masses, the CIA introduced AIDs to wipe out blacks, Big Pharma has a cancer cure they're hiding from us to make money on the drugs they sell, the moon landings were faked to "win" our Cold War space battle with the Reds, and so on.

The CONNECTION between all of these is the disease of conspiracism, which you have. I'm not saying you buy into all of those "conspiracies," I'm just pointing out the common thread.

Now wait a few posts and come right back misstate what I've just explained.

Your entire adulthood has been spent chasing around phantom gunmen on a knoll, a mysteriously altered home snuff movie, and a vanishing presidential corpse, kidnapped from underneath the noses of those who were protecting it.

There is a disease at work with you, not a quest to right an historical wrong or even criminally prosecute anyone.

The Kennedy family let it go years ago.

Maybe you should, too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:37:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:34:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:24:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 13:40:26 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Ben and Boris, this is you. Different conspiracy, but the same
>> >> > stuff. You both have a disease called conspiracism. Fight it.
>> >>
>> >> It's a logical fallacy to link the JFK case with kooky stuff.
>> >
>> > There is a shared thread, an entitlement to your own facts for
>> > example, and that's what I'm referring to. I'm not claiming Lee Harvey
>> > Oswald or LBJ or whatever are linked to Sandy Hook.
>> >
>> >You know this, but decide to chime in with a non sequitur.
>> >
>> >You really should read Beyond the Truthers, by Jonathan Kay. It's you.
>>
>> You're desperate to link the JFK conspiracy to kooky ones.
>>
>> This is your only way to debate... logical fallacies, lies, and simply
>> refusing to answer. (running away...)
>
>Nah.
>
>You know what I mean, you're just writing stuff to write stuff.

Ad hominem doesn't replace the facts.

> If you believe tons of people and groups killed JFK, if you can't
> identify how it happened and test it, you don't have a conspiracy
> THEORY, you have the disease of conspiracism.

I don't.


<Rest of nonsense snipped>

[Ben Holmes]

Anyone notice that Chuckles can't admit a simple fact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >Until you come up with something better, it most certainly is true.
>
> So now all you have to do is explain how to reconcile what you believe
> is true with the BOH photo.
>
> You won't, of course.
>
> And be sure to tell David "Chester" Pein that there **WAS** a large
> wound in the back of JFK's head. He doesn't believe what you've just
> asserted is true.

Chuck suffers from cognitive dissonance. He believes the photo, and he believes the autopsy report which completely contradicts it. And isn't true enough to himself to admit that either the report is wrong, or the photo is fake.

What is this now, a zillion and seven?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:01:29 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

I'm sure that Chuckles will run from the latest question... he cannot
admit that both the Autopsy Report and the BOH photo are correct, and
consistent with each other.

Nor will Chuckles be able to offer **ANY** explanation that will allow
both to be accurate & correct.

The evidence is in conflict, and Chuckles simply cannot admit that.

This is what happens when the Secret Service snatches all the photos &
X-rays, and the Warren Commission doesn nothing.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Since I'm not answering to your satisfaction (an impossibility), explain:

Is the photo fake or is the autopsy wrong?

Will you answer or is this dodge number a zillion and eight?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Since I'm not answering anything, explain:

>
> Is the photo fake or is the autopsy wrong?

The photo is fake.

OR...

Humes, Boswell, Finck, Carrico, Crenshaw, McClelland, Curtis, Dulaney, Grossman, Malcolm Perry, Audrey Bell, Diana Bowron, Kemp Clark, Pat Hutton, Marion Jenkins, Ronald Jones, Paul Peters and Aubrey Rike are ALL wrong.

It's a simple choice. And to help you with your decision...this is how hard it is to fake a photo:

https://goo.gl/images/s9Zzqf

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What's your proof the photo is faked?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> What's your proof the photo is faked?

My proof would be the assertion of the very medical experts (minimum of 18) whom you pretend to trust, and the autopsy report that you pretend to believe.

What's your proof that the "Oswald holding a banjo" photo is fake? Oh, that's right...you have ZERO proof that it's fake. Right?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Your silliness knows no boundaries.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Your silliness knows no boundaries.

Uh-huh.

1.) Chuck doesn't believe 18 medical experts.

2.) Chuck doesn't believe the autopsy report.

3.) Chuck doesn't believe science.

4.) Chuck has NO evidence to support his claim that the BY photo of Oswald holding the banjo is fake.

5.) Chuck is exhibiting cognitive dissonance, but can't admit it because he is dishonest, and probably does not know what cognitive dissonance is.

I'm so silly! :-)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 5:58:36 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Your silliness knows no boundaries.
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> 1.) Chuck doesn't believe 18 medical experts.

Prove those medical experts even existed.

>
> 2.) Chuck doesn't believe the autopsy report.

Prove JFK didn't have three actual autopsies.

>
> 3.) Chuck doesn't believe science.

Prove there is such a thing as science.

>
> 4.) Chuck has NO evidence to support his claim that the BY photo of Oswald holding the banjo is fake.

Prove Oswald didn't learn to play banjo in the Marine Corps.

>
> 5.) Chuck is exhibiting cognitive dissonance, but can't admit it because he is dishonest, and probably does not know what cognitive dissonance is.

Prove cognitive dissonance even exists.

>
> I'm so silly! :-)

Right back at 'cha.

And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by historians.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Chuck is the one who asks for proof that the photo is faked....then mocks the fact that "proving" something is a thing.

What are you trying to say, Chuck? That just because you don't have the immediate tools to prove something, that you can't know it to be true or not? We both know the Oswald/banjo photo is fake, yet I've provided FAR MORE EVIDENCE that the BOH photo is fake than you were able to provide proving the banjo photo a forgery.

This is my "scenario", Chucky. Let's sit and talk about it, and go through it together. Just like you've been begging me to do. My scenario is the BOH photo is fake. That's my scenario. Let's discuss!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:16:51 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:10:20 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 5:58:36 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your silliness knows no boundaries.
> > >
> > > Uh-huh.
> > >
> > > 1.) Chuck doesn't believe 18 medical experts.
> >
> > Prove those medical experts even existed.
> > >
> > > 2.) Chuck doesn't believe the autopsy report.
> >
> > Prove JFK didn't have three actual autopsies.
> > >
> > > 3.) Chuck doesn't believe science.
> >
> > Prove there is such a thing as science.
> > >
> > > 4.) Chuck has NO evidence to support his claim that the BY photo of Oswald holding the banjo is fake.
> >
> > Prove Oswald didn't learn to play banjo in the Marine Corps.
> > >
> > > 5.) Chuck is exhibiting cognitive dissonance, but can't admit it because he is dishonest, and probably does not know what cognitive dissonance is.
> >
> > Prove cognitive dissonance even exists.
> > >
> > > I'm so silly! :-)
> >
> > Right back at 'cha.
> >
> > And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by historians.
>
> Chuck is the one who asks for proof that the photo is faked....then mocks the fact that "proving" something is a thing.
>
> What are you trying to say, Chuck? That just because you don't have the immediate tools to prove something, that you can't know it to be true or not? We both know the Oswald/banjo photo is fake, yet I've provided FAR MORE EVIDENCE that the BOH photo is fake than you were able to provide proving the banjo photo a forgery.

I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.

>
> This is my "scenario", Chucky. Let's sit and talk about it, and go through it together. Just like you've been begging me to do. My scenario is the BOH photo is fake. That's my scenario. Let's discuss!

You're beyond silly.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.

It's fake because if it's real, then therefore the BY photo of Oswald holding the rifle is fake, since it's a composition of the same image. Would you rather that?

You're an idiot, aren't you?

> >
> > This is my "scenario", Chucky. Let's sit and talk about it, and go through it together. Just like you've been begging me to do. My scenario is the BOH photo is fake. That's my scenario. Let's discuss!

Chuck will no doubt regurgitate the old talking point that no scenario has been given (as if he'd know what to do with one anyway).

>
> You're beyond silly.
>
> Flush.

No, ignoring everything I said is not "flushing." It's just ignoring. You lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:58:35 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

That's strange, Chuckles assured me that he believed the Autopsy
Report.

Do you suppose that a believer has been caught lying again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 16:10:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

This post tells the tale.

This is how far believers are willing to go to continue in their
faith.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:06:19 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 6:16:51 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 7:10:20 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 5:58:36 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Your silliness knows no boundaries.
>> > >
>> > > Uh-huh.
>> > >
>> > > 1.) Chuck doesn't believe 18 medical experts.
>> >
>> > Prove those medical experts even existed.
>> > >
>> > > 2.) Chuck doesn't believe the autopsy report.
>> >
>> > Prove JFK didn't have three actual autopsies.
>> > >
>> > > 3.) Chuck doesn't believe science.
>> >
>> > Prove there is such a thing as science.
>> > >
>> > > 4.) Chuck has NO evidence to support his claim that the BY photo of Oswald holding the banjo is fake.
>> >
>> > Prove Oswald didn't learn to play banjo in the Marine Corps.
>> > >
>> > > 5.) Chuck is exhibiting cognitive dissonance, but can't admit it because he is dishonest, and probably does not know what cognitive dissonance is.
>> >
>> > Prove cognitive dissonance even exists.
>> > >
>> > > I'm so silly! :-)
>> >
>> > Right back at 'cha.
>> >
>> > And you wonder why you're not taken seriously by historians.
>>
>> Chuck is the one who asks for proof that the photo is faked....then mocks the fact that "proving" something is a thing.
>>
>> What are you trying to say, Chuck? That just because you don't have the immediate tools to prove something, that you can't know it to be true or not? We both know the Oswald/banjo photo is fake, yet I've provided FAR MORE EVIDENCE that the BOH photo is fake than you were able to provide proving the banjo photo a forgery.
>
>I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.

This is a perfect example of a time where a believer KNOWS he's lying,
and still does it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I know your scenario:

Who killed JFK?

Boris: The snipers.

Let us know when you can get a little more detailed!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nah. The autopsy report is fine. It was written for real people to come to real conclusions about a real murder.

It was NOT written for retards.

That would leave you and Boris out.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.
>
>
> This is a perfect example of a time where a believer KNOWS he's lying,
> and still does it.

I like how the troll is basically mocking the process of asking for proof...very soon after HE ASKED FOR PROOF. It's almost as if the troll KNOWS his point was bullshit right from the beginning.

Of course, the amusing catch-22 now is if he believes the banjo photo, then the BY photo with the rifle must be fake. Chuck's not the brightest tulip bulb.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Nah. The autopsy report is fine. It was written for real people to come to real conclusions about a real murder.
>
> It was NOT written for retards.
>
> That would leave you and Boris out.

Cognitive dissonance, with some ad hominem wrapped around it. Chuck is really on fire defending his faith from the evidence!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 9:33:30 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.
> >
> >
> > This is a perfect example of a time where a believer KNOWS he's lying,
> > and still does it.
>
> I like how the troll is basically mocking the process of asking for proof...very soon after HE ASKED FOR PROOF. It's almost as if the troll KNOWS his point was bullshit right from the beginning.

What proof would you accept?

>
> Of course, the amusing catch-22 now is if he believes the banjo photo, then the BY photo with the rifle must be fake. Chuck's not the brightest tulip bulb.

Is the backyard photo fake?

Yes or no.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 10:55:39 AM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 9:33:30 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I say the banjo photo is real. Prove it's fake.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a perfect example of a time where a believer KNOWS he's lying,
> > > and still does it.
> >
> > I like how the troll is basically mocking the process of asking for proof...very soon after HE ASKED FOR PROOF. It's almost as if the troll KNOWS his point was bullshit right from the beginning.
>
> What proof would you accept?

