I Know There Was A Conspiracy ... RFK

[Ben Holmes]

"I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.

RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
aired on T.V.

[Bud]

Produce that TV broadcast.

And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call Garrison out on his lying?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
>> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
>> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
>> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
>> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
>>
>> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
>> aired on T.V.
>
> Produce that TV broadcast.

Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.

You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.

> And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call
> Garrison out on his lying?

Sounds to me like you're in Chuckles' backyard with the goat and
neighborhood children too.

What a perverted bit of slime you are!




Lurkers - note that no-one thus far has refuted the facts I posted.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
> >>
> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
> >> aired on T.V.
> >
> > Produce that TV broadcast.
>
>
> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.

Who brought it up?

> You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.

You said there was a TV broadcast. Produce it.

> > And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call
> > Garrison out on his lying?
>
>
> Sounds to me like you're in Chuckles' backyard with the goat and
> neighborhood children too.
>
> What a perverted bit of slime you are!

You are the one pleasuring himself to these contrived images.

> Lurkers - note that no-one thus far has refuted the facts I posted.

You refuse to support them. It is just more hot air and empty claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
>> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
>> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
>> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
>> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
>> >>
>> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
>> >> aired on T.V.
>> >
>> > Produce that TV broadcast.
>>
>> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.
>
> Who brought it up?

You're the one demanding what you know cannot be produced.

You were too dishonest to ask for a cite to the evidence supporting
that statement - you knew full well I can provide it.

So you asked for something that you knew I **OR YOU** couldn't
provide.

Quite the screwball, aren't you?

>> You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.
>
> You said there was a TV broadcast. Produce it.

Cite for your claim that only the actual TV broadcast can prove that
it existed.

>> > And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call
>> > Garrison out on his lying?
>>
>>
>> Sounds to me like you're in Chuckles' backyard with the goat and
>> neighborhood children too.
>>
>> What a perverted bit of slime you are!
>

> I'm the one pleasuring myself with these contrived images.

>
>> Lurkers - note that no-one thus far has refuted the facts I posted.
>
> You refuse to support them. It is just more hot air and empty claims.

You refuse to deny them. You know you'd get spanked.

[David Healy]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 2:57:32 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
> >> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
> >> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
> >> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
> >> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
> >> >>
> >> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
> >> >> aired on T.V.
> >> >
> >> > Produce that TV broadcast.
> >>
> >> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.
> >
> > Who brought it up?
>
>
> You're the one demanding what you know cannot be produced.
>
> You were too dishonest to ask for a cite to the evidence supporting
> that statement - you knew full well I can provide it.
>
> So you asked for something that you knew I **OR YOU** couldn't
> provide.
>
> Quite the screwball, aren't you?

a .John, lone nut charlatan......... pffffffft!

[Bud]

On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
> >> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
> >> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
> >> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
> >> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
> >> >>
> >> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
> >> >> aired on T.V.
> >> >
> >> > Produce that TV broadcast.
> >>
> >> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.
> >
> > Who brought it up?
>
>
> You're the one demanding what you know cannot be produced.

If it was aired on TV why would I think it would be impossible to produce?

> You were too dishonest to ask for a cite to the evidence supporting
> that statement - you knew full well I can provide it.

From now on I`ll just ignore these things, because I know you will never produce the support for them.

> So you asked for something that you knew I **OR YOU** couldn't
> provide.

DVP has tons of video relating to the JFK assassination, why would I think it would be impossible to get this?

> Quite the screwball, aren't you?
>
>
> >> You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.
> >
> > You said there was a TV broadcast. Produce it.
>
>
> Cite for your claim that only the actual TV broadcast can prove that
> it existed.

Offer whatever proof you have.

[Mark Ulrik]

Unbelievable. Ben is making it sound like RFK was reaching out to Garrison (and that UPI were somehow privy to what was said). If that's what Ben honestly believes happened, then I have some swampland in Florida that I could probably sell him.

[rob.s...@gmail.com]

He would buy it

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Looks like Ben is going to bug-out of this conversation. He's decided his own idiocy is even too much for he himself to defend himself against.

And Mr. Nano-Thermite and the drug addict are taking a pass, too.

[David Healy]

is that the best an under achieving coward such as yourself can muster? You need to tan up those pale white thighs of yours, learn a bit of the truth as you bounce off walls here and about... lmfao!

What-a-pussy!

[BT George]

Note Lurkers: Since this is clearly beb's words and not Bud's; beb is the one making the admission here. ...Explains why he is so obsessed with these things.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Looks like Ben is going to bug-out of this conversation. He's decided his own idiocy is even too much for he himself to defend himself against.
>
> And Mr. Nano-Thermite and the drug addict are taking a pass, too.

Taking a pass on what, dummy? On RFK's quote? Why would I do that? I can't change what he said. Nor is what he said evidence. But you morons are so terrified of the implication that you don't even stop to consider that a suspicion is not evidence. Instead, you try to deny he said it. Retards, every single one of you.

Hey dummy, what happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda? I said "probably nothing". You disagreed. Have at it. We'll wait.

[Bud]

Yah, when I saw what Ben wrote I went "eww".

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:32:46 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:

Yah, it is "someone said (unnamed newspaper person) that someone said (Garrison) that someone said (RFK). And Ben declares this *proof*. And he squawks when I ask for the only thing that possibly could be *proof*, the TV broadcast itself.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Yah, when I saw what Ben wrote I went "eww".

Totally, right? And then Jenny told Julie that Josey said she TOTALLY liked Paul, and I was all like "eww".

What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda? I said "probably nothing." I believe Ben agreed. Naturally Chuck the Midwest inbred thinks otherwise. What say you, walking abortion who somehow owns a computer?

[Bud]

What part of "You are too stupid to try to hold a discussion with" didn`t you understand? Probably all of it, right?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I understood each and every word in a literal sense. I also understand the subtext, and I understand WHEN you need to say it, and WHY you need to say it. You're a chickenshit coward, and you're so used to denying obvious facts that you FORGOT you could take a different route, that being instead of the constant denial of WC apologists, go with acceptance BUT acknowledgement that opinion isn't evidence. You screwed up on this one, stupid.

[Bud]

You have a lot in common with Healy, you also string a lot of incoherent and unconnected sentences together and you both like the taste of Ben`s ass juice.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You have a lot in common with Healy, you also string a lot of incoherent and unconnected sentences together

Technically I have more in common with Katzenbach, who apparently didn't even know what he was writing.

What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda? Jump, dog. Answer.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Misstating what I said doesn't help with what you said.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

That's your hobby horse to ride, Truther. Ride it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 May 2019 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

You've just demonstrated the same cowadice that Puddy did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 May 2019 19:07:25 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

You have, of course... provably disagreed with both of us when we
stated that the evidence doesn't show any change in JFK's body between
Parkland and Bethesda.

Running from the evidence doesn't help YOU.

[Mark Ulrik]

It's even worse than that. Ben is relying on Mark Lane. The "(too many) guns between RFK and the WH" phrase was, however, invented by Jones Harris, and the rest can be described as interpretation of silence (to paraphrase Garrison). There was no backchanneling via emissaries as Lane claimed. That, of course, didn't prevent him from repeatedly fake-quoting RFK to promote himself and his new book.

I uploaded some relevant articles to my Dropbox. I hope the link works. The reactions from Weisberg, Meagher, and (in the Tampa paper) Thornley are very enlightening.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/584g4pjlau8bmke/AAC7gqjX3_0etc2k3eGaWdTsa?dl=0

[Bud]

Thanks for taking the time to put that together, Mark!

[David Healy]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:30:07 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> onsdag den 15. maj 2019 kl. 23.31.34 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
> > On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 7:32:46 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > fredag den 10. maj 2019 kl. 21.39.02 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > > > "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
> > > > public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
> > > > I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
> > > > publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
> > > > to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
> > > >
> > > > RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
> > > > aired on T.V.
> > >
> > > Unbelievable. Ben is making it sound like RFK was reaching out to Garrison (and that UPI were somehow privy to what was said). If that's what Ben honestly believes happened, then I have some swampland in Florida that I could probably sell him.
> >
> > Yah, it is "someone said (unnamed newspaper person) that someone said (Garrison) that someone said (RFK). And Ben declares this *proof*. And he squawks when I ask for the only thing that possibly could be *proof*, the TV broadcast itself.
>
> It's even worse than that. Ben is relying on Mark Lane. The "(too many) guns between RFK and the WH" phrase was, however, invented by Jones Harris, and the rest can be described as interpretation of silence (to paraphrase Garrison). There was no backchanneling via emissaries as Lane claimed. That, of course, didn't prevent him from repeatedly fake-quoting RFK to promote himself and his new book.

c'mon puss... your silence regarding the 250+ RTJ/Mark Lane is suspicious enough. Now you're quoting critics where ever you can? It's called delusional disorder, a break from your reality...

>
> I uploaded some relevant articles to my Dropbox. I hope the link works. The reactions from Weisberg, Meagher, and (in the Tampa paper) Thornley are very enlightening.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/584g4pjlau8bmke/AAC7gqjX3_0etc2k3eGaWdTsa?dl=0

of course the link works Einstein. And, of course noe of the three above have/have what we have when it comes to analyzing alleged and WCR case evidence. You, Chuckles of the Pale White Thighs tribe and Bud the duster need to put your big boy pants on. You're making damn fools of yourself....

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Good job, Mark.


Reading Weisberg's letter to Lane is a good reminder as to why Ben probably adores Lane so much.

Birds of a feather

Lie together

[David Healy]

have you spoke to your wife about your male fixation?

> Birds of a feather
>
> Lie together

they sure do Laddie....

[BT George]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:30:07 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:

Wow! Even these CT's deemed Mark Lane one of the worst, of the worst liars. How much does it say that he is beb's heroes Lurkers?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

That's correct, Chuck is a coward and scum. These are facts. He snidely asks us what happens to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda, then when we say nothing happened, he sneers and mocks. He's literally right about nothing. You have to work hard to be that dumb.

bub is another coward. Let bub show something happened to JFK's body en route to Bethesda. Let bub show we are wrong. Let bub run to his eunuch club; the LNers have no answers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 14:43:34 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion that these cowards actually *BELIEVE*
The lie told by the HSCA - that Bethesda disputed Parkland on JFK's
body condition.

It's a lie, of course.

And not a single believer can publicly acknowledge it.

[David Healy]

doesn't take much to shut up Chuckles of The Pale White Thighs Tribe these does it, troll?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that these cowards actually *BELIEVE*
> The lie told by the HSCA - that Bethesda disputed Parkland on JFK's
> body condition.

He believes what he's told. And he's been told that because we're CTers, the OPPOSITE of anything we say must be true. So the moron can't agree. He's just too dumb to know why he's disagreeing.

>
> It's a lie, of course.
>
> And not a single believer can publicly acknowledge it.

At least it shut them up. Now they're trying to ignore us, resorting to feigning civility with each other and passively aggressively pretending we aren't here. Which, frankly, we should have been doing with them the whole time, the worthless syphilis scabs.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Boris is about to lose it.

