info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Anonymous Lies...
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
May 8, 2019, 11:16:09 AM5/8/19
to
From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> certainly has none.
Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
Their cowardice & dishonesty simply aren't the tools needed to examine
the evidence and see where it leads.
Watch, as not a *SINGLE* believer will admit that the above quoted
statement is simply untrue. Believers are afraid if they admit *ANY*
evidence of conspiracy, that they will lose the debate.
But they already have... as the many public opinion polls down through
the decades have already shown.
Bud
May 8, 2019, 1:51:11 PM5/8/19
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>
> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> > certainly has none.
>
> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>
> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> > certainly has none.
>
> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
Ben Holmes
May 8, 2019, 4:33:18 PM5/8/19
to
On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>>
>> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>> > certainly has none.
>>
>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>
> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
But to deny that it exists can only be the actions of a dishonest
coward.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>>
>> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>> > certainly has none.
>>
>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>
> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
But to deny that it exists can only be the actions of a dishonest
coward.
Bud
May 8, 2019, 6:03:14 PM5/8/19
to
On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >>
> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >> > certainly has none.
> >>
> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >
> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >>
> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >> > certainly has none.
> >>
> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >
> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
Ben Holmes
May 13, 2019, 5:57:32 PM5/13/19
to
On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
This is a common tactic for believers... they **NEVER** learn
anything... everything has to be proven from the beginning anytime
something is mentioned.
There's not a smidgeon of doubt that Puddy isn't vastly familiar with
the evidence of conspiracy, yet here he is, pretending that it doesn't
exist, and demanding me to produce yet again something he already
knows.
PUDDY - THE ILLITERATE AND **STUPID** BELIEVER!
If I stood behind you with a baseball bat, and asked you to produce
any evidence of a conspiracy in this case, you'd start talking
instantly.
But as there is no painful consequence for lying, only looking
dishonest, cowardly and stupid - and that bothers you not at all.
And that fact tells the tale.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>> >>
>> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>> >> > certainly has none.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>> >
>> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
>
> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>> >>
>> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>> >> > certainly has none.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>> >
>> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
>
> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
This is a common tactic for believers... they **NEVER** learn
anything... everything has to be proven from the beginning anytime
something is mentioned.
There's not a smidgeon of doubt that Puddy isn't vastly familiar with
the evidence of conspiracy, yet here he is, pretending that it doesn't
exist, and demanding me to produce yet again something he already
knows.
PUDDY - THE ILLITERATE AND **STUPID** BELIEVER!
If I stood behind you with a baseball bat, and asked you to produce
any evidence of a conspiracy in this case, you'd start talking
instantly.
But as there is no painful consequence for lying, only looking
dishonest, cowardly and stupid - and that bothers you not at all.
And that fact tells the tale.
Bud
May 13, 2019, 8:33:02 PM5/13/19
to
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >> >> > certainly has none.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
> >>
> >>
> >> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> >> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
> >
> > How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
>
>
> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
Less hot air and more producing of evidence of conspiracy.
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >> >>
> >> >> > There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >> >> > certainly has none.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >> >> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
> >>
> >>
> >> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> >> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
> >
> > How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
>
>
> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
> This is a common tactic for believers... they **NEVER** learn
> anything... everything has to be proven from the beginning anytime
> something is mentioned.
>
> There's not a smidgeon of doubt that Puddy isn't vastly familiar with
> the evidence of conspiracy, yet here he is, pretending that it doesn't
> exist, and demanding me to produce yet again something he already
> knows.
> PUDDY - THE ILLITERATE AND **STUPID** BELIEVER!
>
>
> If I stood behind you with a baseball bat, and asked you to produce
> any evidence of a conspiracy in this case, you'd start talking
> instantly.
> But as there is no painful consequence for lying, only looking
> dishonest, cowardly and stupid - and that bothers you not at all.
>
> And that fact tells the tale.
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2019, 6:42:20 PM5/20/19
to
On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
wrote:
>On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>>>>>>> certainly has none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>>>>>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
>>>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
>>>
>>> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
>>
>> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
>> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
>
> Less hot air and more producing of evidence of conspiracy.