The same kind you would about the BOH photo: reasonable proof, but in your case nothing, probably.

> >
> > Of course, the amusing catch-22 now is if he believes the banjo photo, then the BY photo with the rifle must be fake. Chuck's not the brightest tulip bulb.
>
> Is the backyard photo fake?
>
> Yes or no.

One thing at a time sparky. I have some thoughts on it that we can talk about later, but right now you're jumping ahead. We're still on the BOH photo. I say it's fake, because it contradicts the findings of 18 medical experts, and the autopsy report (**SIGNED** by three of them). That's my evidence. Now we could argue that they're all mistaken, but I don't believe that to be the case, do you? Let's discuss my scenario. This is what you wanted.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Translation: Boris thinks the BY photos are fake. And everything else that doesn't conform to his fantasy. This includes planted evidence, faked evidence, altered films, autopsy material, and so on.

But sure. Let's discuss the photo.

Explain why, after a pre-autopsy autopsy (which is, of course something you guys made up after the made up corpse kidnap), something this "fake" gets into the record? They controlled t he investigation per your kooky theory and presumably controlled the photos and x-rays.

HB&F in 1967:

1/26/67

The undersigned physicians performed the autopsy on the body of late
President John F. Kennedy. In charge was James J. Humes, M.D., at that
time Commander, Medical Corps, United States Navy, and Director of
Laboratories, Naval Medical School. He was certified in 1955 by the
American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. Assisting
him were J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., and Pierre A. Finck, M.D. Dr. Boswell
at that time was a Commander in the Medical Corps, United States Navy, and
Chief of Pathology, Naval Medical School. He was certified in 1957 by the
American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. Dr.
Finck, a Lieutenant Colonel, Medical Corps, United States Army, was then
Chief of the Military Environmental Pathology Division, and Chief of the
Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
Walter Reed Medical Center. He was certified in 1956 by the American
Board of Pathology in Anatomic Pathology, and in 1961 in Forensic
Pathology.

The Surgeon General of the Navy advised Dr. Humes that the purpose of the
autopsy was to determine the nature of the President's injuries and the
cause of death.

The autopsy begain at approximately 8:00 P.M. on Friday, November 22,
1963, and was concluded approximately at 11:00 P.M. The autopsy report,
written by Dr. Humes with the assistance of Dr. Boswell and Dr. Finck, was
written on November 23 and the morning of November 24, and delivered by
Dr. Humes to Admiral Burkley, the President's physician, on November 24 at
about 6:30 P.M.

Dr. Humes was chosen to perform the autopsy because of the decision to
bring the body of the late President to the Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda, Maryland, where, as stated, he was Director of Laboratories.

At the direction and under the supervision of Dr. Humes, x-rays and
photographs of the President's body were taken during the autopsy. The
x-rays were examined that same evening. However, the photographs were not
seen at that time. All x-rays and photographic plates were delivered that
evening to Secret Service personnel. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell first saw
the photographs on November 1, 1966, when requested by the Department of
Justice to examine, identify, and inventory them at the National Archives.
Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on January 20, 1967.

The undersigned physicians have been requested by the Department of
Justice to examine the x-rays and photographs for the purpose of
determining whether they are consistent with the autopsy report. Pursuant
to this request, we met after our regular work day, January 20, 1967, at
the office of Dr. Robert H. Bahmer, Archivist of the United States, where
the x-rays and photographs were made available to us. Our findings with
respect thereto follow.

THE NECK WOUND

The Location

The autopsy report states that the "wound presumably of entry" was "in the
upper right posterior thorax." In non-technical language, this wound was
located low in the back of the neck. Photographs Nos. 11, 12, 38 and 39
verify the location of the wound, as stated in the report. Warren
Commission Exhibit 397 includes a drawing (Vol. XVII, p. 45) which
purports to show the approximate location of the wound, and specifically
states that it was 14 cm. (5-1/2 inches) from the tip of the mastoid
process (behind the right ear), and 14 cm. from the tip of the right
acromion (the extreme tip of the right shoulder bone). Photographs 11,
12, 38 and 39 confirm the accuracy of these measurements. The drawing
itself may be somewhat misleading as to the location of the wound, making
it appear at a point lower than it actually was. No one photograph shows
both the wound at the back of the neck and the wound in the throat, but by
comparing Photographs 11, 12, 38 and 39 with the side views in Photographs
1-4, inclusive, it is clear that Warren Commission Exhibits 385 and 386,
which also depict the location of the neck wound, are accurate.
Photographs Nos. 26 and 38 show the wound in the back of the neck to be
higher from the horizontal plane than the wound in the throat.

Entrance

Our finding, as stated in the autopsy report, that the wound low in the
back of the neck was an entrance wound is supported by Photographs Nos.
11, 12, 38, and 39. They show the edges of the wound to be inverted,
regular, and smooth. At such a location and in such tissue these are the
principal characteristics of an entrance wound.

The Size of the Entrance Wound

The autopsy report states that the wound was 7 by 4 mm. (0.275 inches by
0.137 inches); and Photographs Nos. 11, 12, 38 and 39 confirm the accuracy
of this measurement.

Exit

The autopsy report states that the "wound presumably of exit" was that
described by Dr. Malcom O. Perry of Dallas. This wound was used as the
site of a tracheotomy incision, and its character thus distorted.
Photographs Nos. 1-6 inclusive, 13, 14, 26-28 inclusive, 40 and 41 show
the wound as being below the Adams apple.

It should be noted that the morning after the autopsy, Saturday, November
23, 1963, Dr. Humes telephoned Dr. Perry at the Parkland Hospital in
Dallas. Dr. Perry was the physician who attended President Kennedy
immediately after the shooting. Dr. Perry advised Dr. Humes that he had
observed a missile wound below the Adams apple, and that the site of this
wound had been used as the site of the tracheotomy incision. This
information made it clear to us that the missile which had entered the
back of the neck had exited at the site of the tracheotomy incision.

THE HEAD WOUND

Entry

The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6
mm. (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately
2.5 cm. (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external
occipital protruberance (a bony protruberance at the back of the head).
In non-technical language this indicates that a small wound was found in
the back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42 and
43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above
autopsy data were accurate. Due to the fractures of the underlying bone
and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound
to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher
than its actually measured site.

The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and
tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin obscured by the top of the
tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating
wound because of the slanting direction of entry. However, as we pointed
out in the autopsy report, there was in the underlying bone a
corresponding wound through the skull which exhibited beveling of the
margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull. This
is characteristic of a wound of entry in the skull.

Exit

The autopsy report further states that there was a large irregular defect
of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions, with an
actual absence of scalp and bone measuring approximately 13 cm. (5.12
inches) at the greatest diameter. In non-technical language, this means
that a large section of the skull on the right side of the head was torn
away by the force of the missile. Photographs Nos. 5-10 inclusive, 17,
18, 26-28, 32-37 inclusive, 44 and 45 portray this massive head wound, and
verify that the largest diameter was approximately 13 cm. The report
further states that one of the fragments of the skull bone, received from
Dallas, shows a portion of a roughly circular wound presumably of exit
which exhibits beveling of the outer aspect of the bone, and the wound was
estimated to be approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm. (1 to 1.18 inches) in
diameter. X-ray Nos. 4, 5 and 6 show this bone fragment and the embedded
metal fragments. Photographs Nos. 17, 18, 44 and 45 show the other half
of the margin of the exit wound; and also show the beveling of the bone
characteristic of a wound of exit. Photographs Nos. 44 and 45 also show
that the point of exit of the missile was much larger than the point of
entrance, being 30 mm. (1.18 inches) at its greatest diameter.
Photographs 5-10 inclusive, 32-37 inclusive, 44 and 45 show the location
of the head wound, and verify the accuracy of the Warren Commission
drawings (Exhibits 386 and 388, Vol. XVI, pp. 977 and 984) which depict
the location of the head wound.

NO OTHER WOUNDS

The x-ray films established that there were small metallic fragments in
the head. However, careful examination at the autopsy, and the
photographs and x-rays taken during the autopsy, revealed no evidence of a
bullet or of a major portion of a bullet in the body of the President and
revealed no evidence of any missile wounds other than those described
above.

SUMMARY

The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the
autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the
summary of our autopsy report.

It was then and is now our opinion that the two missiles which struck the
President causing the neck wound and the head wound were fired from a
point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased.

Our examination of the photographs and x-rays lasted approximately five
hours, and at its conclusion the photographs and x-rays were returned to
the Archivist of the United States.

[signed by Humes, Boswell, and Finck]

<end>

Anyway, I can't improve on what they wrote, I'm not an expert. And they address the 13cm defect in "non technical" language, too. Sounds pretty non-conspiratorial to me.

The ball is in your court to show JFK was hit in the head from the grassy knoll and through the neck from the South Knoll through the windshield, etc. with his corpse being kidnapped for a pre-autopsy autopsy and all the rest of your silliness.

You'll have LBJ piloting Flight 11 into the WTC North Tower on 911 in a few posts.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Explain why, after a pre-autopsy autopsy (which is, of course something you guys made up after the made up corpse kidnap), something this "fake" gets into the record? They controlled t he investigation per your kooky theory and presumably controlled the photos and x-rays.

The "why" doesn't need to be explained. If the evidence can be explained, the "why" is just window dressing. The photo is your evidence.

Thank you for C&Ping what I already know. It changes nothing. And you clearly did not read any of this:

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

There are some notable diagrams on there. And hey, maybe those diagrams are images of the entry wound, eh? That would protect your faith. Except that's not there either.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

If you are not able to get anyone interested in reexamining your boffo evidence (which is decades old), you have nothing.

You're alleging no one captured JFK's killer, and they're not even interested in looking any longer.

Case closed, indeed.

But, again...YOU disagree.

What's left? Put up a case. You've made your point that the autopsy is suspicious, the photos altered, the doctors "in" on the cover-up, JFK's body stolen, and so on.

So put a case up for consideration.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 07:06:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I'm a retard.

Amusingly, you're still running from the question.

How can you accept the BOH photo, which BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT is in
conflict with the Autopsy Report?

Keep running, coward.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> If you are not able to get anyone interested in reexamining your boffo evidence (which is decades old), you have nothing.

An inaccurate statement, as well as a (surprise!) stupid one. The JFK Assassination Records Collection Act was passed specifically because some CTer named Oliver Stone got people interested in re-examining the case.

>
> You're alleging no one captured JFK's killer, and they're not even interested in looking any longer.

The Warren Commission had no interest whatsoever in finding "confederates." This is known even among LNers. I can't believe I have to even tell you this.

>
> Case closed, indeed.
>
> But, again...YOU disagree.

It's not me that disagrees, it's the evidence. The truth is, if it weren't for the over dozen medical experts AND the autopsy report contradicting the official BOH photo, I might not have thought anything of it, because the BOH photo corresponds with the damage to the back of JFKs head seen in the Zapruder film. That is to say, none at all.

I assume you don't see anything weird about that either.

>
> What's left? Put up a case.

Oh, here we go. Chuck wants to sit and discuss with me. LOL!!

How long did I say it would take Chuck to bring this canard up again? Less than 24 hours, I think it was.

>
> You've made your point that the autopsy is suspicious,

Did I?

>
> the photos altered,

Yes.

>
> the doctors "in" on the cover-up, JFK's body stolen, and so on.

I'm not the one who told Humes to burn his notes.

>
> So put a case up for consideration.