The commission later ruled that Boris did indeed leave all the money he had--$41.52 and rights to his Social Security Disability checks--and a dog-eared copy of Rush to Judgment, on a cup on Ben's dresser with a note: Get some booze for Healy, before grabbing his rifle and tinfoil beanie with the propeller on it and spinning his way to the top of the Nuthouse overlooking the parade and taking aim at the believers below.

Boris will show the world.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Boris is about to lose it.
>
> The commission later ruled that Boris did indeed leave all the money he had--$41.52 and rights to his Social Security Disability checks--and a dog-eared copy of Rush to Judgment, on a cup on Ben's dresser with a note: Get some booze for Healy, before grabbing his rifle and tinfoil beanie with the propeller on it and spinning his way to the top of the Nuthouse overlooking the parade and taking aim at the believers below.
>
> Boris will show the world.

"What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?"

I love how you thought you were cornering us into some kind of "gotcha" with that one, dummy. You probably felt real good about it too, mocking us like a snide little brat. "Let's hear what happun'd, Truther. We'll wait, huh-huh."

Now you've been given the answer, stupid.

Did you like it?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No "gotcha," retard. Your near-midget fellow-traveler cites sources saying JFK's body was in a plain shipping casket at Bethesda and not the one loaded off of AF1. In fact, he says two caskets represented as being JFK's arrived at Bethesda.

Was JFK in the ornamental casket seen being offloaded from AF1, or was he in a shipping casket

Spin the propeller on the tinfoil beanie and explain this.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Is a casket the same thing as a body, stupid?

Now change the subject and move the goalposts along as far as your stunted little pea brain will allow it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 May 2019 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Are you stupid enough to think JFK had two bodies?

[David Healy]

Keeps you busy and off the streets troll! I look at it as a public service. What we have here is an unfair debate, you just get get traction.

Did you suspect after 50+ years you could keep up the 1964 WCR charade? That's insanity brainless....

You are so old Dudster, I truly believe you can't fart, day or night, without shitting your pants, carry on whacko'!

[Bud]

Slurble Ben`s butt juice, stoner. Maybe you can fill your bong with it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Slurble Ben`s butt juice, stoner. Maybe you can fill your bong with it.

This vomitus statement, which contains what I can only assume is some vague malapropism (ie., "slurble"???) comes from the same wingless insect who just yesterday said I was too stupid to hold a discussion with.

What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda, you cancer? Jump, dog. Jump!

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Slurble Ben`s butt juice, stoner. Maybe you can fill your bong with it.
>
> This vomitus statement, which contains what I can only assume is some vague malapropism (ie., "slurble"???) comes from the same wingless insect who just yesterday said I was too stupid to hold a discussion with.

<snicker> Boris is trying to show he isn`t stupid by using words like "vomitus" and "malapropism". But he betrays himself a stump by not recognizing my clever use of the word "slurble".

> What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda, you cancer?

Are you suggesting necrophilia?

> Jump, dog. Jump!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > This vomitus statement, which contains what I can only assume is some vague malapropism (ie., "slurble"???) comes from the same wingless insect who just yesterday said I was too stupid to hold a discussion with.
>
> <snicker> Boris is trying to show he isn`t stupid by using words like "vomitus" and "malapropism". But he betrays himself a stump by not recognizing my clever use of the word "slurble".

An idiot who believes the Urban Dictionary equates with Oxford English speaketh, lurkers.

>
> > What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda, you cancer?
>
> Are you suggesting necrophilia?

I don't know. It was Chuck's "gotcha". Ask that moron. Sure as hell YOU can't answer the question. We know why.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Did I say they were?

>
> Now change the subject and move the goalposts along as far as your stunted little pea brain will allow it.

The goalposts are right where they've been.

Now...was JFK's body in a plain shipping casket at Bethesda, or was it in the one we see coming off AF1, or is there some other answer you'd like to offer?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Is a casket the same thing as a body, stupid?
>
> Did I say they were?

Well, in one breath you're asking about his body. In the next, you're talking about caskets. You don't know what you're talking about. You're just flinging as much shit as you can, hoping some "gotcha" will finally stick. Has it ever worked? It's not working now.

> >
> > Now change the subject and move the goalposts along as far as your stunted little pea brain will allow it.
>
> The goalposts are right where they've been.

Uh-huh. Ooh, and look, more hoops I'm expected to jump through!

>
> Now...was JFK's body in a plain shipping casket at Bethesda, or was it in the one we see coming off AF1, or is there some other answer you'd like to offer?

What difference does it make? If I give an answer you don't like, you'll ignore it, then move on to some other question, as if ignoring the answer changes the fact.

If I don't "fetch your stick", you'll say I ran or something. You've been beaten so many times, you're desperate for anything you can get.

There are as many as three different time-stamped recordings of a casket arrival. Naturally of course you will mock me for saying that, as if this discrepancy were somehow my fault. You won't refute. You'll just mock. Jump, dog.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

...and Boris avoids the question.


Poor Boris. He's all worried about what I might think and fearful I might say he ran or afraid of being mocked.

Poor Boris the Truther. Waaaaa!!!!!!

Boris has no problem accusing half the country of conspiring to plan or participate in or cover up JFK's murder, but he's worried about being "mocked" by little-old-me nearly 56 years after the event.

You're a sensitive little Truther!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > There are as many as three different time-stamped recordings of a casket arrival. Naturally of course you will mock me for saying that, as if this discrepancy were somehow my fault. You won't refute. You'll just mock. Jump, dog.
>
> ...and Boris avoids the question.

Here's a tip, stupid: next time you accuse someone of avoiding a question, make sure you don't post that accusation ****directly below the answer given.**** Moron. Learn censorship, you hick.

Hilariously, you did the same thing when you accused me of avoiding your question about what happened to JFK's body en route from Parkland to Bethesda. Totally ironic accusation in retrospect, isn't it, stupid?

>
>
> Poor Boris. He's all worried about what I might think and fearful I might say he ran or afraid of being mocked.

Actually, I want you to be as vocal as possible in this forum. You truly have no idea how dumb you are, and how poorly you put your ideas across. You are the regressive left of this forum...flinging milkshakes at your opponents, thinking such things reflect bad on THEM.

And predictably, you *did* say I ran.

>
> Poor Boris the Truther. Waaaaa!!!!!!

Intelligent rebuttal. You've got me seriously reconsidering this "Oswald alone" narrative.

>
> Boris has no problem accusing half the country of conspiring to plan or participate in or cover up JFK's murder, but he's worried about being "mocked" by little-old-me nearly 56 years after the event.

Total strawman. But you're way past caring about that.

>
> You're a sensitive little Truther!

Remember that comparison I made about the regressive left? This is verbatim one of their "arguments."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Now...was JFK's body in a plain shipping casket at Bethesda, or was it in the one we see coming off AF1, or is there some other answer you'd like to offer?

Timeline goes...

6:35 p.m. - aluminium shipping casket arrives
7:17 p.m. - bronze casket arrives
8:00 p.m. - another bronze casket arrives


It's spelled out in this video, from 44:35 - 52:45

https://vimeo.com/332141142

Now, "harf-harf" the evidence away and continue to mock me as if these corroborative documented FACTS are somehow my fault. Mocking the evidence is about all you can do.

And don't forget to whine that I didn't answer your stupid question again.

[Mark Ulrik]

Thanks Chuck. Natural-born tricksters like Mark Lane and old Yellow Pants just can't seem to help themselves, can they? I always enjoy watching you and Bud (and also BT) expose their lies and fallacies.

[Mark Ulrik]

Have you noticed, btw, how Ben is desperate trying to change the topic to his "musical caskets" theory?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So why are you posting a "timeline" when you agree there's nothing suspicious regarding JFK's departure from Parkland and arrival to Bethesda and any body switching/theft/coffin diversion?

You want it both ways: You smugly assert you've answered my question and that nothing happened to JFK's body/casket from Dallas to Bethesda, and then you insinuate a shell game was going vis-a-vis this same issue.

Which is it? Nothing suspicious, or some sort of switch of some kind occurring?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

He's been stuck on the same topics for decades.

Chaney.

Musical coffins.

Z film alterations.

Mark Lane as an American hero.

But Ben will never explain what he think happened and how, and he'll never support the wacky things he alleges.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 06:28:55 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

The evidence hasn't changed in decades.

>Chaney.
>
>Musical coffins.
>
>Z film alterations.
>
>Mark Lane as an American hero.
>
> But Ben will never explain what he think happened and how, and he'll
> never support the wacky things he alleges.

Chuckles will never tell the truth. I simply can't understand why
*you* seem to think that lying is an advantage for you.

[Mark Ulrik]

That's enough to convince Healy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Stop obsessing over whether I'm a liar or not and support your wacky ideas.

Explain the three different arrival times for the caskets at Bethesda.

Here's what Boris wrote; explain it.

6:35 p.m. - aluminum shipping casket arrives

7:17 p.m. - bronze casket arrives
8:00 p.m. - another bronze casket arrives

Or, you know...RUN.

[David Healy]

your incessant need to lie is important Chuckle's, fill us in as to the reason why, then we can move on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 09:39:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Anyone notice that Chuckles simply shut up???

He got spanked again, and has run to his corner to cry.


Chuckles doesn't realize that to "blame" critics for being "stuck" on
the same facts for decade after decade isn't something blameworthy,
but rather praiseworthy. We're consistent. We stick with the evidence.

>>>Chaney.
>>>
>>>Musical coffins.
>>>
>>>Z film alterations.
>>>
>>>Mark Lane as an American hero.
>>>
>>> But Ben will never explain what he think happened and how, and he'll
>>> never support the wacky things he alleges.
>>
>> Chuckles will never tell the truth. I simply can't understand why
>> *you* seem to think that lying is an advantage for you.
>
>Stop obsessing over whether I'm a liar or not and support your wacky ideas.

Stop telling flagrant lies and expecting them to pass muster. There's
no doubt at all about your ability and willingness to lie. You
continually make statements you can't support. You're a liar.

>Explain the three different arrival times for the caskets at Bethesda.

Sorry... that's *NOT* my problem. That's YOUR problem. The evidence is
quite clear, and the Warren Commission never dealt with it.

So clearly, you're at a complete loss.

You somehow think it's *OUR* responsibility to explain the evidence.

Yet you know that it's only critics who **CAN**.

>Here's what Boris wrote; explain it.
>
>6:35 p.m. - aluminum shipping casket arrives
>7:17 p.m. - bronze casket arrives
>8:00 p.m. - another bronze casket arrives
>
>Or, you know...RUN.

Very simple moron. The body arrived at 6:35. **YOU** need to explain
all the rest...

Run coward... RUN!!

[BT George]

Yep. I'm sure Goof knows it too, but hopes we won't notice beb's avoidance.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:03:04 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > This vomitus statement, which contains what I can only assume is some vague malapropism (ie., "slurble"???) comes from the same wingless insect who just yesterday said I was too stupid to hold a discussion with.
> >
> > <snicker> Boris is trying to show he isn`t stupid by using words like "vomitus" and "malapropism". But he betrays himself a stump by not recognizing my clever use of the word "slurble".
>
> An idiot who believes the Urban Dictionary equates with Oxford English speaketh, lurkers.

[sung to the tune of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star]

Slurble, slurble little Boris
The biggest stump in all the forest
Goes through life without a clue
Blames 9-11 on a Jew
Slurble, slurble little Boris
The biggest stump in all the forest

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What is your evidence that at least seven shots were fired?