Certainly. Anytime you are stupid enough to publicly deny something,
>On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
>>>>>>> certainly has none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
>>>>>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
>>>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
>>>
>>> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
>>
>> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
>> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
>
> Less hot air and more producing of evidence of conspiracy.
I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
Bud
May 22, 2019, 5:40:06 PM5/22/19
to
On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >>>>>>> certainly has none.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >>>>>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
> >>>>
> >>>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> >>>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
> >>>
> >>> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
> >>
> >> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
> >> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
> >
> > Less hot air and more producing of evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> Certainly.
But nothing offered. For those interested, Ben brought up an old post to dispute someone`s claim that there is no evidence of conspiracy. So I said...
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 May 2019 15:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 4:33:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 8 May 2019 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> From the old Amazon forums... the anonymous "Dale" claims this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy case - Ben
> >>>>>>> certainly has none.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, this simply goes to show that believers aren't qualified to
> >>>>>> look at the evidence, and to judge the evidence.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
> >>>>
> >>>> You once again prove my point. You **KNOW FOR A FACT** that there's
> >>>> evidence of conspiracy. You simply discount it.
> >>>
> >>> How can I discount it when you refuse to produce it?
> >>
> >> You already know the evidence for conspiracy. You are, in fact,
> >> denying it's existence, just as Dale did.
> >
> > Less hot air and more producing of evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> Certainly.
"Produce your evidence of conspiracy."
> Anytime you are stupid enough to publicly deny something,
> I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
borisba...@gmail.com
May 22, 2019, 5:42:16 PM5/22/19
to
>
> That was 2 weeks ago. Still nothing offered. Either Ben has no such evidence to produce or he is terrified to produce it.
This post is about two weeks old:
> That was 2 weeks ago. Still nothing offered. Either Ben has no such evidence to produce or he is terrified to produce it.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/-CwwH9LXnTI/a7kx3wkrAQAJ
Let bub show it's not, lurkers.
borisba...@gmail.com
May 23, 2019, 12:07:44 AM5/23/19
to
>
> That was 2 weeks ago. Still nothing offered. Either Ben has no such evidence to produce or he is terrified to produce it.
In two weeks, this post will be two weeks old...
> That was 2 weeks ago. Still nothing offered. Either Ben has no such evidence to produce or he is terrified to produce it.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/3L5hZkEVAwAJ
What are you going to do then, pond scum?
Ben Holmes
May 28, 2019, 12:53:54 PM5/28/19
to
On Wed, 22 May 2019 14:40:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
It's amusing that "Chickenshit" Puddy can post the above as if he
didn't read what I posted directly below:
>> Anytime you are stupid enough to publicly deny something,
>> I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
>>
>> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
>
> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
Simply deny that there's any evidence of conspiracy, and I'll be happy
to produce it.
But I feel no need to produce what you already know...
didn't read what I posted directly below:
>> Anytime you are stupid enough to publicly deny something,
>> I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
>>
>> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
>
> Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
to produce it.
But I feel no need to produce what you already know...
Bud
May 28, 2019, 2:36:58 PM5/28/19
to
> >> Anytime you are stupid enough to publicly deny something,
> >> I'm happy to prove you a liar by citing it.
> >>
> >> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
> >
> > Produce your evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> Simply deny that there's any evidence of conspiracy, and I'll be happy
> to produce it.
Ben Holmes
Jun 3, 2019, 1:20:46 PM6/3/19
to
On Tue, 28 May 2019 11:36:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Feel free to "assume" anything you want. Everyone already knows you're
a proven liar... and your "assumptions" have no basis.
Indeed, you illustrate that by your abject refusal to deny what I say
is true.
>> But I feel no need to produce what you already know...
Still true.
a proven liar... and your "assumptions" have no basis.
Indeed, you illustrate that by your abject refusal to deny what I say
is true.
>> But I feel no need to produce what you already know...
Bud
Jun 3, 2019, 3:13:23 PM6/3/19
to
Since you refuse to produce any evidence of conspiracy I assume you have none.
Ben Holmes
Jun 17, 2019, 9:12:18 AM6/17/19
to
0 new messages