So we can go through it together, right? Oh, I'm so excited to be teaming up with you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:12:26 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If you are not able to get anyone interested in reexamining your boffo evidence (which is decades old), you have nothing.
>
> An inaccurate statement, as well as a (surprise!) stupid one. The JFK Assassination Records Collection Act was passed specifically because some CTer named Oliver Stone got people interested in re-examining the case.

How'd that work out for you? Any convictions?

>
> >
> > You're alleging no one captured JFK's killer, and they're not even interested in looking any longer.
>
> The Warren Commission had no interest whatsoever in finding "confederates." This is known even among LNers. I can't believe I have to even tell you this.

Begging the question. And you've had over half a century to put a case together. Nothing.

>
> >
> > Case closed, indeed.
> >
> > But, again...YOU disagree.
>
> It's not me that disagrees, it's the evidence. The truth is, if it weren't for the over dozen medical experts AND the autopsy report contradicting the official BOH photo, I might not have thought anything of it, because the BOH photo corresponds with the damage to the back of JFKs head seen in the Zapruder film. That is to say, none at all.
>
> I assume you don't see anything weird about that either.
>
> >
> > What's left? Put up a case.
>
> Oh, here we go. Chuck wants to sit and discuss with me. LOL!!

Do it for history, Boris. Make your case LBJ ordered JFK's death. Make your case JFK's corpse was kidnapped.

>
> How long did I say it would take Chuck to bring this canard up again? Less than 24 hours, I think it was.


>
> >
> > You've made your point that the autopsy is suspicious,
>
> Did I?
>
> >
> > the photos altered,
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > the doctors "in" on the cover-up, JFK's body stolen, and so on.
>
> I'm not the one who told Humes to burn his notes.

Who told your unknown SEAL Team to kidnap JFK's corpse, and when did the kidnap occur?

>
> >
> > So put a case up for consideration.
>
> So we can go through it together, right? Oh, I'm so excited to be teaming up with you.

Are you worried about my critique? Are you embarrassed by how weird "your case" sounds when you actually pause and ponder the implications of your silliness?

Your obsession with me is fascinating, my little fan club President, but spin the propeller on your tinfoil beanie and lay out a case to right the historical wrong that LHO killed JFK and Tippit. Do it so history properly records LBJ as the assassin by proxy of his predecessor.

Lay out a case that dispels the thousands of other conspiracy theories that disagree with whatever your theory is.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> So put a case up for consideration.

Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ

Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

He has the WC "scenario" Boris the Truther. You need to put forward a case to compare against the historically accepted case.

The "scenario" you can't overturn. The historically accepted view. The null hypothesis you are working against. The reason you are presumably here at alt.conspiracy.jfk Google Groups.

You can't even tell us how many shots were fired that day!

You can't tell us when the sniper shot was fired through the windshield from the "South Knoll."

You can't show us how JFK's body was snatched by SEAL Team Whatever. No tests, no reenactments. No proof.

You can't explain why so many earwitnesses didn't hear the second and third shots close together. You know, "aural consilience" and all that fancy science sh!t you love.

You can't tell us why LBJ and Dulles and Hoover and the Mob didn't pick an easier method to kill JFK, or get him impeached, or force a resignation, all which would still make LBJ POTUS.

You can't tell us why the Zapruder film needed to be altered when it could've simply been destroyed.

In fact, you can't show tests using 60s era equipment to show how the Z film was altered. No, David Healy using 1990s Photoshop at a kook symposium doesn't cut it.

You can't tell us why the Parkland physicians told NOVA in 1988 that the photos they saw jibe with their recollections from 25 years prior.

You can't explain why you all have different theories, different shot sequences, etc. or none at all.

You can't articulate why "your side" can't seem to narrow any of this down, or why the list of possible conspirators grew throughout the decades.

You've got nothing but begged questions.

Now, spark a bowl, fire up the propeller on the tinfoil beanie, and fly away to fantasyland.

54 years of ineptitude is about to turn to 55 years in a few months.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

And you can't even prove the banjo photo is fake.

The impasse continues.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > So put a case up for consideration.
>>
>> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
>>
>> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
>

>He has the WC "scenario".

So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?

Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
HSCA.

And enhanced by the ARRB.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

We're not at an impasse. Life has moved on. America is a better, more tolerant, more prosperous nation than we were 55 years ago.

And people have moved on from the JFK assassination, too. This is largely a "hobby" (it's definitely a hobby for me, and it is for you, too, even if you deny it) for old white men.

So there is no impasse. History records LHO as JFK's killer. America's textbooks barely give it a mention and focus instead on JFK's life, and they certainly never mention LBJ as JFK's killer by proxy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
> >>
> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
> >>
> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
> >
> >He has the WC "scenario".
>
> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?

Yes. the historically accepted scenario. A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.

Pretty simple.

>
> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
> HSCA.

You don't acknowledge their conclusions. I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics findings have been debunked.

Which leaves us right back to where we were. Oswald killed JFK. No known help.
>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
>> >>
>> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
>> >>
>> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
>> >
>> >He has the WC "scenario".
>>
>> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?
>
> Yes.

So you *DO* have a scenario.

Why can't you post what it is?

Why can't you defend it?


But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.

What a coward!


> the historically accepted scenario.


A completely meaningless term that you refuse to defend.

It might mean something if you'd acknowledge the HSCA - but you don't.

> A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.
>
> Pretty simple.

Yet you can't post it, nor defend it.

Why is that, coward?

>> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
>> HSCA.
>
> You don't acknowledge their conclusions.

You don't even acknowledge the Warren Commission's conclusions...
what's changed?

I acknowledge only one thing - and that's the EVIDENCE. If there had
been an honest investigation at any time, they would undoubtedly come
to the same conclusions I do.

The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.

You're afraid of all of it.

> I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
> findings have been debunked.

And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
issues anyway.


But it doesn't matter - their conclusion of conspiracy wasn't based
only on the acoustics.

> Which leaves us right back to where we were.

Where you refuse to post a scenario, and support it with evidence &
citation.

You're the same coward you've always been.

> Oswald killed JFK. No known help.

A "scenario" not well supported by the known evidence.


Run coward... RUN!!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:15:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
> >> >>
> >> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
> >> >>
> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
> >> >>
> >> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
> >> >
> >> >He has the WC "scenario".
> >>
> >> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> So you *DO* have a scenario.

It isn't different from the historically accepted scenario.

>
> Why can't you post what it is?

It's drawn from the body of evidence the WC used for it's investigation. It is well known and online. You quote from it all the time. I see little reason to re-post what is already available.

>
> Why can't you defend it?

Put something up against it.

>
>
> But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.
>
> What a coward!
>
>
> > the historically accepted scenario.
>
>
> A completely meaningless term that you refuse to defend.

See above.

>
> It might mean something if you'd acknowledge the HSCA - but you don't.

I acknowledge the HSCA. Oswald Alone as JFK's killer. No dart-firing umbrellas, no tampered with Z film per Zavada, etc.

>
>
> > A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.
> >
> > Pretty simple.
>
>
> Yet you can't post it, nor defend it.

Put your case up and all of the evidence you've drawn your conclusion of conspiracy from.
>
> Why is that, coward?

Why don't you put a case up, shorty?

>
>
> >> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
> >> HSCA.
> >
> > You don't acknowledge their conclusions.

I acknowledge their conclusions.

>
>
> You don't even acknowledge the Warren Commission's conclusions...
> what's changed?
>
> I acknowledge only one thing - and that's the EVIDENCE. If there had
> been an honest investigation at any time, they would undoubtedly come
> to the same conclusions I do.

What is your conclusion, specifically, and show the testing, recreations, reenactments, etc. that scientifically lead you to your conclusions?

>
> The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.
>
> You're afraid of all of it.

Nah.

>
>
> > I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
> > findings have been debunked.
>
>
> And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
> issues anyway.

Nah. Easily debunked by Dale Myers via computer-linked film from the day, shot by citizens who filmed bits and pieces of the motorcade. McLain wasn't where The HSCA acoustics experts said he needed to be at for the dictabelt to have picked up impulses they say are shots. McLain says it wasn't his open mic. Steve Barber pointed out the faint audio indicating the recording is from later. The NAS was extremely skeptical and declined to investigate.

>
>
> But it doesn't matter - their conclusion of conspiracy wasn't based
> only on the acoustics.

Yeah, it was. Bud has pointed out they were ready to issue the report sans a second shooter until the last minute acoustics.

>
>
> > Which leaves us right back to where we were.
>
>
> Where you refuse to post a scenario, and support it with evidence &
> citation.

I don't have a scenario separate from what the null hypothesis is, drawn from the interviews, forensics, autopsy report, film, etc.

>
> You're the same coward you've always been.

Put up a case.

>
>
> > Oswald killed JFK. No known help.
>
>
> A "scenario" not well supported by the known evidence.

Well supported, historically accepted, and the reason alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups exists.

[Bud]

Kudos to .John McAdams who provided me that information at the disinformation agent`s clambake.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/sW6xpwuHjaY/nMjuZ-kyBQAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:15:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
>> >> >
>> >> >He has the WC "scenario".
>> >>
>> >> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>>
>>
>> So you *DO* have a scenario.
>
>It isn't different from the historically accepted scenario.

Previously you've claimed not to have one. Now you claim you do???

And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
I've already proven what nonsense that was.

>> Why can't you post what it is?
>
> It's drawn from the body of evidence the WC used for it's
> investigation. It is well known and online. You quote from it all the
> time. I see little reason to re-post what is already available.

That would be true only if you unconditionally accepted it.

But you don't.

YOU HAVE A SCENARIO THAT DIFFERS FROM THE "HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED" ONE.

But you're too much a coward to post it, or to defend it.

>> Why can't you defend it?
>
>Put something up against it.

Multiple assassins fired from different directions in Dealey Plaza.

>> But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.
>>
>> What a coward!
>>
>>
>> > the historically accepted scenario.
>>
>>
>> A completely meaningless term that you refuse to defend.
>
>See above.

A completely meaningless term that you *STILL* refuse to defend.

>> It might mean something if you'd acknowledge the HSCA - but you don't.
>
> I acknowledge the HSCA. Oswald Alone as JFK's killer. No dart-firing
> umbrellas, no tampered with Z film per Zavada, etc.

They concluded that there had been a probable conspiracy, and they
noted many areas of the Warren Commission that was deficit.

Do you agree that the Warren Commission was deficit in many areas?

If so, can you *name* specifically where the Warren Commission went
wrong?

>> > A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.
>> >
>> > Pretty simple.
>>
>>
>> Yet you can't post it, nor defend it.
>
> Put your case up and all of the evidence you've drawn your
> conclusion of conspiracy from.

Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. As shown by the earwitnesses and
the immediate response of the Dallas police. Also shown by the frontal
shot to JFK's throat that Bugliosi lied about.

>> Why is that, coward?
>
>Why don't you put a case up, shorty?

Been there, done that several times. A feat you've **NEVER** matched.

Why the cowardice, Chuckles? Why are you so TERRIFIED of simply
posting what you believed happened, along with the evidence that led
you to that faith?

>> >> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
>> >> HSCA.
>> >
>> > You don't acknowledge their conclusions.
>
>I acknowledge their conclusions.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

Acknowledge: 1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.

You don't have a problem with admitting it's "existence" - it's the
truth of what they concluded that you can't even publicly state.

Why the cowardice, Chuckles?


Do your own thoughts frighten you?

>> You don't even acknowledge the Warren Commission's conclusions...
>> what's changed?
>>
>> I acknowledge only one thing - and that's the EVIDENCE. If there had
>> been an honest investigation at any time, they would undoubtedly come
>> to the same conclusions I do.
>
> What is your conclusion, specifically, and show the testing,
> recreations, reenactments, etc. that scientifically lead you to your
> conclusions?