My explanation is that there isn't anything else to explain. You're making the claim, you have the burden. Carry it.
>
> Run coward... RUN!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 May 2019 14:03:19 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

And now that it's been pointed out - his continued silence shows that
*HE* knows he got spanked.

Hopefully, that will be the last time he tries to criticize critics
for stick to the same evidence decade after decade.

The *true* morons are those who are still sticking doggedly to the
WCR, despite it's many flaws.

Even *AFTER* the Clark Panel, HSCA and ARRB showed the world just how
poorly the WCR knew the true evidence.

>> Chuckles doesn't realize that to "blame" critics for being "stuck" on
>> the same facts for decade after decade isn't something blameworthy,
>> but rather praiseworthy. We're consistent. We stick with the evidence.
>
>What is your evidence that at least seven shots were fired?

This is one of the tactics that believers & morons use all the time...
when it gets uncomfortable, just change the topic.

Why are you not man enough to deal with what I said before you change
the topic, Chuckles?

>>>>>Chaney.
>>>>>
>>>>>Musical coffins.
>>>>>
>>>>>Z film alterations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark Lane as an American hero.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Ben will never explain what he think happened and how, and he'll
>>>>> never support the wacky things he alleges.
>>>>
>>>> Chuckles will never tell the truth. I simply can't understand why
>>>> *you* seem to think that lying is an advantage for you.
>>>
>>>Stop obsessing over whether I'm a liar or not and support your wacky ideas.
>>
>> Stop telling flagrant lies and expecting them to pass muster. There's
>> no doubt at all about your ability and willingness to lie. You
>> continually make statements you can't support. You're a liar.

Looks like Chuckles ran to his corner and started crying again.

Chuckles makes it easy for me to demonstrate his lies & cowardice.

>>>Explain the three different arrival times for the caskets at Bethesda.
>>
>>
>> Sorry... that's *NOT* my problem. That's YOUR problem. The evidence is
>> quite clear, and the Warren Commission never dealt with it.
>>
>> So clearly, you're at a complete loss.
>>
>> You somehow think it's *OUR* responsibility to explain the evidence.
>>
>> Yet you know that it's only critics who **CAN**.

Looks like Chuckles ran AGAIN!

He knows I'm on solid ground when I say that only critics can explain
the known facts.

He's go no answer at all.

>>>Here's what Boris wrote; explain it.
>>>
>>>6:35 p.m. - aluminum shipping casket arrives
>>>7:17 p.m. - bronze casket arrives
>>>8:00 p.m. - another bronze casket arrives
>>>
>>>Or, you know...RUN.
>>
>> Very simple moron. The body arrived at 6:35. **YOU** need to explain
>> all the rest...
>
>
> My explanation is that there isn't anything else to explain. You're
> making the claim, you have the burden. Carry it.

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


>> Run coward... RUN!!


Chuckles took my advice... obviously.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> So why are you posting a "timeline" when you agree there's nothing suspicious regarding JFK's departure from Parkland and arrival to Bethesda and any body switching/theft/coffin diversion?

Did we not just finish making the distinction between a body and a casket, moron? Yes, I think we did. In fact, I'm pretty sure even you understood it:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/s7A0qGTqBAAJ

Or maybe you were just pretending to. Either, I would believe.

>
> You want it both ways:

I don't want it either way and could give a shit less. All I said was there were three documented recordings of caskets signed for at Bethesda. I said nothing more. And from that, you inferred whatever you felt you needed to, or whatever is clearly obvious. I made no insinuation whatsoever. Go back and see. That was your feeble brain playing illusory tricks on you.

>
> You smugly assert you've answered my question and that nothing happened to JFK's body/casket from Dallas to Bethesda,

Several times, in fact. And you smugly denied I answered them, and are now changing your tune on the matter. Which makes you a liar, and gee-am-I-shocked.

>
> and then you insinuate a shell game was going vis-a-vis this same issue.

I'm merely relaying the information presented in that video you didn't and won't watch. It was an answer to your question. Now keep bitching because your questions are being answered. What an asshole.

>
> Which is it? Nothing suspicious, or some sort of switch of some kind occurring?

There was quite obviously a switch, and you can argue it was for conspiratorial reasons, or for reasons of security. I really don't give a shit what you think, and has no bearing on the hard physical evidence of this case...such as the BOH wound you'd rather castrate yourself than admit to.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Notice how embarrassed bub is by Chuck's "gotcha"? He'd rather write a poorly devised nursery rhyme with no pentameter than acknowledge it. There's some serious diversion and shame going on there.

[David Healy]

if only Paul May would show up, eh troll?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 5:42:52 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > So why are you posting a "timeline" when you agree there's nothing suspicious regarding JFK's departure from Parkland and arrival to Bethesda and any body switching/theft/coffin diversion?
>
> Did we not just finish making the distinction between a body and a casket, moron? Yes, I think we did. In fact, I'm pretty sure even you understood it:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lDtOzLNk-QU/s7A0qGTqBAAJ
>
> Or maybe you were just pretending to. Either, I would believe.
>
> >
> > You want it both ways:
>
> I don't want it either way and could give a shit less. All I said was there were three documented recordings of caskets signed for at Bethesda. I said nothing more. And from that, you inferred whatever you felt you needed to, or whatever is clearly obvious. I made no insinuation whatsoever. Go back and see. That was your feeble brain playing illusory tricks on you.

Why do you bring it up if you're not insinuating something from it?

>
>
> >
> > You smugly assert you've answered my question and that nothing happened to JFK's body/casket from Dallas to Bethesda,
>
> Several times, in fact. And you smugly denied I answered them, and are now changing your tune on the matter. Which makes you a liar, and gee-am-I-shocked.
>
> >
> > and then you insinuate a shell game was going vis-a-vis this same issue.
>
> I'm merely relaying the information presented in that video you didn't and won't watch.

I watched it. What do you infer from the three arrival times?

>It was an answer to your question. Now keep bitching because your questions are being answered. What an asshole.

Speaking of assholes, what do you infer from the three arrival times?

>
>
> >
> > Which is it? Nothing suspicious, or some sort of switch of some kind occurring?
>
> There was quite obviously a switch,

Begging the Question.

>and you can argue it was for conspiratorial reasons, or for reasons of security.

So what are you arguing? I'm arguing there was no switch, because the idea hasn't been supported by Team Oswald.

>I really don't give a shit what you think,

Yet you ask me to explain freaky looking sh!t to your satisfaction on a nearly daily basis.

>and has no bearing on the hard physical evidence of this case...such as the BOH wound you'd rather castrate yourself than admit to.

It's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to the Parkland witnesses.

[Mark Ulrik]

Don't choke on that Kool-Aid, stoner.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why do you bring it up if you're not insinuating something from it?

I didn't. I was answering YOUR question, you fucking hick. Did you or did you not ask about the stupid caskets? Boy, are you a chromosome.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > You smugly assert you've answered my question and that nothing happened to JFK's body/casket from Dallas to Bethesda,
> >
> > Several times, in fact. And you smugly denied I answered them, and are now changing your tune on the matter. Which makes you a liar, and gee-am-I-shocked.

The hick doesn't deny he lied to illicit a response from me. Then when I response, he asks me why I brought it up. To be this stupid is a device of cliched fiction.

> >
> > >
> > > and then you insinuate a shell game was going vis-a-vis this same issue.
> >
> > I'm merely relaying the information presented in that video you didn't and won't watch.
>
> I watched it. What do you infer from the three arrival times?

My inference makes no difference to the hard physical evidence plaguing this case and you. I infer three caskets arrived. Have fun with that.

>
>
> >It was an answer to your question. Now keep bitching because your questions are being answered. What an asshole.
>
> Speaking of assholes, what do you infer from the three arrival times?

Is this your "gotcha" of the day? Turns out you asked me this already. Wipe your drool.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Which is it? Nothing suspicious, or some sort of switch of some kind occurring?

Seems like a false dilemma fallacy to me. Something can be suspicious and innocuous at the same time, can't it, dummy?

> >
> > There was quite obviously a switch,
>
> Begging the Question.

And begging the evidence.

>
>
> >and you can argue it was for conspiratorial reasons, or for reasons of security.
>
> So what are you arguing? I'm arguing there was no switch, because the idea hasn't been supported by Team Oswald.

Actually, dummy, I haven't argued anything. I'm just directly answering your litany of retard questions, because I'm not a chickenshit coward who runs from questions, like you.

>
> >I really don't give a shit what you think,
>
> Yet you ask me to explain freaky looking sh!t to your satisfaction on a nearly daily basis.

Oh, I've long given up on that. You're too cowardly to answer, and too stupid to be able address the evidence in a way that you can virulently spin it to serve your religious purposes.

>
> >and has no bearing on the hard physical evidence of this case...such as the BOH wound you'd rather castrate yourself than admit to.
>
> It's a Fringe Reset/Boris Boomerang back to the Parkland witnesses.

Yup. ALL of them. Every. Single. One.

[David Healy]

hitch up those peddle-pushers, Gloria. LMFAO. Do they have any educated men left over there that can post?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 6:38:19 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Why do you bring it up if you're not insinuating something from it?
>
> I didn't. I was answering YOUR question, you fucking hick. Did you or did you not ask about the stupid caskets? Boy, are you a chromosome.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You smugly assert you've answered my question and that nothing happened to JFK's body/casket from Dallas to Bethesda,
> > >
> > > Several times, in fact. And you smugly denied I answered them, and are now changing your tune on the matter. Which makes you a liar, and gee-am-I-shocked.
>
> The hick doesn't deny he lied to illicit a response from me. Then when I response, he asks me why I brought it up. To be this stupid is a device of cliched fiction.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and then you insinuate a shell game was going vis-a-vis this same issue.
> > >
> > > I'm merely relaying the information presented in that video you didn't and won't watch.
> >
> > I watched it. What do you infer from the three arrival times?
>
> My inference makes no difference to the hard physical evidence plaguing this case and you. I infer three caskets arrived. Have fun with that.

You're just not quite willing to go with this issue where you'd like to go with it.

>
> >
> >
> > >It was an answer to your question. Now keep bitching because your questions are being answered. What an asshole.
> >
> > Speaking of assholes, what do you infer from the three arrival times?
>
> Is this your "gotcha" of the day? Turns out you asked me this already. Wipe your drool.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Which is it? Nothing suspicious, or some sort of switch of some kind occurring?
>
> Seems like a false dilemma fallacy to me. Something can be suspicious and innocuous at the same time, can't it, dummy?

What do you think? Innocuous?

>
> > >
> > > There was quite obviously a switch,
> >
> > Begging the Question.
>
> And begging the evidence.
>
> >
> >
> > >and you can argue it was for conspiratorial reasons, or for reasons of security.
> >
> > So what are you arguing? I'm arguing there was no switch, because the idea hasn't been supported by Team Oswald.
>
> Actually, dummy, I haven't argued anything. I'm just directly answering your litany of retard questions, because I'm not a chickenshit coward who runs from questions, like you.