Why do you insist on continuing to ask questions you refuse to answer?

>> The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.
>>
>> You're afraid of all of it.
>
>Nah.

Then you'll publicly state for the record that the lie detector test
of Jack Ruby was intentionally faked, and provide the question where
the HSCA's experts stated that Ruby was lying.

(Of course, you'll run again...)

>> > I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
>> > findings have been debunked.
>>
>>
>> And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
>> issues anyway.
>
> Nah. Easily debunked by Dale Myers via computer-linked film from the
> day, shot by citizens who filmed bits and pieces of the motorcade.
> McLain wasn't where The HSCA acoustics experts said he needed to be at
> for the dictabelt to have picked up impulses they say are shots.
> McLain says it wasn't his open mic. Steve Barber pointed out the faint
> audio indicating the recording is from later. The NAS was extremely
> skeptical and declined to investigate.

This is a perfect example of your ignorance... when you point to "Dale
Myers" as the "debunker."

I find it amusing that you think a computer animator has any expertise
in acoustics whatsoever.

You claim to believe experts... but you really don't.

>> But it doesn't matter - their conclusion of conspiracy wasn't based
>> only on the acoustics.
>
>Yeah, it was.

So you're calling the Chief Counsel Blakey a liar.

Good to know ... this is the SECOND expert you've dismissed.

> Bud has pointed out they were ready to issue the report sans a
> second shooter until the last minute acoustics.

A claim he cannot support.

Nor can you.

>> > Which leaves us right back to where we were.
>>
>>
>> Where you refuse to post a scenario, and support it with evidence &
>> citation.
>
> I don't have a scenario separate from what the null hypothesis is,
> drawn from the interviews, forensics, autopsy report, film, etc.

Yes stupid, you do.

I've caught you stating things in contradiction to the Warren
Commission several times.

And if you ever dared to post *YOUR* real scenario, I suspect we'd
find even more changes from what the Warren Commission found.

>> You're the same coward you've always been.
>
>Put up a case.

Done so already... you snipped it, claimed to never have snipped it,
and ran away.

You're a confirmed coward and liar.

>> > Oswald killed JFK. No known help.
>>
>>
>> A "scenario" not well supported by the known evidence.
>
>Well supported, historically accepted, and the reason alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups exists.

Did you even read what you just wrote???

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:15:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He has the WC "scenario".
> >> >>
> >> >> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you *DO* have a scenario.
> >
> >It isn't different from the historically accepted scenario.
>
>
> Previously you've claimed not to have one. Now you claim you do???

It's the historically accepted scenario. A man in a building shot two people in a car and then shot a cop.

>
> And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
> I've already proven what nonsense that was.

Then you should be able to get the case reopened.

>
>
>
> >> Why can't you post what it is?
> >
> > It's drawn from the body of evidence the WC used for it's
> > investigation. It is well known and online. You quote from it all the
> > time. I see little reason to re-post what is already available.
>
> That would be true only if you unconditionally accepted it.
>
> But you don't.
>
> YOU HAVE A SCENARIO THAT DIFFERS FROM THE "HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED" ONE.

No I don't.

>
> But you're too much a coward to post it, or to defend it.

Put a case up to defend it against. Stop shooting Nerf darts at the accepted case.

>
>
> >> Why can't you defend it?
> >
> >Put something up against it.
>
>
> Multiple assassins fired from different directions in Dealey Plaza.

Involving a cast of thousands. Break it down and explain how JFK's corpse was snatched. Show the tests for the bullet through the windshield which hit JFK in the neck. Use 60s technology and alter the Nix and Zapruder films. You need to show these things are feasible,

>
>
> >> But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.
> >>
> >> What a coward!
> >>
> >>
> >> > the historically accepted scenario.
> >>
> >>
> >> A completely meaningless term that you refuse to defend.
> >
> >See above.
>
>
> A completely meaningless term that you *STILL* refuse to defend.

I can't defend it against air. Put something up for consideration.

>
>
>
> >> It might mean something if you'd acknowledge the HSCA - but you don't.
> >
> > I acknowledge the HSCA. Oswald Alone as JFK's killer. No dart-firing
> > umbrellas, no tampered with Z film per Zavada, etc.
>
> They concluded that there had been a probable conspiracy, and they
> noted many areas of the Warren Commission that was deficit.
>
> Do you agree that the Warren Commission was deficit in many areas?
>
> If so, can you *name* specifically where the Warren Commission went
> wrong?

Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. You're back to asking questions instead of providing answers. You have the challenge, not me. You have a burden to carry, not me. We do not share a burden; there is the accepted case and there is the vague case for a conspiracy which you cannot define. Your burden is not less than the WCs burden. Carry your burden.

>
>
> >> > A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.
> >> >
> >> > Pretty simple.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet you can't post it, nor defend it.
> >
> > Put your case up and all of the evidence you've drawn your
> > conclusion of conspiracy from.
>
> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. As shown by the earwitnesses

Explain why so many only reported three shots. Explain why so many didn't hear the last two shots close together. Explain why one earwitness heard a shot as late as five minutes later.

>and
> the immediate response of the Dallas police. Also shown by the frontal
> shot to JFK's throat that Bugliosi lied about.

Begging the Question. The WC and HSCA said he was struck twice from behind and above, no frontal shot. Explain why the bullet which you say penetrated the windshield from the South Knoll missed everyone.

>
>
> >> Why is that, coward?
> >
> >Why don't you put a case up, shorty?
>
>
> Been there, done that several times. A feat you've **NEVER** matched.

Nah. No case from you. Vague, silly stuff which you run from when pressed. Like when you're asked to show how JFK's body was snatched. Show your tests. Show ANY tests.

>
> Why the cowardice, Chuckles? Why are you so TERRIFIED of simply
> posting what you believed happened, along with the evidence that led
> you to that faith?
>
>
> >> >> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
> >> >> HSCA.
> >> >
> >> > You don't acknowledge their conclusions.
> >
> >I acknowledge their conclusions.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
> Acknowledge: 1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.
>
> You don't have a problem with admitting it's "existence" - it's the
> truth of what they concluded that you can't even publicly state.

Let's say they were right and go home. You can now look for the mystery shooter who missed everything.

>
> Why the cowardice, Chuckles?
>
>
> Do your own thoughts frighten you?
>
>
> >> You don't even acknowledge the Warren Commission's conclusions...
> >> what's changed?
> >>
> >> I acknowledge only one thing - and that's the EVIDENCE. If there had
> >> been an honest investigation at any time, they would undoubtedly come
> >> to the same conclusions I do.
> >
> > What is your conclusion, specifically, and show the testing,
> > recreations, reenactments, etc. that scientifically lead you to your
> > conclusions?
>
>
> Why do you insist on continuing to ask questions you refuse to answer?
>
>
>
> >> The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.
> >>
> >> You're afraid of all of it.
> >
> >Nah.
>
> Then you'll publicly state for the record that the lie detector test
> of Jack Ruby was intentionally faked, and provide the question where
> the HSCA's experts stated that Ruby was lying.
>
> (Of course, you'll run again...)

Gawd, this is old, old stuff. Post Ruby's interview (it's available) and we'll go through it.

>
>
> >> > I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
> >> > findings have been debunked.
> >>
> >>
> >> And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
> >> issues anyway.
> >
> > Nah. Easily debunked by Dale Myers via computer-linked film from the
> > day, shot by citizens who filmed bits and pieces of the motorcade.
> > McLain wasn't where The HSCA acoustics experts said he needed to be at
> > for the dictabelt to have picked up impulses they say are shots.
> > McLain says it wasn't his open mic. Steve Barber pointed out the faint
> > audio indicating the recording is from later. The NAS was extremely
> > skeptical and declined to investigate.
>
> This is a perfect example of your ignorance... when you point to "Dale
> Myers" as the "debunker."
>
> I find it amusing that you think a computer animator has any expertise
> in acoustics whatsoever.

Not needed nor is his expertise in acoustics claimed. It's consilience, a term you hate. Dale had an interesting and unique and FACTUAL way of checking if the acoustics findings were accurate taking an entirely different approach. Kooks don't even want to go there because it's EASY to see McLain was out of position to record what was said he recorded. GAME OVER.

>
> You claim to believe experts... but you really don't.

I believe the experts tasked with coming up with conclusions whose work is verified by consilience, and whose outcome is verified by consilience. I believe in Occam's Razor. I believe investigations narrow down possible suspects over time and exclude possibilities that are shown to be improbable.

There are UFO "experts" who unfortunately can never produce the little green men who kidnap people for medical exams, for example. There are Bigfoot "experts" who can't produce Bigfoot, the World Champion in hide-and-go-seek.

All your "experts" ever do is create an ever-growing list of suspects. Nothing is narrowed down, nothing is settled. When they can produce a case, they will be taken more seriously. When someone recovers a UFO, the "experts" will be taken more seriously, and Boris' propeller on his tinfoil beanie will glow red. When someone produces Bigfoot, the "experts" will be taken more seriously and you'll finally have someone on earth more hairy than you.

>
>
> >> But it doesn't matter - their conclusion of conspiracy wasn't based
> >> only on the acoustics.
> >
> >Yeah, it was.
>
> So you're calling the Chief Counsel Blakey a liar.

I wouldn't go so far as to label him a liar, but the FACTS show the HSCA was ready to wrap things up with no second shooter.

>
> Good to know ... this is the SECOND expert you've dismissed.

You dismiss him to. He didn't think LBJ did it. He didn't find evidence the CIA killed him. He didn't think Hoover was in cahoots with LBJ.

He thought the Mob did it.

So are YOU dismissing Blakey as an "expert" when he thinks you're wrong?

>
>
>
> > Bud has pointed out they were ready to issue the report sans a
> > second shooter until the last minute acoustics.
>
>
> A claim he cannot support.
>
> Nor can you.
>
>
> >> > Which leaves us right back to where we were.
> >>
> >>
> >> Where you refuse to post a scenario, and support it with evidence &
> >> citation.
> >
> > I don't have a scenario separate from what the null hypothesis is,
> > drawn from the interviews, forensics, autopsy report, film, etc.
>
>
> Yes stupid, you do.
>
> I've caught you stating things in contradiction to the Warren
> Commission several times.

You're dancing on the head of a pin, pinhead.

>
> And if you ever dared to post *YOUR* real scenario, I suspect we'd
> find even more changes from what the Warren Commission found.

I don't disagree with the historically accepted case.

>
>
> >> You're the same coward you've always been.
> >
> >Put up a case.
>
>
> Done so already... you snipped it, claimed to never have snipped it,
> and ran away.

Lol, I titled a THREAD about your so-called case; it was your little dust-up with Conan. You posted little, and you ran, claiming victory, your usual schtick.

>
> You're a confirmed coward and liar.

You're a lying liar who likes to lie, likes to hear your own lies, and likes to lie about not being a liar.

>
>
>
> >> > Oswald killed JFK. No known help.
> >>
> >>
> >> A "scenario" not well supported by the known evidence.
> >
> >Well supported, historically accepted, and the reason alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups exists.
>
> Did you even read what you just wrote???

Yup.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
> I've already proven what nonsense that was.

Does the Idiot think if you adhere to the historically accepted scenario, you don't have to defend it? What is the logic there again? That history needs no historian to research it?

Isn't it strange how regularly the troll runs to Dale Myers, for example, who devotes much of his time defending and expounding on a scenario that according to Chuck, needs no defense? I guess Chuck is never allowed to refer to Bugliosi, Posner or DVP either, because why would those guys write books about the historically accepted narrative when the null hypothesis does not need defending?

Chuck might be dumb.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

The Idiot says...

>
> Put a case up to defend it against. Stop shooting Nerf darts at the accepted case.

Then says...

>
> Involving a cast of thousands.

Cognitive dissonance again. The Idiot believes no scenario has been put up, while in the next breath ridiculing a scenario.

> >
> >
> > >> But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.
> > >>
> > >> What a coward!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > the historically accepted scenario.

Chuck believes there was an occipital/parietal wound then, as per the facts of the case. He also believes there wasn't one, as per the historically accepted scenario. Cognitive dissonance.

> >
> > A completely meaningless term that you *STILL* refuse to defend.
>
> I can't defend it

>

> Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

That's not a thing. Chuck would rather make a fool of himself than admit the WC made mistakes, either on purpose or legitimate human error. And admitting they did is meaningless without specifics, which he won't name.

>
> You're back to asking questions instead of providing answers.

You're not above being asked questions, Press Secretary Sanders. You're just too stupid to answer them, so you pretend it's not your responsibility.

> >
> > >> > A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.

Chuck provides a pre-schooler's version of a "scenario"; expects a comprehensive essay in return.

So that he can then "discuss" it with us.

LOL!!!

>
> Begging the Question. The WC and HSCA said he was struck twice from behind and above, no frontal shot. Explain why the bullet which you say penetrated the windshield from the South Knoll missed everyone.

The same reason it missed everyone when it came from behind and struck the windshield from the inside, as per your scenario.

>
> Nah. No case from you. Vague, silly stuff

Unlike the Idiot's "a guy in a building shot a guy in a car" explanation.

> > >> The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.
> > >>
> > >> You're afraid of all of it.
> > >
> > >Nah.
> >
> > Then you'll publicly state for the record that the lie detector test
> > of Jack Ruby was intentionally faked, and provide the question where
> > the HSCA's experts stated that Ruby was lying.
> >
> > (Of course, you'll run again...)

(And did)

>
> Gawd, this is old, old stuff. Post Ruby's interview (it's available) and we'll go through it.

Will "we" go through it, Chuck? You and me and he, all together? Chuck's such a team player, suddenly. I'm not even going to bother looking for it. Say, why do you suppose Ruby was so determined to keep his mouth shut until he got to Washington?

> >
> >
> > >> > I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
> > >> > findings have been debunked.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
> > >> issues anyway.
> > >
> > > Nah. Easily debunked by Dale Myers via computer-linked film from the
> > > day, shot by citizens who filmed bits and pieces of the motorcade.

And Dale Myers was debunked by my neighbor two doors down. See how impressive that was?

> >
> > This is a perfect example of your ignorance... when you point to "Dale
> > Myers" as the "debunker."
> >
> > I find it amusing that you think a computer animator has any expertise
> > in acoustics whatsoever.
>
> Not needed nor is his expertise in acoustics claimed. It's consilience, a term you hate.

Especially when it refers to over a dozen medical experts attesting to a large BOH wound, and an absence of scalp.

>
> Dale had an interesting and unique and FACTUAL way of checking if the acoustics findings were accurate taking an entirely different approach.

Yes, he took the existing theory and retrofitted his research around it to make it fit.

>
> I believe the experts tasked with coming up with conclusions whose work is verified by consilience,

(except the medical experts)

>
> and whose outcome is verified by consilience.

(except the forensics experts)

>
> I believe in Occam's Razor.

You don't, because you suffer from cognitive dissonance.

>
> I believe investigations narrow down possible suspects over time and exclude possibilities that are shown to be improbable.

The assassination was not investigated. The WC prosecuted, not investigated. And they never narrowed down any number of suspects, because they refused to consider more than one. No confederates. That was mandate.

> >
> > >> > Oswald killed JFK. No known help.

Amazing how a non-expert who by his own admission "doesn't know much about the case" can spout this nonsense with such conviction, as if he pretends to know more than what his TV tells him. Especially as the Idiot is currently debating someone who had read HUNDREDS of books on the subject, written by people who have read hundreds more. Chuck knows more than everyone.

> > >Well supported, historically accepted, and the reason alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups exists.
> >
> > Did you even read what you just wrote???
>
> Yup.

He read it. He just didn't understand it.

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell, and Chuck

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 19:32:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 5:10:19 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 4:15:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:54:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:07:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So put a case up for consideration.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Look, Chuck! A LNer has a "scenario".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/l3pvZWf8Oac/fsW4ga9aAgAJ
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Only had to ask him once too. He'll never defend it, of course...but it's more progress than will ever be made with you.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >He has the WC "scenario".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you acknowledge that there *IS* a scenario?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So you *DO* have a scenario.
>> >
>> >It isn't different from the historically accepted scenario.
>>
>> Previously you've claimed not to have one. Now you claim you do???
>
> It's the historically accepted scenario. A man in a building shot
> two people in a car and then shot a cop.

You didn't answer the question. You previously claimed not to have a
scenario, now you're claiming you do.

Which is it, Chuckles?

Stop running and ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
>> I've already proven what nonsense that was.
>
>Then you should be able to get the case reopened.

One has nothing to do with the other.

You know from my citation, on what did the majority of History authors
base their writing about the JFK murder?

More importantly, can you name the sources that they DID NOT USE?

>> >> Why can't you post what it is?
>> >
>> > It's drawn from the body of evidence the WC used for it's
>> > investigation. It is well known and online. You quote from it all the
>> > time. I see little reason to re-post what is already available.
>>
>> That would be true only if you unconditionally accepted it.
>>
>> But you don't.
>>
>> YOU HAVE A SCENARIO THAT DIFFERS FROM THE "HISTORICALLY ACCEPTED" ONE.
>
>No I don't.

Then there was a "delayed reaction" by Connally, and the next time you
try to whine about Connally reacting at Z-224, I'm going to call you a
liar.

Deal?

>> But you're too much a coward to post it, or to defend it.
>
> Put a case up to defend it against. Stop shooting Nerf darts at the
> accepted case.

You're lying again, Chuckles...

>> >> Why can't you defend it?
>> >
>> >Put something up against it.
>>
>>
>> Multiple assassins fired from different directions in Dealey Plaza.
>

> Involving a cast of thousands...

You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> >> But... of course... you *really* claim that you have no scenario.
>> >>
>> >> What a coward!
>> >>
>> >> > the historically accepted scenario.
>> >>
>> >> A completely meaningless term that you refuse to defend.
>> >
>> >See above.
>>
>> A completely meaningless term that you *STILL* refuse to defend.
>
>I can't defend it against air. Put something up for consideration.

Why did the Warren Commission conclude that Connally had *NOT* shown
any reaction at Z-224?

You may begin "defending"...

>> >> It might mean something if you'd acknowledge the HSCA - but you don't.
>> >
>> > I acknowledge the HSCA. Oswald Alone as JFK's killer. No dart-firing
>> > umbrellas, no tampered with Z film per Zavada, etc.
>>
>> They concluded that there had been a probable conspiracy, and they
>> noted many areas of the Warren Commission that was deficit.
>>
>> Do you agree that the Warren Commission was deficit in many areas?
>>
>> If so, can you *name* specifically where the Warren Commission went
>> wrong?
>
>Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

That's not a 'thing.'

It's an excuse for you to run away.

> You're back to asking questions instead of providing answers.

Don't worry Chucky... you know the answers... you're just afraid to
give 'em.

> You have the challenge, not me...


You're lying again, Chuckles...

>> >> > A man in a building shot some people in a car and then shot a cop.
>> >> >
>> >> > Pretty simple.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yet you can't post it, nor defend it.
>> >
>> > Put your case up and all of the evidence you've drawn your
>> > conclusion of conspiracy from.
>>
>> Multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza. As shown by the earwitnesses
>

> Explain why so many only reported three shots...


Certainly. Just as soon as you explain why some heard only two shots.
Or some that heard just four shots.

I rather suspect that you'll run rather than answer.

>> and the immediate response of the Dallas police. Also shown by the
>> frontal shot to JFK's throat that Bugliosi lied about.
>
>Begging the Question.

Tut tut tut, liar...

If you cannot QUOTE where Perry or Carrico said that the throat wound
was "ragged" - then there's no "begging the question" involved.

IT"S A FACT.

Now, either cite, or retract your lie.

> The WC and HSCA said he was struck twice from behind and above, no
> frontal shot. Explain why the bullet which you say penetrated the
> windshield from the South Knoll missed everyone.

First thiings first. Quote Perry and Carrico describing the throat
wound as "ragged."

If you cannot, then PUBLICLY admit that Bugliosi lied about this
wound.

>> >> Why is that, coward?
>> >
>> >Why don't you put a case up, shorty?
>>
>> Been there, done that several times. A feat you've **NEVER** matched.
>
> Nah. No case from you. Vague, silly stuff which you run from when
> pressed. Like when you're asked to show how JFK's body was snatched.
> Show your tests. Show ANY tests.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

You're beginning to exceed Puddy's number of lies...

>> Why the cowardice, Chuckles? Why are you so TERRIFIED of simply
>> posting what you believed happened, along with the evidence that led
>> you to that faith?

Dead silence...

>> >> >> Now all you have to do is acknowledge that it was replaced by the
>> >> >> HSCA.
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't acknowledge their conclusions.
>> >
>> >I acknowledge their conclusions.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>>
>> Acknowledge: 1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.
>>
>> You don't have a problem with admitting it's "existence" - it's the
>> truth of what they concluded that you can't even publicly state.
>
> Let's say they were right and go home. You can now look for the
> mystery shooter who missed everything.

No, let's acknowledge that you *LIED* intentionally ... and tried to
pass off that lie by your intentionally vague wording.

>> Why the cowardice, Chuckles?
>>
>> Do your own thoughts frighten you?

More silence...

>> >> You don't even acknowledge the Warren Commission's conclusions...
>> >> what's changed?
>> >>
>> >> I acknowledge only one thing - and that's the EVIDENCE. If there had
>> >> been an honest investigation at any time, they would undoubtedly come
>> >> to the same conclusions I do.
>> >
>> > What is your conclusion, specifically, and show the testing,
>> > recreations, reenactments, etc. that scientifically lead you to your
>> > conclusions?
>>
>> Why do you insist on continuing to ask questions you refuse to answer?

Ran again, didn't you coward?

>> >> The HSCA dug up more evidence. As did the ARRB.
>> >>
>> >> You're afraid of all of it.
>> >
>> >Nah.
>>
>> Then you'll publicly state for the record that the lie detector test
>> of Jack Ruby was intentionally faked, and provide the question where
>> the HSCA's experts stated that Ruby was lying.
>>
>> (Of course, you'll run again...)
>
> Gawd, this is old, old stuff. Post Ruby's interview (it's available)
> and we'll go through it.

If it's as "old" as you whine, then you should have the answers at
your fingertips.

You've stated that your not afraid of the HSCA & ARRB's evidence...
the HSCA CLEARLY showed how the Jack Ruby lie detector test was
intentionally faked.

I just want to see if you were telling the truth about not being
afraid of the evidence.

But clearly, you decided to run, just as I predicted.

You really ARE afraid of the evidence dug up by the HSCA and ARRB!!!