Great. Answer my question about what you've come to believe about the three arrival times of the different caskets at Bethesda. Innocuous? Was the deception part of a plot so a secret exam could be performed to hide the BOH wound the Parkland witnesses saw? State what you believe this was all about. Since you're not a chickenshit coward, maybe you can get a little more specific with your answer.

>
>
> >
> > >I really don't give a shit what you think,
> >
> > Yet you ask me to explain freaky looking sh!t to your satisfaction on a nearly daily basis.
>
> Oh, I've long given up on that. You're too cowardly to answer, and too stupid to be able address the evidence in a way that you can virulently spin it to serve your religious purposes.

But it's really not up to me to address anything, is it? I don't have the fantastic claims on the various things you've chimed in on here about WTC 7, mysterious coffins at Bethesda, Sirhan Sirhan not being close enough to have fired the fatal shot into RFK, etc.

You have no interest in getting to the bottom of anything. You're here to recruit someone to play Fetch the Stick, and you hate it when it's pointed out to you that you are the one challenging what is historically accepted, and thus ti's incumbent upon you to back up your wacky beliefs.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You're just not quite willing to go with this issue where you'd like to go with it.

Oh, I've been exactly where I wanted to go with it. In that when JFK arrived at Bethesda, a large BOH wound was witnessed by...get ready for this.....Every. Single. Medical. Expert.

All of them.

All.

That's in the range of 100 percent, and not less.

And that's why you want to focus on caskets. Because the body IN the casket is devastating to your worshiped BOH photo...the one snapped by someone no one seems to know whom, which has no chain of custody, which contradicts EVERYONE who saw the real wounds, contradicts the autopsy report, contradicts every medical diagnoses given and *supports* what was seen at Bethesda as well, but...meh, looks good 'nuff.

That's the only place I need to go.

> >
> > > >
> > > > There was quite obviously a switch,
> > >
> > > Begging the Question.
> >
> > And begging the evidence.

Good to see you backpedaled on this one.

>
> Great. Answer my question about what you've come to believe about the three arrival times of the different caskets at Bethesda. Innocuous? Was the deception part of a plot so a secret exam could be performed to hide the BOH wound the Parkland witnesses saw?

Hard to claim the BOH wounds were hidden when the Bethesda witnesses described the same wounds as what the Parkland ones saw.

You know, ALL those mistaken witnesses and doctors.

All of them.

>
> State what you believe this was all about.

I believe it's about avoidance on your part to acknowledge that perhaps several dozen medical experts who ALL corroborate each other on the BOH wound weren't all completely mistaken. Since you can't Dunning-Kruger your way out of it, "mistaken" is just about the only place you can go.

>
> Since you're not a chickenshit coward, maybe you can get a little more specific with your answer.

Hope you enjoyed this edition.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Oh, I'm enjoying it.

You're a hoot, Boris. Delusional too.

[David Healy]

like hell you are, you been on the wrong side of this one since '64. .John told you so? Explain that one to your friends...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Healy stumbles in with the faux hipster word salad, slurs some meaningless drivel, and departs.

You've become the CT Tom Lowry.

Flush.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:28:46 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Healy stumbles in with the faux hipster word salad, slurs some meaningless drivel, and departs.
>
>You've become the CT Tom Lowry.
>
>Flush.

McAdams has been notified of this egregious attack on a fellow
believer. You can expect a failing grade this semester for your
actions, Chuckles.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Oh, I'm enjoying it.

Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!

>
> You're a hoot, Boris.

Thanks. And you're a moron.

>
> Delusional too.

About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you greatly..

Let Boris show the FDNY "pulled" WTC 7.

Let Boris show 911 was an inside job.

Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.

Let Boris show the JFK autopsy conclusion was wrong.

Let Boris show something sinister with "musical coffins" at Bethesda.

Let Boris show JFK was shot from the grassy knoll.

Get busy, Truther. You've got a few years left; the JFK kooks are dropping like flies. When the last of you turds are cremated with your remains sprinkled on the grassy knoll, the hobby dies.

And the WCR conclusions--Oswald Alone--will historically stand.

Forever.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim,

What blockbuster claim? That a man shot in the head would have a large wound in his head? That's quite a claim, I admit. Don't know if I can do it.

Maybe a couple dozen experts can help.

Remember when I schooled you on kinetic energy? JFK could have a large BOH wound **and** it be a wound of entrance. Ah, sorry, maybe that's a bit too "blockbuster" for you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:21:22 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 7:28:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm enjoying it.
>>
>> Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!
>>
>>>
>>> You're a hoot, Boris.
>>
>> Thanks. And you're a moron.
>>
>>>
>>> Delusional too.
>>
>> About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?
>
> Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like
> you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you
> greatly..

To "go somewhere" means to convince morons of something they adamantly
refuse to believe.

Can't be done.

But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.

> Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.

The autopsy & witnesses did that.

> Let Boris show the JFK autopsy conclusion was wrong.

They **PROVABLY** weren't even based on the truth. The prosectors never
knew of the bullet wound in the throat until after the body was long
gone... and that is a DEVASTATING critique that you can't answer.

> Let Boris show something sinister with "musical coffins" at Bethesda.

Let Chuckles shows that it was perfectly normal.

> Let Boris show JFK was shot from the grassy knoll.

Most of America already accepts that. Who is he supposed to show?

You???

> And the WCR conclusions--Oswald Alone--will historically stand.
>
> Forever.

You mean the conclusions already overturned by the Clark Panel & HSCA?


[Nonsense not related to the JFK assassination deleted]

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion was correct but their characterization of the head wound incorrect, make your case. Show where other doctors who have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But, of course, you're not doing that.

Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired from above and behind, verified by several different panels, including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.

Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted. Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted. Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted. Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the different photos in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly noted. You hand wave away the differences as "close enough" so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.

At some point, you've gotta let go. Doesn't matter how hard you want it, feel it, think it: you have no affirmative replacement.

Stop recruiting people to play Fetch the Stick and come up with your very own, unique CONSPIRACY THEORY that better explains the event in its totality.

For the record, I think you're probably a bright, normal guy IRL (in real life) but that you believe extraordinarily stupid things regarding 911, JFK, and RFK. Yes, you're a dickhead on the internet, but so are most conspiracism-afflicted adults who've been chasing this ghost for decades and have nothing to show for it. You're just one of many in a long line of kooks who've met their match and attempt to convince each other they're "winning" online line with self-congratulatory Snoopy dances.

Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.

Give it up, Boris.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 07:57:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 8:59:03 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim,
>>
>> What blockbuster claim? That a man shot in the head would
>> have a large wound in his head? That's quite a claim, I
>> admit. Don't know if I can do it.
>>
>> Maybe a couple dozen experts can help.
>>
>> Remember when I schooled you on kinetic energy? JFK could
>> have a large BOH wound **and** it be a wound of entrance.
>> Ah, sorry, maybe that's a bit too "blockbuster" for you.
>
> If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion
> was correct but their characterization of the head wound
> incorrect, make your case. Show where other doctors who
> have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large
> wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in
> Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But,
> of course, you're not doing that.

The case has already been made... over fifty years ago. It
was made by the Autopsy Report and by the dozens of medical
experts who saw the wound... virtually to a man they say that
it was located in the occipital/parietal on the right side.

You refuse to accept that fact.

> Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking
> something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy
> of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired
> from above and behind, verified by several different panels,
> including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts
> put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.

Believers just LOVE their false fallacies and expert conclusions.
(As long as it doesn't contradict their faith, that is.)

> Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly
> noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying
> on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the
> wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted.

Your abject cowardice in using decades later evidence that
CONTRADICTS the earlier statments is noted.

Quite the hypocrite as well, since you'd quickly slam any critic
who used decades old material.

> Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what
> the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted.

Your refusal to offer any innocent explanation is noted...

> Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only
> right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted.

Even *YOU*... in your more honest moments, will admit that the
throat wound *looked* like an entry wound.

> Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the
> Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations
> is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the different photos
> in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their
> heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly
> noted. You hand wave away the differences as "close enough"
> so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.

Amusingly, any honest *intelligent* man would recognise the
consilience of evidence here...

> At some point, you've gotta let go. Doesn't matter how hard
> you want it, feel it, think it: you have no affirmative
> replacement.

When you have to lie to make a point, the only point you've
made is that you're a liar.

The "affirmative replacement" has long ago been made. Multiple
assassins in Dealey Plaza... and a coverup of that fact.

> Stop recruiting people to play Fetch the Stick and come up
> with your very own, unique CONSPIRACY THEORY that better
> explains the event in its totality.

Already been done. Stop refusing to defend your faith, stand
up like a man and defend your faith.


[Ad hominem deleted]

> Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something
> else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.
>
>Give it up, Boris.

When you have to lie to make a point, the only point you've made
is that you're a liar.

You'd be a moron indeed if you couldn't - YOURSELF - lay out the
basic conspiracy model. Multiple shooters, a pre-autopsy to
remove bullets, an autopsy to come up with a single location.

And a preconceived conclusion from the Warren Commission, who
carefully picked only those witnesses who wouldn't damage their
theory too much - along with the secrecy in questioning them, and
if necessary, simply revising what it is they are claimed to have
testified to.

Give it up, Chuckles.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So I characterized your belief accurately.

Something else happened.

Got it.

And you wonder why historians don't take you seriously.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion was correct but their characterization of the head wound incorrect, make your case.

Are you retarded? That's YOUR assertion, not mine.

>
> Show where other doctors who have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But, of course, you're not doing that.

I've actually literally done it a hundred times, but I don't mind doing it again, it's just a C&P after all...

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

http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

>
> Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired from above and behind, verified by several different panels, including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.

How do we know that conclusion is not a Fallacy of Composition, and that the "whole" is every single medical expert and witness at both Bethesda and Parkland?

>
> Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted.

100% of the attending physicians noted a large BOH wound, so if as many as 50% of them were wrong, the other 50% still saw, reported and even MEASURED a large BOH wound.

>
> Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted.

Hilarious!! You just finished telling me they're wrong 50% of the time. Now you want to resurrect what a couple of them said on NOVA, a quarter-century after the fact. This is what's known as the blind faith of doublethink.

>
> Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted.

There's been no innocent explanation given for me to allow.

>
> Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations is duly noted.

A lie. They're in the same exact location.

>
> Your hand waving away of the different photos in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly noted.

Another lie. They're in the same exact location.

>
> You hand wave away the differences as "close enough" so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.

For a perfect example of hand-waving away "close enough", lurkers are welcome to observe the LN apologetics of the bullet trajectory as seen in the MythBusters test.

>
> At some point, you've gotta let go. Doesn't matter how hard you want it, feel it, think it: you have no affirmative replacement.

Idiot.

>
> Stop recruiting people to play Fetch the Stick and come up with your very own, unique CONSPIRACY THEORY that better explains the event in its totality.

My position is hardly unique. It's backed by the evidence, as researched by historians far more schooled than me.

>
> Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.

I never said I "think" something else happened.

>
> Give it up, Boris.

You're good practice for real opponents.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

As usual, you ran from EVERYTHING!

Thus admitting that you lost.

You're a proven loser, Chuckles...