>> >> > I acknowledge their conclusions and understand their acoustics
>> >> > findings have been debunked.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And the "debunking" has been debunked. But you don't understand the
>> >> issues anyway.
>> >
>> > Nah. Easily debunked by Dale Myers via computer-linked film from the
>> > day, shot by citizens who filmed bits and pieces of the motorcade.
>> > McLain wasn't where The HSCA acoustics experts said he needed to be at
>> > for the dictabelt to have picked up impulses they say are shots.
>> > McLain says it wasn't his open mic. Steve Barber pointed out the faint
>> > audio indicating the recording is from later. The NAS was extremely
>> > skeptical and declined to investigate.
>>
>> This is a perfect example of your ignorance... when you point to "Dale
>> Myers" as the "debunker."
>>
>> I find it amusing that you think a computer animator has any expertise
>> in acoustics whatsoever.
>

> Not needed...


You're a liar.

>> You claim to believe experts... but you really don't.
>

> I believe the experts ...

No you don't.

Time and time again it's the *CRITICS* that cite the experts... and
it's *YOU* that keeps running!


> There are UFO "experts" ...


That says it all!


> All your "experts" ever do...

Yep... you're TERRIFIED of true experts in their field.

Just as I asserted.

>> >> But it doesn't matter - their conclusion of conspiracy wasn't based
>> >> only on the acoustics.
>> >
>> >Yeah, it was.
>>
>> So you're calling the Chief Counsel Blakey a liar.
>
> I wouldn't go so far as to label him a liar, but the FACTS show the
> HSCA was ready to wrap things up with no second shooter.

Then explain what he said in a way that precludes him being an
outrageous liar.

You pretend that he's not a liar, EXPLAIN THE CONTRADICTION.

>> Good to know ... this is the SECOND expert you've dismissed.
>
> You dismiss him to. He didn't think LBJ did it. He didn't find
> evidence the CIA killed him. He didn't think Hoover was in cahoots
> with LBJ.
>
>He thought the Mob did it.
>
>So are YOU dismissing Blakey as an "expert" when he thinks you're wrong?

Notice that everything I dismiss about what Blakey said are his
**OPINIONS** that aren't based on evidence.

Whereas you disbelieve Blakey on a topic that he's a complete expert
on.

>> > Bud has pointed out they were ready to issue the report sans a
>> > second shooter until the last minute acoustics.
>>
>> A claim he cannot support.
>>
>> Nor can you.

Why would I try to support a lie?

>> >> > Which leaves us right back to where we were.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Where you refuse to post a scenario, and support it with evidence &
>> >> citation.
>> >
>> > I don't have a scenario separate from what the null hypothesis is,
>> > drawn from the interviews, forensics, autopsy report, film, etc.
>>
>>
>> Yes stupid, you do.
>>
>> I've caught you stating things in contradiction to the Warren
>> Commission several times.
>
>You're dancing on the head of a pin, pinhead.

Ad hominem can't replace logical argument or citations.

>> And if you ever dared to post *YOUR* real scenario, I suspect we'd
>> find even more changes from what the Warren Commission found.
>
>I don't disagree with the historically accepted case.

Yes moron, you PROVABLY do. You'll even prove it again when you answer
this post.

>> >> You're the same coward you've always been.
>> >
>> >Put up a case.
>>
>>
>> Done so already... you snipped it, claimed to never have snipped it,
>> and ran away.
>
> Lol, I titled a THREAD about your so-called case; it was your little
> dust-up with Conan. You posted little, and you ran, claiming victory,
> your usual schtick.

Let's review the facts, shall we?

Did you snip my scenario when you 'responded' in that thread...

Yes or no?

>> You're a confirmed coward and liar.
>

> I'm a lying liar who likes to lie, likes to hear my own lies,

> and likes to lie about not being a liar.
>
>> >> > Oswald killed JFK. No known help.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A "scenario" not well supported by the known evidence.
>> >
>> >Well supported, historically accepted, and the reason alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups exists.
>>
>> Did you even read what you just wrote???
>
>Yup.

So how do you explain the fact that there's no "alt.water-is-not.wet"
forum?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 20:48:24 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
>> I've already proven what nonsense that was.
>
> Does the Idiot think if you adhere to the historically accepted
> scenario, you don't have to defend it? What is the logic there again?
> That history needs no historian to research it?

I've already cited for the fact that the majority of historians went
no further than the Warren Commission Report - despite the fact that
the HSCA and ARRB material was available for their use.

Chuckles thought I was citing *for* him!

But "history" has been wrong time and time again. Theres no need to
list all the things that were formerly "believed" by "history" ...
anyone can name some... The 'flat' earth will start you out...

> Isn't it strange how regularly the troll runs to Dale Myers, for
> example, who devotes much of his time defending and expounding on a
> scenario that according to Chuck, needs no defense?

The Warren Commission never faced critical review when it was in
operation... we critics now do the function that an *HONEST*
investigation would have contained within itself.

Every single man on the Commission was either a lawyer, or was about
to pass the bar. Every single one of them knew that cross-examination
is a critical feature of the American Justice way to determine truth.

Every single man on the Commission, every single man who worked for
the Commission, knowingly dropped the ball, and knew that they were
*NOT* seeking the truth.

And Chuckles is a poor substitute... he can't defend what they did.

> I guess Chuck is never allowed to refer to Bugliosi, Posner or DVP
> either, because why would those guys write books about the
> historically accepted narrative when the null hypothesis does not
> need defending?
>
>Chuck might be dumb.

I do believe you've nailed it perfectly...

[BT George]

Actually the term "null hypothesis" is subject to some interpretation and debate when applied to a proposition. E.g., "There are no gods." is supposedly a null hypothesis per some. But actually that is a question-begging *conclusion* rather than an actual *demonstrable* hypothesis. The correct null hypothesis can never exeed, "We are here; so there must be an ultimate explanation." *until* there are sufficient grounds to *establish* with presumptive certainty what that *ultimate* explanation is.

In the Kennedy case, the true initial null hypothesis was that "John F. Kennedy was slain by gunfire in Dealey Plaza by at least one shooter." So the relevant question to ask is, "Has one of the competing hypotheses clearly established itself as presumptively certain, or at least preferred?"

CT's would like to pretend that question has been decided in their favor. It hasn't. The WC and the HSCA that followed 15 years later found that 100% of the *hard* evidence (finger/palm prints, ballistics, forensics, records of gun ownership, fibers, etc.) pointed to to Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole killer and only shooter who landed any shots that day. The WC found "...no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy." And the HSCA was about to reach that same exact conclusion before the 11th hour (and now thoroughly debunked) Dicatabelt Evidence changed their mind about there being a possible second shooter from the Grassy Knoll that missed.

These two investigations left a body of work that is unrivalled by anything the CT Community has ever come close to producing. Moreover, virtually *every* scientific test applied to the case since then has done nothing, but underscore the basic validity of their (sans Dictabelt) findings. Therefore, the presumptively preferred null hypothesis is now correctly placed as "Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed John F. Kennedy (and JD Tippit), with no persuasive evidence to indicate he had any accomplices."

So it is a bit puzzling why Boris and Ben are trying to demand that LN's lay out their case, when it has been laid out so thoroughly for a very long time.



> Chuck might be dumb.

Unfortunately for an expert like Boris, expertise in such matters does not confer upon said expert the ability to correctly identify other experts. :-)

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:19:17 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
> > > I've already proven what nonsense that was.
> >
> >
> > Does the Idiot think if you adhere to the historically accepted scenario, you don't have to defend it? What is the logic there again? That history needs no historian to research it?
> >
> > Isn't it strange how regularly the troll runs to Dale Myers, for example, who devotes much of his time defending and expounding on a scenario that according to Chuck, needs no defense? I guess Chuck is never allowed to refer to Bugliosi, Posner or DVP either, because why would those guys write books about the historically accepted narrative when the null hypothesis does not need defending?
> >
>
> Actually the term "null hypothesis" is subject to some interpretation and debate when applied to a proposition. E.g., "There are no gods." is supposedly a null hypothesis per some.

<snicker> Looks good to me.

> But actually that is a question-begging *conclusion* rather than an actual *demonstrable* hypothesis.

I disagree. "gods", by their nature are supernatural. There has never been a demonstrable supernatural phenomenon. Their non-existance is demonstrated by the impossibility of what their existence requires. That a god exists is begging the question, because it requires the supernatural, for which there is no support.

Let me ask you, do you think "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" can be a null hypothesis?

> The correct null hypothesis can never exceed, "We are here; so there must be an ultimate explanation." *until* there are sufficient grounds to *establish* with presumptive certainty what that *ultimate* explanation is.

This we mean we could never rule out anything, even things with no support, until we know everything. I think things can be dismissed until they can be supported.

[BT George]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:19:17 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
> > > > I've already proven what nonsense that was.
> > >
> > >
> > > Does the Idiot think if you adhere to the historically accepted scenario, you don't have to defend it? What is the logic there again? That history needs no historian to research it?
> > >
> > > Isn't it strange how regularly the troll runs to Dale Myers, for example, who devotes much of his time defending and expounding on a scenario that according to Chuck, needs no defense? I guess Chuck is never allowed to refer to Bugliosi, Posner or DVP either, because why would those guys write books about the historically accepted narrative when the null hypothesis does not need defending?
> > >
> >
> > Actually the term "null hypothesis" is subject to some interpretation and debate when applied to a proposition. E.g., "There are no gods." is supposedly a null hypothesis per some.
>
> <snicker> Looks good to me.
>

You should look again. *This* time using a bit more *logic* and *reason*.

> > But actually that is a question-begging *conclusion* rather than an actual *demonstrable* hypothesis.
>
> I disagree. "gods", by their nature are supernatural. There has never been a demonstrable supernatural phenomenon. Their non-existance is demonstrated by the impossibility of what their existence requires. That a god exists is begging the question, because it requires the supernatural, for which there is no support.
>

There is also no natural support for the following propositions:

1) Eternal material origins. (Simply put, we cannot have come from an infinite material past and arrive at today. Therefore, the material Universe has an origin. From *what* was this origin? Maybe Bud knows of something material (i.e, "natural) that needs no explanation for its beginnings. If so let him *demonstrate* it.

2) Explosions without an explicable *natural* cause. Does Bud or any other atheist *know* this cause? Or do Bud and other atheists simply assume there is a *natural* origin? (I think the latter.)

3) Complex order resulting from an uncaused (as far as can be explained) and undirected expolsion. Do Bud or other athiests care to show *any* other
precedent for such a thing?

4) Life from non-living things. (Same challenge.)

5) Thinking from the non thinking. (Same.)

6) Personality and consciousness from the impersonal and unaware. (Same.)

Until Bud and other atheists are up to those challenges, they have *failed* to demonstrate that another explanation that is *by definition* able is not *logically* preferable to their belief system. You see pure naturalism only works if nature gives any real and *credible* evidence that it can ultimately explain *itself*.

> Let me ask you, do you think "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" can be a null hypothesis?
>

Hardly. But then again, no one has seriuosly suggested that a "Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessary or sufficient to describe things as they are.
But upon just what basis the above unanswered questions leave pure naturalism in to be taken seriously as "sufficient"; still less, "necessary" I leave for the Lurkers and viewers to decide.

> > The correct null hypothesis can never exceed, "We are here; so there must be an ultimate explanation." *until* there are sufficient grounds to *establish* with presumptive certainty what that *ultimate* explanation is.
>
> This we mean we could never rule out anything, even things with no support, until we know everything. I think things can be dismissed until they can be supported.
>

But what you miss, and do not as an athiest want to interact with, is that logical the logical *necessities* are on the side of, and form the very *support* for the theism proposition. That this is so, I believe I demonstrate *VERY* well in this post. Again, I will leave it to the good and logical minds who view it, to draw their own conclusions about whether such beliefs can in any fair way be compared to believing in "Fairies" and "Flying Spaghetti Monsters":

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/m7f03-IdPS8/pnSzh5aAAQAJ

[borisba...@gmail.com]

You are overthinking "null hypothesis." Its usage here is intended as a stonewall by LN trolls who cannot explain damaging evidence. It was not meant to mean anything, in the context Chuck uses it, o bloviated one.