P.S. There are recognized professional historians who are now
accepting the conspiracy angle. But you knew that, didn't you?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:21:22 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 7:28:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Oh, I'm enjoying it.
> >>
> >> Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You're a hoot, Boris.
> >>
> >> Thanks. And you're a moron.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Delusional too.
> >>
> >> About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?
> >
> > Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like
> > you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you
> > greatly..
>
>
> To "go somewhere" means to convince morons of something they adamantly
> refuse to believe.

It means what the words mean, take the issue somewhere. Your complaints, critiques, figurings, suspicions, sepculation, ect are in the same place they were 10 years ago. And ten years before that. Bringing them up has the exact same effect as never mentioning them again. You go nowhere with these things.

> Can't be done.

What you want to do is keep bringing these things up endlessly while demanding answers you accept be given to explain each one. That can`t be done, and there really is no reason anyone should try.

> But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.

If you ever had the guts to put all your *real* ideas out there the average unbiased individual would rightfully see you as a crackpot. A loony.

> > Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.
>
>
> The autopsy & witnesses did that.

Yet Sirhan was convicted of the murder.

> > Let Boris show the JFK autopsy conclusion was wrong.
>
>
> They **PROVABLY** weren't even based on the truth. The prosectors never
> knew of the bullet wound in the throat until after the body was long
> gone... and that is a DEVASTATING critique that you can't answer.

That information was used in the findings.

> > Let Boris show something sinister with "musical coffins" at Bethesda.
>
>
> Let Chuckles shows that it was perfectly normal.

Shifting that burden.

> > Let Boris show JFK was shot from the grassy knoll.
>
>
> Most of America already accepts that.

You`ll never support that.

> Who is he supposed to show?
>
> You???
>
>
> > And the WCR conclusions--Oswald Alone--will historically stand.
> >
> > Forever.
>
> You mean the conclusions already overturned by the Clark Panel & HSCA?

You guys are welcome to hunt down Oswald`s accomplice. I don`t see any effort in that regard, is that because you don`t think Oswald had an accomplice?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 11:49:50 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion was correct but their characterization of the head wound incorrect, make your case.
>
> Are you retarded? That's YOUR assertion, not mine.

What's your assertion?

>
> >
> > Show where other doctors who have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But, of course, you're not doing that.
>
> I've actually literally done it a hundred times, but I don't mind doing it again, it's just a C&P after all...
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

The Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman drawings are all different.

>
> >
> > Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired from above and behind, verified by several different panels, including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.
>
> How do we know that conclusion is not a Fallacy of Composition, and that the "whole" is every single medical expert and witness at both Bethesda and Parkland?

Because the autopsy trumps the observations of the nurses and attending physicians at Parkland. That's why an autopsy is done. And there is a consilience of evidence for three shots from behind with only two strikes. And this was reviewed by the HSCA.

>
> >
> > Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted.
>
> 100% of the attending physicians noted a large BOH wound, so if as many as 50% of them were wrong, the other 50% still saw, reported and even MEASURED a large BOH wound.

Retard logic. If I flip a coin and it comes up tails I can assume coin flips always come up tails.

>
>
> >
> > Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted.
>
> Hilarious!! You just finished telling me they're wrong 50% of the time. Now you want to resurrect what a couple of them said on NOVA, a quarter-century after the fact. This is what's known as the blind faith of doublethink.

It's known as an inability for you to think critically. The doctors didn't say they CHANGED their minds vis a vis the wounds; they said the photos were how they remember them. No changes, no quarter-century new recall.

>
>
> >
> > Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted.
>
> There's been no innocent explanation given for me to allow.

1.) He wasn't turned over.

2.) They were attempting to save his life, not perform an autopsy.

3.) He did have a hole in the back of his head (of entry) and blood and gore obviously pooled up underneath him on his way to Parkland.

4.) Some of the witnesses only observed him briefly.

>
> >
> > Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations is duly noted.
>
> A lie. They're in the same exact location.

Liar. The Bell, Bowron, Crenshaw, McClelland and Grossman drawings in the Seaton link all show slightly different sizes and locations. You want to pretend their imprecise drawings are scientific facts and ignore the autopsy conclusion as scientific uncertainty.

You're inventing precision and unanimity to support your wacky claims. You hold your claims to a low bar and the claims of others to a high bar.

>
> >
> > Your hand waving away of the different photos in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly noted.
>
> Another lie. They're in the same exact location.

No, they're not. You need to hold your claims to the same standard or they can be dismissed.

>
> >
> > You hand wave away the differences as "close enough" so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.
>
> For a perfect example of hand-waving away "close enough", lurkers are welcome to observe the LN apologetics of the bullet trajectory as seen in the MythBusters test.

Apples and oranges. The MythBusters test proves the feasibility of a bullet passing through two men. You're diagrams prove you hold your views to a much lower standard than the historical conclusions of the case you're trying to overturn.

>
> >
> > At some point, you've gotta let go. Doesn't matter how hard you want it, feel it, think it: you have no affirmative replacement.
>
> Idiot.
>
> >
> > Stop recruiting people to play Fetch the Stick and come up with your very own, unique CONSPIRACY THEORY that better explains the event in its totality.
>
> My position is hardly unique. It's backed by the evidence, as researched by historians far more schooled than me.

Who do they say killed JFK, and what's their case?

>
> >
> > Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.
>
> I never said I "think" something else happened.

The choice isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy. It's Oswald Alone or a specific conspiracy. When you refuse to put a case up for comparison, you leave your oddball ideas up for speculation. All you've put out there is a belief that you think something else happened. It's vague and unique to Boris.

>
> >
> > Give it up, Boris.
>
> You're good practice for real opponents.

Bring it over to the International Skeptics Forum, and practice on those guys. You'll last around two-three posts and retreat back to here. I actually think ISF knocked Bob Harris out of the CT game forever.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 12:52:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>The Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman drawings are all different.

Grossman wasn't there, Bell's diagram touches the parietal, and all
the others are DISTINCTLY Occipital/Parietal in location.

EXACTLY WHERE THE AUTOPSY REPORT PUTS IT!

And where you, David, and the Coward Puddy refuse to allow it.

Gutlessly dishonesty, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:

>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
>> >> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
>> >> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
>> >> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
>> >> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
>> >> >> aired on T.V.
>> >> >

>> >> > Produce that TV broadcast.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.
>> >
>> > Who brought it up?
>>
>> You're the one demanding what you know cannot be produced.
>
> If it was aired on TV why would I think it would be impossible to produce?


Logical fallacy.


>> You were too dishonest to ask for a cite to the evidence supporting
>> that statement - you knew full well I can provide it.
>
> From now on I`ll just ignore these things, because I know you will
> never produce the support for them.


Just as I already ignore your non-denials.

Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?


>> So you asked for something that you knew I **OR YOU** couldn't
>> provide.
>
> DVP has tons of video relating to the JFK assassination, why would
> I think it would be impossible to get this?


Another logical fallacy.


>> Quite the screwball, aren't you?
>>
>> >> You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.
>> >
>> > You said there was a TV broadcast. Produce it.
>>
>> Cite for your claim that only the actual TV broadcast can prove that
>> it existed.
>
> Offer whatever proof you have.


Sure. As soon as you PUBLICLY DENY that there's any evidence for my
statement.



>> >> > And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call
>> >> > Garrison out on his lying?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sounds to me like you're in Chuckles' backyard with the goat and
>> >> neighborhood children too.
>> >>
>> >> What a perverted bit of slime you are!
>> >
>> > I'm the one pleasuring myself with these contrived images.
>> >
>> >> Lurkers - note that no-one thus far has refuted the facts I posted.
>> >
>> > You refuse to support them. It is just more hot air and empty claims.
>>
>> You refuse to deny them. You know you'd get spanked.


And clearly, this is correct. Once again you refused to deny what I
stated. You've learned the hard way that I can cite for what I say,
unlike you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 11:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:21:22 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 7:28:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I'm enjoying it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a hoot, Boris.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. And you're a moron.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Delusional too.
>>>>
>>>> About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?
>>>
>>> Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like
>>> you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you
>>> greatly..
>>
>>
>> To "go somewhere" means to convince morons of something they adamantly
>> refuse to believe.
>
> It means what the words mean, take the issue somewhere.

"Take it somewhere"... do you suppose that Chicago would do?

Or would you prefer someplace foreign, like Paris?

You're talking nonsense. We point out HISTORICAL FACTS that don't fit
with a non-conspiratoral explanation.

You CONSISTENTLY refuse to offer one.

> Your complaints, critiques, figurings, suspicions, sepculation, ect
> are in the same place they were 10 years ago. And ten years before that.

Indeed, more than 50 years ago. The most damaging facts against your
non-conspiratorial theory was known the same day... 11/22/63.

Those facts haven't changed, and you've simply never offered
*credible* explanations.

> Bringing them up has the exact same effect as never mentioning them
> again.

Of course... The effects are denial, head in the sand, ad hominem, and
non-stop lies.

> You go nowhere with these things.

Most of America already accepts conspiracy.


You've ALREADY lost.

>> Can't be done.
>
> What you want to do is keep bringing these things up endlessly
> while demanding answers you accept be given to explain each one.
> That can`t be done, and there really is no reason anyone should try.

When a red fire engine passes by on the road, no normal man tries
to argue that it's really yellow.

But believers aren't really normal.

>> But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.
>
> If you ever had the guts to put all your *real* ideas out there
> the average unbiased individual would rightfully see you as a
> crackpot. A loony.

Once again, you're a dumbass. And since you KNOW you're lying, you're
a lying dumbass.

You lose everytime you try to say that the fire engine is really
yellow - so you whine that *I* believe it's green.

You can't win on the facts, so you try to claim that the facts aren't
really what I'm saying they are.

That sort of argument is for losers. No real man would be interested.

>>> Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.
>>
>>
>> The autopsy & witnesses did that.
>
> Yet Sirhan was convicted of the murder.

Not exactly true, and you know this.

He was **NOT** found guilty in court by an examination of evidence.

It was a plea deal.

Tell us Puddy... why do you lie all the time? You *KNOW* the truth,
yet you're willing to mislead lurkers with lies.

>>> Let Boris show the JFK autopsy conclusion was wrong.
>>
>>
>> They **PROVABLY** weren't even based on the truth. The prosectors never
>> knew of the bullet wound in the throat until after the body was long
>> gone... and that is a DEVASTATING critique that you can't answer.
>
> That information was used in the findings.

The fire engine that just passed by was painted Green with Yellow
polka dots.

>>> Let Boris show something sinister with "musical coffins" at Bethesda.
>>
>>
>> Let Chuckles shows that it was perfectly normal.
>
> Shifting that burden.

It's your burden to begin with. That you keep running away tells the
story better than I can to an intelligent man.

>>> Let Boris show JFK was shot from the grassy knoll.
>>
>>
>> Most of America already accepts that.
>
> You`ll never support that.

Don't need to. You'll never deny it.

A majority of Americans believe in more than a lone assassin, and most
of them know just where he was...

Indeed, the term "The Grassy Knoll Shooter" has entered the common set
of English knowledge. You'd have a hard time saying that phrase
without someone matching it to JFK.

>> Who is he supposed to show?
>>
>> You???
>>
>>
>>> And the WCR conclusions--Oswald Alone--will historically stand.
>>>
>>> Forever.
>>
>> You mean the conclusions already overturned by the Clark Panel & HSCA?
>
> You guys are welcome to hunt down Oswald`s accomplice. I don`t see any
> effort in that regard, is that because you don`t think Oswald had an
> accomplice?

Logical fallacy. You presume what you cannot cite the evidence for.

And, as I've cited before, there's really no reason to "hunt down" the
killers... many of them have already admitted their involvement.

"Someone Would Have Talked" is the book you're afraid of.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 5:42:21 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 11:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:21:22 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 7:28:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, I'm enjoying it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're a hoot, Boris.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. And you're a moron.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Delusional too.
> >>>>
> >>>> About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?
> >>>
> >>> Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like
> >>> you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you
> >>> greatly..
> >>
> >>
> >> To "go somewhere" means to convince morons of something they adamantly
> >> refuse to believe.
> >
> > It means what the words mean, take the issue somewhere.
>
>
> "Take it somewhere"... do you suppose that Chicago would do?
>
> Or would you prefer someplace foreign, like Paris?
>
> You're talking nonsense. We point out HISTORICAL FACTS that don't fit
> with a non-conspiratoral explanation.

We point out that you can build none of these facts into a narrative. This isn't a criminal defense trial, Johnny Cochrane, where if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. Oswald is historically guilty. You need to put up an affirmative case and stop shooting spitballs at someone else's work.

>
> You CONSISTENTLY refuse to offer one.

You're challenging, not Bud. Cobble a case together and let's compare it to the historical narrative.

>
>
> > Your complaints, critiques, figurings, suspicions, sepculation, ect
> > are in the same place they were 10 years ago. And ten years before that.
>
>
> Indeed, more than 50 years ago. The most damaging facts against your
> non-conspiratorial theory was known the same day... 11/22/63.
>
> Those facts haven't changed, and you've simply never offered
> *credible* explanations.

Asked and answer with the publication of the WCR.

>
>
> > Bringing them up has the exact same effect as never mentioning them
> > again.
>
>
> Of course... The effects are denial, head in the sand, ad hominem, and
> non-stop lies.
>
>
> > You go nowhere with these things.
>
>
> Most of America already accepts conspiracy.

Argumentum ad Populum.
>
>
> You've ALREADY lost.

Yet history records Oswald as JFK's killer, with no conspiracy which could ever be identified.

>
>
> >> Can't be done.
> >
> > What you want to do is keep bringing these things up endlessly
> > while demanding answers you accept be given to explain each one.
> > That can`t be done, and there really is no reason anyone should try.
>
>
> When a red fire engine passes by on the road, no normal man tries
> to argue that it's really yellow.

Word salad. Argument from Irrelevance.

>
> But believers aren't really normal.
>
>
> >> But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.
> >
> > If you ever had the guts to put all your *real* ideas out there
> > the average unbiased individual would rightfully see you as a
> > crackpot. A loony.
>
>
> Once again, you're a dumbass. And since you KNOW you're lying, you're
> a lying dumbass.

Argument from Irrelevance. Red Herring. Muddying the Waters.

>
> You lose everytime you try to say that the fire engine is really
> yellow - so you whine that *I* believe it's green.
>
> You can't win on the facts, so you try to claim that the facts aren't
> really what I'm saying they are.
>
> That sort of argument is for losers. No real man would be interested.
>
>
> >>> Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.
> >>
> >>
> >> The autopsy & witnesses did that.
> >
> > Yet Sirhan was convicted of the murder.
>
>
> Not exactly true, and you know this.

Exactly true.

>
> He was **NOT** found guilty in court by an examination of evidence.


>
> It was a plea deal.

Because the evidence was so strong and he'd confessed.

You throw out the term logical fallacy when you're stumped.

>
> And, as I've cited before, there's really no reason to "hunt down" the
> killers... many of them have already admitted their involvement.
>
> "Someone Would Have Talked" is the book you're afraid of.

Who do they say did it?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 5:57:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 4:29:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 10 May 2019 12:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> >> "I know there was a conspiracy to kill my brother, no matter what my
> >> >> >> public statements are. And I want you to know if I'm elected president
> >> >> >> I will prosecute those who are responsible. I cannot speak out
> >> >> >> publicly because there are guns between me and the White House." - RFK
> >> >> >> to Garrison as reported by UPI on June 11, 1968.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> RFK was shot 6 hours after the above statement was first publicly
> >> >> >> aired on T.V.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Produce that TV broadcast.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. You're demanding something that *YOU* couldn't produce.
> >> >
> >> > Who brought it up?
> >>
> >> You're the one demanding what you know cannot be produced.
> >
> > If it was aired on TV why would I think it would be impossible to produce?
>
>
> Logical fallacy.

Which one?

>
> >> You were too dishonest to ask for a cite to the evidence supporting
> >> that statement - you knew full well I can provide it.
> >
> > From now on I`ll just ignore these things, because I know you will
> > never produce the support for them.
>
>
> Just as I already ignore your non-denials.
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddy?
>
>
> >> So you asked for something that you knew I **OR YOU** couldn't
> >> provide.
> >
> > DVP has tons of video relating to the JFK assassination, why would
> > I think it would be impossible to get this?
>
>
> Another logical fallacy.

Which one?

>
> >> Quite the screwball, aren't you?
> >>
> >> >> You know quite well that I can cite the evidence for this.
> >> >
> >> > You said there was a TV broadcast. Produce it.
> >>
> >> Cite for your claim that only the actual TV broadcast can prove that
> >> it existed.
> >
> > Offer whatever proof you have.
>
>
> Sure. As soon as you PUBLICLY DENY that there's any evidence for my
> statement.

As I suspected, you have nothing.

>
>
> >> >> > And are you saying Garrison killed RFK before he could call
> >> >> > Garrison out on his lying?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds to me like you're in Chuckles' backyard with the goat and
> >> >> neighborhood children too.
> >> >>
> >> >> What a perverted bit of slime you are!
> >> >
> >> > I'm the one pleasuring myself with these contrived images.
> >> >
> >> >> Lurkers - note that no-one thus far has refuted the facts I posted.
> >> >
> >> > You refuse to support them. It is just more hot air and empty claims.
> >>
> >> You refuse to deny them. You know you'd get spanked.
>
>
> And clearly, this is correct. Once again you refused to deny what I
> stated. You've learned the hard way that I can cite for what I say,
> unlike you.

This is just one more example of you offering hot air instead of support.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:42:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 11:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 10:02:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:21:22 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, May 19, 2019 at 7:28:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Oh, I'm enjoying it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. It was a pretty good one. Rendered you otherwise silent!
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're a hoot, Boris.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. And you're a moron.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Delusional too.
> >>>>
> >>>> About what? The two-dozen expert testimonials?
> >>>
> >>> Go somewhere with this blockbuster claim, or spin your wheels like
> >>> you've done your entire life on all of the things that mystify you
> >>> greatly..
> >>
> >>
> >> To "go somewhere" means to convince morons of something they adamantly
> >> refuse to believe.
> >
> > It means what the words mean, take the issue somewhere.
>
>
> "Take it somewhere"... do you suppose that Chicago would do?
>
> Or would you prefer someplace foreign, like Paris?

So you admit there is no place for you to go with your ideas. We agree.

> You're talking nonsense. We point out HISTORICAL FACTS that don't fit
> with a non-conspiratoral explanation.

According to your figuring, which is meaningless.

Put these HISTORICAL FACTS into a cohesive form and present a case explaining this event.

> You CONSISTENTLY refuse to offer one.

What is this, battle of the speculation? If you could establish your speculation my participation wouldn`t be necessary. Whenever you try this approach you are admitting your failure to show that your ideas are correct.

> > Your complaints, critiques, figurings, suspicions, sepculation, ect
> > are in the same place they were 10 years ago. And ten years before that.
>
>
> Indeed, more than 50 years ago. The most damaging facts against your
> non-conspiratorial theory was known the same day... 11/22/63.

Make that case.

> Those facts haven't changed, and you've simply never offered
> *credible* explanations.

<snicker> Still trying to play these crooked games.

> > Bringing them up has the exact same effect as never mentioning them
> > again.
>
>
> Of course... The effects are denial, head in the sand, ad hominem, and
> non-stop lies.

It can`t be about us. It can only be about you and your failure. If you had something to offer you wouldn`t need us at all.

>
> > You go nowhere with these things.
>
>
> Most of America already accepts conspiracy.

Who`s conspiracy? Yours? Boris`s? Harris`s?

More people believe what I think occurred in this event than believe what you believe occurred in this event.


> You've ALREADY lost.

I can`t lose, I was able to figure out a fairly simple murder. Those that can`t are the losers.

Perhaps if you could make a compelling case I might second guess my conclusion. Alas, you have no case to offer.

> >> Can't be done.
> >
> > What you want to do is keep bringing these things up endlessly
> > while demanding answers you accept be given to explain each one.
> > That can`t be done, and there really is no reason anyone should try.
>
>
> When a red fire engine passes by on the road, no normal man tries
> to argue that it's really yellow.

As circular an argument as you`ll ever see.

> But believers aren't really normal.
>
>
> >> But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.
> >
> > If you ever had the guts to put all your *real* ideas out there
> > the average unbiased individual would rightfully see you as a
> > crackpot. A loony.
>
>
> Once again, you're a dumbass. And since you KNOW you're lying, you're
> a lying dumbass.

Prove me wrong. Spell them out and make them available to the public. It`ll read like the unibomber`s manifesto, people will see it is the product of an unhealthy imagination immediately.

> You lose everytime you try to say that the fire engine is really
> yellow - so you whine that *I* believe it's green.

You are afraid to say what color it is. You might have to defend your idea.

> You can't win on the facts, so you try to claim that the facts aren't
> really what I'm saying they are.

I`m saying you can`t refer to them as facts until you have established them as such.

> That sort of argument is for losers. No real man would be interested.

<snicker> Unless I play your crooked games by your crooked rules I`m not a man? Do you think that is going to work? You used the word "credible" earlier, who gets to decide that? Let me guess, you? You used the word "fact", who gets to decide what a fact is, is that you also? You make all the judgment calls, right?

> >>> Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.
> >>
> >>
> >> The autopsy & witnesses did that.
> >
> > Yet Sirhan was convicted of the murder.
>
>
> Not exactly true, and you know this.

It is *exactly* true.

> He was **NOT** found guilty in court by an examination of evidence.
>
> It was a plea deal.

It was a conviction.

> Tell us Puddy... why do you lie all the time? You *KNOW* the truth,
> yet you're willing to mislead lurkers with lies.

It was a conviction. In what world can you find yourself on death row without being convicted?

Just so the audience knows who is lying here...

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sirhan-Bishara-Sirhan

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sirhan-sirhan-receives-death-penalty

> >>> Let Boris show the JFK autopsy conclusion was wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> They **PROVABLY** weren't even based on the truth. The prosectors never
> >> knew of the bullet wound in the throat until after the body was long
> >> gone... and that is a DEVASTATING critique that you can't answer.
> >
> > That information was used in the findings.
>
>
> The fire engine that just passed by was painted Green with Yellow
> polka dots.

Support that.

>
> >>> Let Boris show something sinister with "musical coffins" at Bethesda.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let Chuckles shows that it was perfectly normal.
> >
> > Shifting that burden.
>
>
> It's your burden to begin with.