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:24:24 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 5:19:17 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And you really should stop with the "historically accepted" nonsense.
> > > > > I've already proven what nonsense that was.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Does the Idiot think if you adhere to the historically accepted scenario, you don't have to defend it? What is the logic there again? That history needs no historian to research it?
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it strange how regularly the troll runs to Dale Myers, for example, who devotes much of his time defending and expounding on a scenario that according to Chuck, needs no defense? I guess Chuck is never allowed to refer to Bugliosi, Posner or DVP either, because why would those guys write books about the historically accepted narrative when the null hypothesis does not need defending?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually the term "null hypothesis" is subject to some interpretation and debate when applied to a proposition. E.g., "There are no gods." is supposedly a null hypothesis per some.
> >
> > <snicker> Looks good to me.
> >
>
> You should look again. *This* time using a bit more *logic* and *reason*.

Looks better.

> > > But actually that is a question-begging *conclusion* rather than an actual *demonstrable* hypothesis.
> >
> > I disagree. "gods", by their nature are supernatural. There has never been a demonstrable supernatural phenomenon. Their non-existance is demonstrated by the impossibility of what their existence requires. That a god exists is begging the question, because it requires the supernatural, for which there is no support.
> >
>
> There is also no natural support for the following propositions:
>
> 1) Eternal material origins. (Simply put, we cannot have come from an infinite material past and arrive at today.

Unsupportable statement. You are done already.

> Therefore, the material Universe has an origin. From *what* was this origin? Maybe Bud knows of something material (i.e, "natural) that needs no explanation for its beginnings. If so let him *demonstrate* it.
>
> 2) Explosions without an explicable *natural* cause.

Your argument is that everything isn`t known, and if something isn`t known that "magic" as an explanation is on a equal footing with the possibility of some yet unknown natural explanation.

>Does Bud or any other atheist *know* this cause? Or do Bud and other atheists simply assume there is a *natural* origin? (I think the latter.)
>
> 3) Complex order resulting from an uncaused (as far as can be explained) and undirected expolsion. Do Bud or other athiests care to show *any* other
> precedent for such a thing?

What order are you referring to? If I took the change out of my pocket and threw it on the floor, I might see the result as "order", especially if that was the only thing I had in my experience to consider. But you can get all kinds of results, with any result considered "order". In what way can you tell "random" from "order" when you are only experiencing one thing?

> 4) Life from non-living things. (Same challenge.)

Same answer. Yet unknown, still no need to posit "magic" as the explanation. This is the same thing that ancient man did to explain things he didn`t understand, he attributed them to the supernatural. Science has explained many of the things that ancient man attributed to the supernatural in his ignorance. Our ignorance of the natural world diminishes every minute, although there is still a massive amount of things to learn.

> 5) Thinking from the non thinking. (Same.)

When life started, natural selection became in effect. This is where improvements came from.

> 6) Personality and consciousness from the impersonal and unaware. (Same.)

Lots of animals have both. It is a consequence of evolution.

> Until Bud and other atheists are up to those challenges,

Our inability to explain everything does not speak to the existence of God.

> they have *failed* to demonstrate that another explanation that is *by definition* able is not *logically* preferable to their belief system. You see pure naturalism only works if nature gives any real and *credible* evidence that it can ultimately explain *itself*.

It does every day.

>
> > Let me ask you, do you think "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster" can be a null hypothesis?
> >
>
> Hardly. But then again, no one has seriuosly suggested that a "Flying Spaghetti Monster is necessary or sufficient to describe things as they are.

It is only a matter of saying the FSM has the power to make things as they are. Just like your God.

You should acknowledge the grim truth that you have as much chance of dying and ending up in the presence of the FSM as the God of the Bible.

> But upon just what basis the above unanswered questions leave pure naturalism in to be taken seriously as "sufficient"; still less, "necessary" I leave for the Lurkers and viewers to decide.

As always, the lurkers fully support my ideas. No lurkers have ever raised their voice in opposition of an idea I`ve expressed (of course if they did they wouldn`t be a lurker).

> > > The correct null hypothesis can never exceed, "We are here; so there must be an ultimate explanation." *until* there are sufficient grounds to *establish* with presumptive certainty what that *ultimate* explanation is.
> >
> > This we mean we could never rule out anything, even things with no support, until we know everything. I think things can be dismissed until they can be supported.
> >
>
> But what you miss, and do not as an athiest want to interact with, is that logical the logical *necessities* are on the side of, and form the very *support* for the theism proposition

You are begging the question. What is needed for your ideas to be valid is assumed, not shown.

The *necessities* aren`t even shown. That life has not *always* existed is assumed, not shown. That matter has not *always* existed is assumed, not shown.

> That this is so, I believe I demonstrate *VERY* well in this post. Again, I will leave it to the good and logical minds who view it, to draw their own conclusions about whether such beliefs can in any fair way be compared to believing in "Fairies" and "Flying Spaghetti Monsters":
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/m7f03-IdPS8/pnSzh5aAAQAJ

Wherever you see the word "God" remove it, and insert "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and the arguments are just as valid.

<snipping the off-topic assassination related content below>

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nah. Null hypothesis is used to affirm what all of us who participate at this discussion board know: Oswald Alone is the ACCEPTED conclusion in US high school and college textbooks, the official version of what ended JFK's presidency according to our own government. It is the HISTORICAL conclusion, reached by several major investigations involving liberals and conservatives, and additionally bolstered by several minor investigations that looked into aspects of the case.

Null hypothesis isn't used to stonewall "critics" of the accepted conclusion, but acknowledging it as historically accepted does put the shoe on the other foot, which critics hate, because they have no case.

Everything discussed here--13cm defects, snatched corpses, altered Z films, shots fired too close together for Oswald to have done it alone, Chaney on his motorcycle, shots through the windshield, etc. has been discussed ENDLESSLY at this board and in books, blogs, other discussion boards, YouTube videos, and so on. Has ANY so-called "critic" been satisfied with any answer?

Probably not.

So why keep asking? The answer is easy to see: the only reason Boris and Ben are here (and their ilk at other discussion boards), is to recruit someone to answer their begged questions. That's it. It's non-stop. That makes all of this a GAME and not a quest for truth.

Try and get even one of them to give anyone a modicum of a case and they recoil like a witch from water. Total deer-in-the-headlights moments. Boris can't even articulate how many shots were fired. Ben can't tell us anything about Jack Thompson, whom he accuses of murdering JD Tippit. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The JFK "body was snatched" theory has been around since Lifton and 'Best Evidence' almost 40 years ago. Have any "critics" ran simulations to show how any of this would be feasible? How about tests showing how the Z film was altered by first, A.) Telling us what was altered and filming an approximation and posting it, say, on YouTube, and then B.) Editing out the extra shots or whatever and allowing a comparison?

Nope. It'll never happen. It's a hobby-killer.

Have the kooks ever tried to approximate the so-called shot through the windshield that hit JFK in the throat?

Nope. It'll never happen. Another hobby killer.

No tests. No simulations. Nothing.

So Oswald Alone is the null hypothesis. Until one of you kooks can properly articulate what happened, you'll always be laughed at, clacking away in mommy's basement with propellers spinning on tinfoil beanies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 06:59:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Nah. Null hypothesis is used to affirm what all of us who
> participate at this discussion board know: Oswald Alone is the
> ACCEPTED conclusion in US high school and college textbooks, the
> official version of what ended JFK's presidency according to our own
> government. It is the HISTORICAL conclusion, reached by several major
> investigations involving liberals and conservatives, and additionally
> bolstered by several minor investigations that looked into aspects of
> the case.

Chuckles tells another whopper.

The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
"probable" conspiracy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Your mystery shooter missed.

Go find him.

Sorry, but it's Oswald Alone.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

To translate Chuck's post in a more condensed, time-saving manner:

a zillion and eight.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Chuckles tells another whopper.
>
> The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
> overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
> "probable" conspiracy.

I'm just amused that someone who, by his own admission, has little knowledge of the case, is trying to school you...and using only the information he saw on TV reruns to do it. Would I be exaggerating to say you had SHELVES of books on the subject in your home?

The historically accepted narrative in 1963 is that smoking did not cause cancer, so I'm off to a medical forum now to go school some doctors.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

How many shots Boris?

A zillion and nine.

When was the shot fired through the windshield?

A zillion and ten.

How was JFK's corpse snatched and when?

A zillion and eleven.

And on and on into infinity.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Chuckles tells another whopper.
> >
> > The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
> > overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
> > "probable" conspiracy.
>
> I'm just amused that someone who, by his own admission, has little knowledge of the case,

Very little "knowledge" of the case is needed to defeat you. Mine is an argument against conspiracism, a sort of disease you are afflicted with which holds in part that the world is run by omnipotent forces of evil capable of pulling off whatever they want and not being held accountable. When you have a conspiracy THEORY to compare to the null hypothesis, it can then be examined. Until then, you're a kook with a tinfoil beanie and a propeller.

>
> The historically accepted narrative in 1963 is that smoking did not cause cancer, so I'm off to a medical forum now to go school some doctors.

But the "null hypothesis" was overturned. Science, Mr. anti-science.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Very little "knowledge" of the case is needed to defeat you. Mine is an argument against conspiracism,

Chuck admits his stance is based on his disgust and prejudice of CTers. He knows NOTHING, and sure does like it that way.

Here's a list of other people Chuck thinks are "diseased." The last name is interesting.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/19-famous-people-who-believe-jfk-conspiracy.html

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More proof why people like Boris are the last people who should be looking into a murder. Constant misdirection, straw man arguments and statements, etc.

How many shots Boris?

One zillion twelve.

Why hasn't the shot through the windshield theory been tested?

One zillion thirteen.

On and on it goes. The Oswald Alone side needs to prove everything to the unique standard of every JFK Truther who harbors a suspicion (an impossible standard to meet since it's subjective to the individual Truther), the JFK Truthers need not to do a dang thing.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > Here's a list of other people Chuck thinks are "diseased." The last name is interesting.
> >
> > http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/19-famous-people-who-believe-jfk-conspiracy.html
>
>
>
> More proof why people like Boris are the last people who should be looking into a murder. Constant misdirection, straw man arguments and statements, etc.

Translation: Chuck dislikes that I've nailed his persona so perfectly. His disgust is palpable. He refuses to believe in conspiracy because the thought makes him sick. It's visceral. Fortunately, there are ever-growing lists of "diseased" public figures who also believe in conspiracy, but Chuck isn't brave enough to call them kooks or retards, because he know that half the Warren Commission is on the list. He's brave enough to call me all those things, though.

Cognitive dissonance.

What's the matter, Chuck...that one not on your Phrase of the Month Caldendar?

>
> How many shots Boris?

More than three. That answer alone is enough to send you into paroxysms. How can it be more than three when most earwitnesses only heard three? Silencers. They affect aim and accuracy, which also explains why a few shots missed, even though "our" marksmen were experts. It would also explain the firecracker-type sounds people heard. Firecrackers and rifle shots are very distant cousins. One sounds tinny and thin, the other is loud and booming. Silencers could explain that. I also tend to think there were probably four audible shots, but that most only heard three because the first shot was unexpected, and therefore did not register to the earwitnesses, or went in one ear and out the other without them processing what they heard on any level except subconsciously.