Not true.

> That you keep running away tells the
> story better than I can to an intelligent man.
>
>
> >>> Let Boris show JFK was shot from the grassy knoll.
> >>
> >>
> >> Most of America already accepts that.
> >
> > You`ll never support that.
>
>
> Don't need to. You'll never deny it.

Seems my crystal ball is working perfectly.

> A majority of Americans believe in more than a lone assassin, and most
> of them know just where he was...

Just keep saying stuff, I`m sure Boris will believe you.

> Indeed, the term "The Grassy Knoll Shooter" has entered the common set
> of English knowledge. You'd have a hard time saying that phrase
> without someone matching it to JFK.

Which does nothing to support your claim.

>
> >> Who is he supposed to show?
> >>
> >> You???
> >>
> >>
> >>> And the WCR conclusions--Oswald Alone--will historically stand.
> >>>
> >>> Forever.
> >>
> >> You mean the conclusions already overturned by the Clark Panel & HSCA?
> >
> > You guys are welcome to hunt down Oswald`s accomplice. I don`t see any
> > effort in that regard, is that because you don`t think Oswald had an
> > accomplice?
>
>
> Logical fallacy.

Which one?

> You presume what you cannot cite the evidence for.

Just pointing out your cherry picking ways.

> And, as I've cited before, there's really no reason to "hunt down" the
> killers... many of them have already admitted their involvement.
>
> "Someone Would Have Talked" is the book you're afraid of.

What is different had that book never been written? What leads did these supposed insiders provide and what convictions resulted?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion was correct but their characterization of the head wound incorrect, make your case.
> >
> > Are you retarded? That's YOUR assertion, not mine.
>
> What's your assertion?

If you actually have to ask that at this point, you're a proven retard.

> >
> > >
> > > Show where other doctors who have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But, of course, you're not doing that.
> >
> > I've actually literally done it a hundred times, but I don't mind doing it again, it's just a C&P after all...
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> The Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman drawings are all different.

Bell's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side.

Crenshaw's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.

Bowron's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.

McClelland's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.

Grossman's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region, "far too large for a bullet entry wound", and on the right side.

Chucky, listen....it's *VERY* important that when you lie, you do so in a way that cannot be easily disproven.

> >
> > >
> > > Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired from above and behind, verified by several different panels, including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.
> >
> > How do we know that conclusion is not a Fallacy of Composition, and that the "whole" is every single medical expert and witness at both Bethesda and Parkland?
>
> Because the autopsy trumps the observations of the nurses and attending physicians at Parkland.

Is "trump" your synonym for "matches"?

The AR Report: "There is a large irregular defect of chiefly the 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."

Now let's go back to what Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman observed. Or everyone else for that matter. **Ev-er-y-one** else.

>
> That's why an autopsy is done. And there is a consilience of evidence for three shots from behind with only two strikes. And this was reviewed by the HSCA.

The Dal-Tex building was above and behind as well. Now what?

> >
> > >
> > > Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted.
> >
> > 100% of the attending physicians noted a large BOH wound, so if as many as 50% of them were wrong, the other 50% still saw, reported and even MEASURED a large BOH wound.
>
> Retard logic. If I flip a coin and it comes up tails I can assume coin flips always come up tails.

The true equivalent analogy would be if you flipped that coin 30 or 40 times, and every time it came up tails, and a thorough examination showed the coin was weighted to land on tails, and it kept turning up tails no matter how many times you flipped it, and after that examination it was "concluded" that the coin really turns up heads all along, and you believed it was heads because you liked it that way.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted.
> >
> > Hilarious!! You just finished telling me they're wrong 50% of the time. Now you want to resurrect what a couple of them said on NOVA, a quarter-century after the fact. This is what's known as the blind faith of doublethink.
>
> It's known as an inability for you to think critically. The doctors didn't say they CHANGED their minds vis a vis the wounds; they said the photos were how they remember them. No changes, no quarter-century new recall.

Tell us who NOVA interviewed, and tell us what they said. Then we'll compare it with what they said that day and in days subsequent. But you won't, because you know the citations are readily available, and will embarrass you and dismantle NOVA. You'll hide behind your "fetch the stick" idiocy instead, or the even dumber "Fringe/Boomerang/Brexit/Whatever."

I'm guessing it wasn't Don Curtis, though: "The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially my recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy."

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted.
> >
> > There's been no innocent explanation given for me to allow.
>
> 1.) He wasn't turned over.

So I guess when Dr. McClelland said "I could very closely examine the head wound," what he meant was, "I briefly peeked at it without turning him over." But let's see what else he said.

McClelland (cont.) "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...."

>
> 2.) They were attempting to save his life, not perform an autopsy.

Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....

Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"

Humes: "There is 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. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."

Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."

And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.

>
> 3.) He did have a hole in the back of his head (of entry) and blood and gore obviously pooled up underneath him on his way to Parkland.

You mean the hole which I could not get you to admit was there?

>
> 4.) Some of the witnesses only observed him briefly.

Just briefly enough to MEASURE the wound, at which time they must have realized what they were measuring was just blood and gore which pooled up underneath him, and not a wound at all.

This is what you have to believe when you're a LNer, and it's frankly fucking embarrassing.

We've already quoted McClellend, who made no mistake as to how "briefly" he observed Kennedy's head. Let's hear from a couple others.

Crenshaw: "It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation."

Carrico: "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."

Very specific detail for such brief encounters with what actually turned out to be some "pooled-up gore."

Those studying this case who wish to take the LN position, be forewarned...this is what you have to believe. And this is what you have to explain.

> >
> > >
> > > Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations is duly noted.
> >
> > A lie. They're in the same exact location.
>
> Liar. The Bell, Bowron, Crenshaw, McClelland and Grossman drawings in the Seaton link all show slightly different sizes and locations.

You mean the placement of the wound was approximate, and not scaled to size with a compass and ruler?

>
> You want to pretend their imprecise drawings are scientific facts

They aren't scientific facts on their own, but act as a convergence of evidence (also known as consilience) with the scientific facts of the autopsy examination.

> >
> > >
> > > Your hand waving away of the different photos in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly noted.
> >
> > Another lie. They're in the same exact location.

And from the links I provided above, everyone can see that this was a lie.

> > >
> > > You hand wave away the differences as "close enough" so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.
> >
> > For a perfect example of hand-waving away "close enough", lurkers are welcome to observe the LN apologetics of the bullet trajectory as seen in the MythBusters test.
>
> Apples and oranges. The MythBusters test proves the feasibility of a bullet passing through two men.

No one needs MythBusters to prove a bullet can transit two bodies. If that was the purpose of the experiment, the whole thing was a strawman on its face, and a rather embarrassing one.

> >
> > My position is hardly unique. It's backed by the evidence, as researched by historians far more schooled than me.
>
> Who do they say killed JFK, and what's their case?

The reason LNers ask this is because they know the *real* question is, "Who DIDN'T kill JFK?" Because once it's determined the answer is Oswald, the next logical step is to look at the people who controlled the investigation, and who were determined to make it known that it was Oswald, and that he had no confederates.

> >
> > >
> > > Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.
> >
> > I never said I "think" something else happened.
>
> The choice isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy. It's Oswald Alone or a specific conspiracy. When you refuse to put a case up for comparison, you leave your oddball ideas up for speculation.

You can speculate all day if you want. What do I care? You're a moron with less-than-pedestrian knowledge of the case. Your speculation isn't worth the shit on my shoe, because you can't back it up with credible evidence which you can defend. The WC drummed up what they could, but they sure didn't stick around to defend it.

> >
> > >
> > > Give it up, Boris.
> >
> > You're good practice for real opponents.
>
> Bring it over to the International Skeptics Forum, and practice on those guys.

Why? Is the evidence different there?

[David Healy]

Top Post Only: Boris is waiting for you numbness.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 May 2019 17:43:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Here's the actual posts detailing my narrative that you've run from...
in order.

The Challenge - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
The Challenge - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/WVBtmUQkx6c/9ZdyxAPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ

>> You CONSISTENTLY refuse to offer one.
>
> You're challenging, not Bud. Cobble a case together and let's
> compare it to the historical narrative.

Cited above. I *DARE* you to compare it to the "historical"
narrative...

Post this "historical" narrative. Be sure to cite.

>>> Your complaints, critiques, figurings, suspicions, sepculation, ect
>>> are in the same place they were 10 years ago. And ten years before that.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, more than 50 years ago. The most damaging facts against your
>> non-conspiratorial theory was known the same day... 11/22/63.
>>
>> Those facts haven't changed, and you've simply never offered
>> *credible* explanations.
>
>Asked and answer with the publication of the WCR.

Nope. Dumbass, aren't you Chuckles?

>>> Bringing them up has the exact same effect as never mentioning them
>>> again.
>>
>>
>> Of course... The effects are denial, head in the sand, ad hominem, and
>> non-stop lies.
>>
>>
>>> You go nowhere with these things.
>>
>>
>> Most of America already accepts conspiracy.
>
>Argumentum ad Populum.

You're lying again, Chuckles. That is **NOT** Argumentum Ad Populum. I
suggest you try to learn what it is you're spouting before looking the
fool.

I've *NEVER* made the argument that *conspiracy* is true because most
of America believes it. **THAT** would be a true example of Argumentum
Ad Populum.

>> You've ALREADY lost.
>
> Yet history records Oswald as JFK's killer, with no conspiracy which
> could ever be identified.

That is indeed the presumption.

>>>> Can't be done.
>>>
>>> What you want to do is keep bringing these things up endlessly
>>> while demanding answers you accept be given to explain each one.
>>> That can`t be done, and there really is no reason anyone should try.
>>
>>
>> When a red fire engine passes by on the road, no normal man tries
>> to argue that it's really yellow.
>
>Word salad. Argument from Irrelevance.

Naw, just duplicating Puddy's argument.

>> But believers aren't really normal.
>>
>>
>>>> But *prove* to an honest intelligent unbiased individual? Easy.
>>>
>>> If you ever had the guts to put all your *real* ideas out there
>>> the average unbiased individual would rightfully see you as a
>>> crackpot. A loony.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you're a dumbass. And since you KNOW you're lying, you're
>> a lying dumbass.
>
>Argument from Irrelevance. Red Herring. Muddying the Waters.

Funny... you never stated this when "Chickenshit" Puddy said it.

Why is that, hypocrite?

>> You lose everytime you try to say that the fire engine is really
>> yellow - so you whine that *I* believe it's green.
>>
>> You can't win on the facts, so you try to claim that the facts aren't
>> really what I'm saying they are.
>>
>> That sort of argument is for losers. No real man would be interested.
>>
>>
>>>>> Let Boris show Sirhan Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot into RFK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The autopsy & witnesses did that.
>>>
>>> Yet Sirhan was convicted of the murder.
>>
>>
>> Not exactly true, and you know this.
>
>Exactly true.

You're a *STUPID* liar... the refutation is directly below!!!

>> He was **NOT** found guilty in court by an examination of evidence.
>
>
>>
>> It was a plea deal.
>
>Because the evidence was so strong and he'd confessed.

And so stupid, that when you read a little further, and realized you
were wrong, you were TOO STUPID TO GO BACK AND REMOVE YOUR DUMB
RESPONSE!!!