Disclosure: I know little about firearms and shooting, so I'd like Ben to correct anything I've just said if it's untrue (mostly for my sake, because LNers are incapable of learning). Ben, being a critic, will have no problems pointing out any inaccuracies I've just stated.

>
> Why hasn't the shot through the windshield theory been tested?

Every extant test has failed thus far. Even MythBusters failed. Why is it that whatever object created the crack in the windshield didn't hit any other passengers in the car? It came from the INSIDE...didn't it? Stupid.

>
> One zillion thirteen.

In your next post you'll say a zillion and fourteen, if you can count that high, despite me clearly answering your stupid questions.

>
> On and on it goes. The Oswald Alone side needs to prove everything to the unique standard of every JFK Truther who harbors a suspicion (an impossible standard to meet since it's subjective to the individual Truther), the JFK Truthers need not to do a dang thing.

Opposite, in fact. CTers could be wrong 99% of the time, leaving a 1% discrepancy which still proves conspiracy. LNers need to be right 100% of the time, no exception, which is why you morons hustle so hard to deny everything, why you all suffer such blatant cognitive dissonance, why goalposts must be shifted, and why both you and your "evidence" need to evolve like a virus to vaccines whenever something new is discovered.

That's why evidence must be slightly and silently updated over the years. Some examples include Connally's reaction at Z224, (contrary to the WC's findings), the Jet Effect theory (contrary to new findings he went forward first), and Kennedy's traveling back wound.

Now respond with the same repetitive talking points about tinfoil beanies, scenarios and null hypotheses, and ignore everything I just said, you dumb fucking hick.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:13:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Here's a list of other people Chuck thinks are "diseased." The last name is interesting.
> > >
> > > http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/19-famous-people-who-believe-jfk-conspiracy.html
> >
> >
> >
> > More proof why people like Boris are the last people who should be looking into a murder. Constant misdirection, straw man arguments and statements, etc.
>
> Translation: Chuck dislikes that I've nailed his persona so perfectly.

Nah.

His disgust is palpable. He refuses to believe in conspiracy because the thought makes him sick.

I believe in conspiracies (911 was a conspiracy, and the Lincoln assassination was a loose conspiracy). I do not believe in conspraicism. (Thousands killed JFK for fill-in-the-blank reasons, a missile hit the Pentagon, the CIA introduced AIDs to wipe out blacks, chemtrails are poison to control US minds, the moon landings were staged to win the cosmic Cold War against the Reds.)

It's visceral. Fortunately, there are ever-growing lists of "diseased" public figures who also believe in conspiracy,

Cite your proof the list is "ever growing." Or run. (One zillion fourteen.)

>but Chuck isn't brave enough to call them kooks or retards, because he know that half the Warren >Commission is on the list.

They all have a different theory than you, and guess what? Reading their comments, it appears many or most of them think Oswald shoot JFK. You think Oswald should be buried in Arlington next to JFK.

He's brave enough to call me all those things, though.

Good 'ol brave "Boris."

>
> Cognitive dissonance.
>
> What's the matter, Chuck...that one not on your Phrase of the Month Caldendar?

Sounds like it fits you. Can you explain why your precious celebrities hold theories different than yours? Did it make you re-think your theory, whatever it is? Cognitive dissonance?

>
> >
> > How many shots Boris?
>
> More than three. That answer alone is enough to send you into paroxysms.

Dodge.

>How can it be more than three when most earwitnesses only heard three? Silencers.

Got proof? Why did some hear more shots if there were silencers?

>They affect aim and accuracy, which also explains why a few shots missed, even though "our" marksmen >were experts.

Bwahahaha! And we know they're expert marksmen how? Oh, Boris cites their expertise based on firing shots that missed! I guess they weren't worried about pegging Jackie because they controlled the investigation or some sh!t, right? Good Gawd, you can't make this stuff up!

It would also explain the firecracker-type sounds people heard. Firecrackers and rifle shots are very distant cousins. One sounds tinny and thin, the other is loud and booming.

Look at Boris throwing down with that complicated science!!! You go guuurl!


>Silencers could explain that.

Tell me what silencer was used in 1963 on rifles firing ammo that could be linked to what was recovered and show me your tests. Or run. (One zillion fifteen.)

>I also tend to think there were probably four audible shots, but that most only heard three because the >first shot was unexpected, and therefore did not register to the earwitnesses, or went in one ear and out > the other without them processing what they heard on any level except subconsciously.

Or it could just mean three shots were fired, enemy of Occam.

>
> Disclosure: I know little about firearms and shooting, so I'd like Ben to correct anything I've just said if it's untrue (mostly for my sake, because LNers are incapable of learning). Ben, being a critic, will have no problems pointing out any inaccuracies I've just stated.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. What Ben may know about firearms he more than makes up for with a lack of common sense.

>
>
> >
> > Why hasn't the shot through the windshield theory been tested?
>
> Every extant test has failed thus far. Even MythBusters failed.

Has it forced you to rethink your position, or is cognitive dissonance at work?

>Why is it that whatever object created the crack in the windshield didn't hit any other passengers in the >car?

It did hit a passenger, asshole. JFK. Should it have hit all of them?

>It came from the INSIDE...didn't it? Stupid.

Well, progress. Are you admitting the windshield was cracked and not penetrated by a bullet fired from the "South Knoll" or whatever?

>
> >
> > One zillion thirteen.
>
> In your next post you'll say a zillion and fourteen, if you can count that high, despite me clearly answering your stupid questions.

You're just starting, Truther. You've got to put all of this together in a narrative, which is what you criticize did (the WC). Your burden isn't less than theirs. Run tests for all of the fantastic things you allege. You still can't say how many shots. Carry your burden, Truther.

>
> >
> > On and on it goes. The Oswald Alone side needs to prove everything to the unique standard of every JFK Truther who harbors a suspicion (an impossible standard to meet since it's subjective to the individual Truther), the JFK Truthers need not to do a dang thing.
>
> Opposite, in fact. CTers could be wrong 99% of the time, leaving a 1% discrepancy which still proves conspiracy.

Great. What conspiracy? It isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy. It's Oswald Alone or a particular conspiracy. Cry and stomp your feet all you want until the propeller on your tinfoil beanie spins out of control in frustration, but this only happened ONE WAY.

LNers need to be right 100% of the time, no exception, which is why you morons hustle so hard to deny everything, why you all suffer such blatant cognitive dissonance, why goalposts must be shifted, and why both you and your "evidence" need to evolve like a virus to vaccines whenever something new is discovered.

Pot. Kettle.

>
> That's why evidence must be slightly and silently updated over the years. Some examples include Connally's reaction at Z224, (contrary to the WC's findings), the Jet Effect theory (contrary to new findings he went forward first),

Interesting because it bolsters the WC's original conclusions whereas your new "evidence" simply leads to more suspects. More proof this is a game. Investigations narrow down possibilities, suspects, etc.

>and Kennedy's traveling back wound.

Which is a crock.

>
> Now respond with the same repetitive talking points about tinfoil beanies, scenarios and null hypotheses, and ignore everything I just said, you dumb fucking hick.

Spark a bowl, stoner. Tell mommy you've almost got the murder mystery figured out and you can start looking for work soon.

How many shots Boris?

Boris: More than three!

Who killed JFK Ben?

Ben: The snipers!

Almost 55 years of snipe hunting.

Walt Cakebread? Can you help this guy out? Healy? Rossley? Art Guerrilla? 19eee?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:20:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Being a believer means never admitting that you lied.

And the medical evidence suggests that he struck Connally, at the very
least.

Just because you lied about the HSCA doesn't mean that they conducted
a real investigation either.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:42:27 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> Chuckles tells another whopper.
>>
>> The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
>> overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
>> "probable" conspiracy.
>
> I'm just amused that someone who, by his own admission, has little
> knowledge of the case, is trying to school you...and using only the
> information he saw on TV reruns to do it. Would I be exaggerating to
> say you had SHELVES of books on the subject in your home?

Yep... over 100... I think right around 130 or so. And unlike Puddy,
who refuses to read the best conspiracy books, I have virtually *ALL*
of the good "Warren Commission Was Right" books.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 08:04:04 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Chuckles tells another whopper.
>> >
>> > The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
>> > overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
>> > "probable" conspiracy.
>>
>> I'm just amused that someone who, by his own admission, has little knowledge of the case,
>
> Very little "knowledge" of the case is needed to defeat you. Mine is
> an argument against conspiracism, a sort of disease you are afflicted
> with which holds in part that the world is run by omnipotent forces of
> evil capable of pulling off whatever they want and not being held
> accountable. When you have a conspiracy THEORY to compare to the null
> hypothesis, it can then be examined. Until then, you're a kook with a
> tinfoil beanie and a propeller.

Everytime I mention a fact consistent with conspiracy, you run away,
Chuckles...

Why is that?

>> The historically accepted narrative in 1963 is that smoking did
>> not cause cancer, so I'm off to a medical forum now to go school some
>> doctors.
>
>But the "null hypothesis" was overturned. Science, Mr. anti-science.

Just as the HSCA overturned the "null hypothesis" of the Warren
Commission.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> How many shots Boris?
>
> More than three. That answer alone is enough to send you into
> paroxysms. How can it be more than three when most earwitnesses only
> heard three? Silencers. They affect aim and accuracy, which also
> explains why a few shots missed, even though "our" marksmen were
> experts. It would also explain the firecracker-type sounds people
> heard. Firecrackers and rifle shots are very distant cousins. One
> sounds tinny and thin, the other is loud and booming. Silencers could
> explain that. I also tend to think there were probably four audible
> shots, but that most only heard three because the first shot was
> unexpected, and therefore did not register to the earwitnesses, or
> went in one ear and out the other without them processing what they
> heard on any level except subconsciously.
>
> Disclosure: I know little about firearms and shooting, so I'd like
> Ben to correct anything I've just said if it's untrue (mostly for my
> sake, because LNers are incapable of learning). Ben, being a critic,
> will have no problems pointing out any inaccuracies I've just stated.

And, being honest, would not hesitate to do so... but I didn't see a
single thing I'd disagree with.

>> Why hasn't the shot through the windshield theory been tested?

Chuckly... just come on by. Drive up in your car, and I'll try, I'll
REAAAALY try to put the shot to the left of you, as it was in real
life.

My guess is that I'll never see Chucky drive up to do this test with
live ammo.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 3:33:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 07:42:27 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Chuckles tells another whopper.
> >>
> >> The *official* version is from the last investigation, and never
> >> overturned (As it was the "last" - clearly the truth!) was for a
> >> "probable" conspiracy.
> >
> > I'm just amused that someone who, by his own admission, has little
> > knowledge of the case, is trying to school you...and using only the
> > information he saw on TV reruns to do it. Would I be exaggerating to
> > say you had SHELVES of books on the subject in your home?
>
> Yep... over 100... I think right around 130 or so. And unlike Puddy,
> who refuses to read the best conspiracy books, I have virtually *ALL*
> of the good "Warren Commission Was Right" books.

Let's not forget Tom Rossley has the "26 volumes."

And the 911 Truthers have their 911 Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth website with all of their collected articles.

And how many books has Professor Jim Fetzer written?

Argumentum ad Populum, Argument from Authority.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

My guess is that you're one missed rent check away from doing precisely what you're fantasizing about.

(The commission later concluded that if Boris hadn't pushed Ben's bare foot away that evening, that perhaps Ben wouldn't have left his money in a cup on the dresser with the 'Get some booze for Healy' note before grabbing his rifle from the garage the next morning and climbing the bell tower overlooking the country music concert.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 13:50:00 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Yep... coward.