Funny! This is PRECISELY what you do!

>> And, as I've cited before, there's really no reason to "hunt down" the
>> killers... many of them have already admitted their involvement.
>>
>> "Someone Would Have Talked" is the book you're afraid of.
>
>Who do they say did it?

Who do you think?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 9:24:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you're making a case that the autopsy report conclusion was correct but their characterization of the head wound incorrect, make your case.
> > >
> > > Are you retarded? That's YOUR assertion, not mine.
> >
> > What's your assertion?
>
> If you actually have to ask that at this point, you're a proven retard.

Translation: Boris won't be forthcoming by stating what he thinks it all means.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Show where other doctors who have reviewed this specific shooting say there was a large wound to the back of JFK's head similar to the drawings in Seaton's piece that was nevertheless a wound of entry. But, of course, you're not doing that.
> > >
> > > I've actually literally done it a hundred times, but I don't mind doing it again, it's just a C&P after all...
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > The Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman drawings are all different.
>
> Bell's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side.
>
> Crenshaw's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.
>
> Bowron's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.
>
> McClelland's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region on the right side, extending into the parietal.
>
> Grossman's diagram shows a circle encompassing chiefly the occipital region, "far too large for a bullet entry wound", and on the right side.
>
> Chucky, listen....it's *VERY* important that when you lie, you do so in a way that cannot be easily disproven.

The interested lurker can click on the link of the drawings and see that the wounds sizes--and in some cases locations--differ.

>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe the autopsy report is correct and you are taking something from the part and applying it to the whole. Fallacy of Composition. The AR is clear: one shot to the head, fired from above and behind, verified by several different panels, including a comprehensive revisit from the medical experts put together by the HSCA in the late 70s.
> > >
> > > How do we know that conclusion is not a Fallacy of Composition, and that the "whole" is every single medical expert and witness at both Bethesda and Parkland?
> >
> > Because the autopsy trumps the observations of the nurses and attending physicians at Parkland.
>
> Is "trump" your synonym for "matches"?

Look up trump, and no, not President Trump.

>
> The AR Report: "There is a large irregular defect of chiefly the 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."
>
> Now let's go back to what Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland and Grossman observed. Or everyone else for that matter. **Ev-er-y-one** else.
>
> >
> > That's why an autopsy is done. And there is a consilience of evidence for three shots from behind with only two strikes. And this was reviewed by the HSCA.
>
> The Dal-Tex building was above and behind as well. Now what?

You tell me. You're cryptically hinting at something, but of course you won't examine it in more detail.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your dismissal of studies that show attending physicians are only right about 50% of the time on gunshot origins is duly noted.
> > >
> > > 100% of the attending physicians noted a large BOH wound, so if as many as 50% of them were wrong, the other 50% still saw, reported and even MEASURED a large BOH wound.
> >
> > Retard logic. If I flip a coin and it comes up tails I can assume coin flips always come up tails.
>
> The true equivalent analogy would be if you flipped that coin 30 or 40 times, and every time it came up tails, and a thorough examination showed the coin was weighted to land on tails, and it kept turning up tails no matter how many times you flipped it, and after that examination it was "concluded" that the coin really turns up heads all along, and you believed it was heads because you liked it that way.

Retard analogy.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your desperate attempts to constantly rehash this is duly noted. Your hand waving away of the Parkland doctors verifying on NOVA in 1988 that the wounds they saw in Dallas are the wounds they saw in photos courtesy of NOVA is duly noted.
> > >
> > > Hilarious!! You just finished telling me they're wrong 50% of the time. Now you want to resurrect what a couple of them said on NOVA, a quarter-century after the fact. This is what's known as the blind faith of doublethink.
> >
> > It's known as an inability for you to think critically. The doctors didn't say they CHANGED their minds vis a vis the wounds; they said the photos were how they remember them. No changes, no quarter-century new recall.
>
> Tell us who NOVA interviewed, and tell us what they said. Then we'll compare it with what they said that day and in days subsequent. But you won't, because you know the citations are readily available, and will embarrass you and dismantle NOVA. You'll hide behind your "fetch the stick" idiocy instead, or the even dumber "Fringe/Boomerang/Brexit/Whatever."

Interested lurkers can find the NOVA program excerpts on YouTube.

>
> I'm guessing it wasn't Don Curtis, though: "The drawing by Dr. Robert McClelland is essentially my recollection of the wound suffered by John F. Kennedy."
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your inability to allow for any innocent explanation for what the Parkland witnesses saw is duly noted.
> > >
> > > There's been no innocent explanation given for me to allow.
> >
> > 1.) He wasn't turned over.
>
> So I guess when Dr. McClelland said "I could very closely examine the head wound," what he meant was, "I briefly peeked at it without turning him over." But let's see what else he said.
>
> McClelland (cont.) "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...."
>
> >
> > 2.) They were attempting to save his life, not perform an autopsy.
>
> Okay, so let's consult those who performed the autopsy....
>
> Boswell: "The wound was fairly low in the back of the head and the bone was completely gone"
>
> Humes: "There is 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. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter..."
>
> Finck: "The FATAL WOUND (sic) - entry 25mm to the right of the external occipital protuberance and slightly above."
>
> And even though Finck indicates "entry" here, you are forced to deny this claim anyway, because you can't find that wound anywhere in the BOH photo. Strangely enough, this is EXACTLY where Bell, Crenshaw, Bowron, McClelland, Grossman ***and everyone else*** put that wound. You know, all those mistaken experts. They could find it well enough. But you can't. Not in the BOH photo. And that's what's known as a catch-22.
>
>
> >
> > 3.) He did have a hole in the back of his head (of entry) and blood and gore obviously pooled up underneath him on his way to Parkland.
>
> You mean the hole which I could not get you to admit was there?

When did I ever say the President wasn't shot in the back of the head? Of course he had a hole in the back of his head.

>
> >
> > 4.) Some of the witnesses only observed him briefly.
>
> Just briefly enough to MEASURE the wound, at which time they must have realized what they were measuring was just blood and gore which pooled up underneath him, and not a wound at all.
>
> This is what you have to believe when you're a LNer, and it's frankly fucking embarrassing.
>
> We've already quoted McClellend, who made no mistake as to how "briefly" he observed Kennedy's head. Let's hear from a couple others.
>
> Crenshaw: "It extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to just behind the right ear, utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple of inches above the right ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to bottom orientation."
>
> Carrico: "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."
>
> Very specific detail for such brief encounters with what actually turned out to be some "pooled-up gore."
>
> Those studying this case who wish to take the LN position, be forewarned...this is what you have to believe. And this is what you have to explain.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your dismissal of the pictures drawn of the wounds in the Paul Seaton piece where the wounds are in different locations is duly noted.
> > >
> > > A lie. They're in the same exact location.
> >
> > Liar. The Bell, Bowron, Crenshaw, McClelland and Grossman drawings in the Seaton link all show slightly different sizes and locations.
>
> You mean the placement of the wound was approximate, and not scaled to size with a compass and ruler?
>
> >
> > You want to pretend their imprecise drawings are scientific facts
>
> They aren't scientific facts on their own, but act as a convergence of evidence (also known as consilience) with the scientific facts of the autopsy examination.

You misunderstand consilience. It's the convergence of different modes of measurement or observation, not the same. Earwitnesses reporting three shots and the physical recovery of three shell casings with a rifle matched to the shells and eyewitnesses reporting a rifle sticking out of a window where the shells were recovered provides consilience, for three shots, for example.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Your hand waving away of the different photos in the Seaton piece where witnesses place their hands on their heads in diffferent positions to identify the wound is duly noted.
> > >
> > > Another lie. They're in the same exact location.
>
> And from the links I provided above, everyone can see that this was a lie.
>
> > > >
> > > > You hand wave away the differences as "close enough" so you hold your own beliefs to a much lower standard.
> > >
> > > For a perfect example of hand-waving away "close enough", lurkers are welcome to observe the LN apologetics of the bullet trajectory as seen in the MythBusters test.
> >
> > Apples and oranges. The MythBusters test proves the feasibility of a bullet passing through two men.
>
> No one needs MythBusters to prove a bullet can transit two bodies. If that was the purpose of the experiment, the whole thing was a strawman on its face, and a rather embarrassing one.

More accurately, it tested the feasibility of a bullet passing through two men as alleged by the SBT.

>
>
> > >
> > > My position is hardly unique. It's backed by the evidence, as researched by historians far more schooled than me.
> >
> > Who do they say killed JFK, and what's their case?
>
> The reason LNers ask this is

Because you're challenging the historical narrative, and this isn't a defense trial. Put something up for comparison.

>because they know the *real* question is, "Who DIDN'T kill JFK?" Because once it's determined the >answer is Oswald, the next logical step is to look at the people who controlled the investigation, and who were determined to make it known that it was Oswald, and that he had no confederates.

Okay, who DIDN'T kill JFK? Give us your rundown.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fifty-five plus years of basically saying, "I think something else happened," but zero, nada in specifics from Team Oswald.
> > >
> > > I never said I "think" something else happened.
> >
> > The choice isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy. It's Oswald Alone or a specific conspiracy. When you refuse to put a case up for comparison, you leave your oddball ideas up for speculation.
>
> You can speculate all day if you want. What do I care? You're a moron with less-than-pedestrian knowledge of the case.

I do not claim to be an expert on JFK assassination Trivial Pursuit, nor is this type of esoteric expertise needed to ask you to put forward a case, which you are apparently unable, unwilling, or incapable of doing.

>Your speculation isn't worth the shit on my shoe, because you can't back it up with credible evidence which you can defend. The WC drummed up what they could, but they sure didn't stick around to defend it.

Yet a multi-million dollar congressional investigation verified all of the key elements of the case in the late 70s and came to the same conclusion: Oswald alone fired the shots that killed and injured, no identifiable conspiracy, one shot to JFK's head from above and behind. It's not my job to defend it. You know the case inside out, and yes, you are a JFK assassination Trivial Pursuit expert, and I am not. Put up your own case for comparison against the historical case.

You have no interest in doing so, apparently. You're here, like Ben, to recruit someone to stand in as a proxy for the WC and treat this like a trial, with you as Johnny Cochrane. You want questions answered. They've been answered, but not to your satisfaction. We want you to put up your case. You haven't done so.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Give it up, Boris.
> > >
> > > You're good practice for real opponents.
> >
> > Bring it over to the International Skeptics Forum, and practice on those guys.
>
> Why? Is the evidence different there?

You'll do even worse over there because they're relentless about asking the challenger to put their own case up for consideration.

Robert Harris (a frequent participant here in former days) is the victim:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=45

[Ben Holmes]

Chuckles was too frightened of the truth to respond...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No case by Ben. He either can't post a case or refuses to or claims he has: Argumentum ad Tony Marshium.

No tests.

No backstory for what he alleges.

It's a rehash of all the other stuff he tries to bully people with here.

Hitchens's Law: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Flush.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 May 2019 08:24:01 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Yellow Chuckles ran from EVERYTHING I posted above. What a coward!

> No case by Ben. He either can't post a case or refuses to or claims
> he has: Argumentum ad Tony Marshium.

Here's the proof that you're a liar: