Chucky's Getting Excited!!!

[Ben Holmes]

This is my 21st thread started this week. All I need do is post
another79 before the end of the day tomorrow, and Chucky will have his
100 threads I've started to point at.

Keep dreaming, Chucky!

No need to send pizza - we all know what a piker you are.

I'm going out for pizza tonight... I won't be thinkin of you!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 17:03:42 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>This is my 21st thread started this week. All I need do is post

>another 79 before the end of the day tomorrow, and Chucky will have his

>100 threads I've started to point at.
>
>Keep dreaming, Chucky!
>
>No need to send pizza - we all know what a piker you are.
>
>I'm going out for pizza tonight... I won't be thinkin of you!

Chucky's disappointed.

Never came close to 100, let alone 50.

Chucky's going to have to drown his sorrow with a large pizza.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

(Chuckle) Folks, I live in Ben's mind, rent-free.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> This is my 21st thread started this week. All I need do is post

>> another 79 before the end of the day tomorrow, and Chucky will have his

>> 100 threads I've started to point at.
>>
>> Keep dreaming, Chucky!
>>
>> No need to send pizza - we all know what a piker you are.
>>
>> I'm going out for pizza tonight... I won't be thinkin of you!
>
>(Chuckle) Folks, I live in Ben's mind, rent-free.

The pizza was great, and Chucky never entered my mind the whole time.

Can you *count* to 50, Chucky?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Here's a recap of the sideshow that's getting our excitable dwarf in a lather. Ben started a thread. Here's Ben's first post in the thread:

Ben:

I decided that stump had far too much time on his hands... he was
*CONSTANTLY* responding to every post I made.

So I started only responding to him once a week. The first two weeks
there were over 100 posts to answer...

In recent weeks it's dropped to under 50.

As of this moment, there's only 27 replies he's made...

Dufus is learning.

He's still a troll.

But he's trainable.

I responded:


> I decided that stump had far too much time on his hands... he was
> *CONSTANTLY* responding to every post I made.

Me: Don't you want a response to your posts????
>
> So I started only responding to him once a week.

Me: What? Wait, you just said he was responding to YOUR posts.


The first two weeks
> there were over 100 posts to answer...

Me: And he had been responding to posts YOU initiated. Perhaps you shouldn't initiate so many posts?
>
> In recent weeks it's dropped to under 50.

Me: Because you're not starting as many threads?
>
> As of this moment, there's only 27 replies he's made...

Me: Looks like you're the one being trained.
>
> Dufus is learning.
>
> He's still a troll.
>
> But he's trainable.

Me: Why don't you abandon the board completely, and the responses will drop to zero? What an IDIOT.

Ben will claim people are RUNNING and that he's WINNING if no one responds. It's all game to Ben, folks, complete with COUNTING responses to his posts and analyzing the number of responses as part of his weird game. Bud lives inside your mind, rent free. Holmes, you are a MORON.

<end>

This exchange apparently infuriated our little Yosemite Sam, so Ben said the following at the same thread, later post.

Ben:

I ask again, are you stupid? Or are you just *pretending* to be a
moron?

I've never orginated 100 new posts in this forum **EVER**.

(My notes: I never said Ben did. I'm not going around counting his posts. See the exchange above.)

And you're too stupid, evidently, to figure that out.

Later, Ben said the following:

I *DEFY* you to cite *ANY WEEK YOU WANT* where I've started just
**25** posts.

(My notes: As I've said, this is Ben's challenge, Ben's numbers.)

<end>

Who's using the specific numbers?

Ben.

I later posted at a thread started by Little Benny called 'Chucky Cheese Can't Count'

Me: Find the post that cites for a specific number you're claiming regarding threads you started that I claimed you started and I'll buy pizzas for the entire gang at the Encino Judo Club. I'll even kick in an extra small pizza with a sippy cup for you. Heck, I'll even throw in a high-chair so you can sit at the "big boy" table, too.

So, are you going to eat pizza?

Or crow.

Or run.

<end>

Alarmed, Ben looked over our exchanges and realized that I was right. Ben was challenging ME with specific numbers the I never mentioned. Ben, being the slime ball he is, started moving the goal posts and using words like I IMPLIED "X" amounts of posts or threads, but the specific CHALLENGE regarding numbers came from Ben, not me.

So, still no pizzas for Ben and the judo club.

And you know DAMN well he was thinking about this all last night while he was eating his pizza, lol.

I bet you went to Chucky Cheese's.

(Second chuckle) I absolutely live in Ben's mind, rent-free.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 09:17:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:11:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> This is my 21st thread started this week. All I need do is post
>> >> another 79 before the end of the day tomorrow, and Chucky will have his
>> >> 100 threads I've started to point at.
>> >>
>> >> Keep dreaming, Chucky!
>> >>
>> >> No need to send pizza - we all know what a piker you are.
>> >>
>> >> I'm going out for pizza tonight... I won't be thinkin of you!
>> >
>> >(Chuckle) Folks, I live in Ben's mind, rent-free.
>>
>> The pizza was great, and Chucky never entered my mind the whole time.
>>
>> Can you *count* to 50, Chucky?
>
>(Chuckle) Folks, I live in Ben's mind, rent-free.
>

>Here's a recap ...

So clearly, you're unwilling to publicly acknowledge your ability to
count to 50.

Can you count as high a the number of threads I created last week?

Can you announce that number here?

Or will you run again?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

(More chuckling.) Moving the goalposts, Ben. Nice try.


Quit while you're behind!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:20:32 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Looks like you chose to run.


How can I be "moving the goalposts" when the topic is your ability to
count my created threads???

>Quit while you're behind!

Run while you're being spanked!


P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Because that wasn't the topic.

>
>
> >Quit while you're behind!
>
>
> Run while you're being spanked!


>
>
> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)

Bud is doing just fine on the issue.

Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.

What's the delay this decade?

[Bud]

I put my cards on the table. Ben is still trying to bluff after his bluff has been called.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:33:16 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're pretty stupid to think that the person who CREATED THE THREAD
doesn't know what it's about.

>> >Quit while you're behind!
>>
>>
>> Run while you're being spanked!
>>
>>
>> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
>> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
>
>Bud is doing just fine on the issue.

Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.

>Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.

No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.

>What's the delay this decade?

What delay?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The topic of the thread you're referring to above concerned Bud responding to your posts and how you were somehow "training" him. I helpfully added that maybe you weren't starting as many threads or posts so he wasn't responding as much. I also pointed out that if you'd stop posting entirely, his responses to you would drop to zero, and I further reminded you that you're an idiot.

You threw around the numbers 100, 50, and 25 and accused me of using those numbers to describe your posting activity and then you challenged me to find anytime you'd posted that much in a week or whatever. I told you that the number was YOUR number(s). I don't go around counting your posts. I told you I'd buy pizzas if you could find my post(s) asserting your numbers claims.

You couldn't do it.

>
>
>
> >> >Quit while you're behind!
> >>
> >>
> >> Run while you're being spanked!
> >>
> >>
> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
> >
> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>
>
> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.
>
>
> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>
>
> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.
>
>
> >What's the delay this decade?
>
>
> What delay?

The delay in posting your entire scenario that overturns the standard, accepted historical narrative that Oswald shot JFK, no help.

Do you have one yet, or are you still working on it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 06:17:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Which is *THIS* thread. The very one you're replying to...

> concerned Bud responding to your posts and how you were somehow
> "training" him.

That indeed *was* the original post in another thread... not this one.

In *THIS* one we're dicussing your inability to count to 50, or 100.

> I helpfully added that maybe you weren't starting as many threads
> or posts

You're lying again, Chucky.

>You threw around the numbers 100, 50, and 25

> Indeed I did... I was FACTUALLY describing the number of posts in a
> week that dufus was making.

These are *YOUR* implied numbers when it comes to how many new threads
I was starting.

> and accused me of using those numbers

You just can't stop molesting the neighborhood children. Why the
constant peversion, Chucky? Were *you* molested by the old guy that
lived next door when *YOU* were five years old?

>You couldn't do it.

Denying your own words now, Chucky?

Will you also deny asserting that I cannot provide the citation that
supports Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino room in the
morning as usual?

Deny it now if you're going to deny it.

>> >> >Quit while you're behind!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Run while you're being spanked!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
>> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
>> >
>> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>>
>>
>> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.
>>
>>
>> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>>
>>
>> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.
>>
>>
>> >What's the delay this decade?
>>
>>
>> What delay?
>
>The delay in posting your entire scenario

You've posted *YOUR* "entire scenario?"

I'm unaware of *ANYONE* who's ever done that.]


> that overturns the standard, accepted historical narrative...


You're lying again, Chucky...

>Do you have one yet, or are you still working on it?

You cannot point to *ANYONE* who's posted their "entire" scenario.

Nor do you have the courage to even try.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

(Chuckle) Looks like I hit a raw nerve. Again.

>
>
> >You couldn't do it.
>
> Denying your own words now, Chucky?
>
> Will you also deny asserting that I cannot provide the citation that
> supports Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino room in the
> morning as usual?
>
> Deny it now if you're going to deny it.

I think you're probably going to provide the cite Bud referenced.

>
>
> >> >> >Quit while you're behind!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Run while you're being spanked!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
> >> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
> >> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
> >> >
> >> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
> >>
> >>
> >> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >What's the delay this decade?
> >>
> >>
> >> What delay?
> >
> >The delay in posting your entire scenario
>
> You've posted *YOUR* "entire scenario?"
>
> I'm unaware of *ANYONE* who's ever done that.]

I don't have a scenario different than the standard, historically accepted narrative. You do. Let's see it.

>
>
> > that overturns the standard, accepted historical narrative...
>
>
> You're lying again, Chucky...
>
>
> >Do you have one yet, or are you still working on it?
>
> You cannot point to *ANYONE* who's posted their "entire" scenario.

The Warren Commission.

>
> Nor do you have the courage to even try.

I'm sane enough to understand the crime only happened one way, and satisfied with the explanation history accepts.

[Mark Ulrik]

You call your opponents "believers" because they supposedly believe every word in the WC, yet you demand that each post their OWN scenario, independent of the one laid out in the WC. Where is the consistency in that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Dead silence...

Chucky's getting schooled...

>> > concerned Bud responding to your posts and how you were somehow
>> > "training" him.
>>
>> That indeed *was* the original post in another thread... not this one.
>>
>> In *THIS* one we're dicussing your inability to count to 50, or 100.

An ability Chucky *STILL* hasn't demonstrated.

>> > I helpfully added that maybe you weren't starting as many threads
>> > or posts
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chucky.

Anyone notice that Chucky couldn't quote himself saying this?

>> >You threw around the numbers 100, 50, and 25
>>
>>
>> > Indeed I did... I was FACTUALLY describing the number of posts in a
>> > week that dufus was making.
>>
>> These are *YOUR* implied numbers when it comes to how many new threads
>> I was starting.
>>
>> > and accused me of using those numbers
>>
>> You just can't stop molesting the neighborhood children. Why the
>> constant peversion, Chucky? Were *you* molested by the old guy that
>> lived next door when *YOU* were five years old?
>
>(Chuckle) Looks like I hit a raw nerve. Again.

Nope. Merely pointing out your blatant lying again.

Tell us Chucky, why are you always *INCAPABLE* of refuting my
assertion when I point out that you're lying?

>> >You couldn't do it.
>>
>> Denying your own words now, Chucky?
>>
>> Will you also deny asserting that I cannot provide the citation that
>> supports Oswald reading the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> morning as usual?
>>
>> Deny it now if you're going to deny it.
>
> I think you're probably going to provide the cite Bud referenced.

I've already stated that I would.

You've once again shown your cowardice, and will be judged
accordingly.

>> >> >> >Quit while you're behind!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Run while you're being spanked!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
>> >> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> >> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
>> >> >
>> >> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >What's the delay this decade?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What delay?
>> >
>> >The delay in posting your entire scenario
>>
>> You've posted *YOUR* "entire scenario?"
>>
>> I'm unaware of *ANYONE* who's ever done that.
>
>I don't have a scenario different than the standard, historically accepted narrative.

You're lying again, moron.

Indeed, you're quite the coward...

*I* have provided a scenario three times now, you've *NEVER* done so.

>> > that overturns the standard, accepted historical narrative...
>>
>> You're lying again, Chucky...

Chucky's silence shows that *HE* knows he's lying...

>> >Do you have one yet, or are you still working on it?
>>
>> You cannot point to *ANYONE* who's posted their "entire" scenario.
>
>The Warren Commission.

Then simply cite where they dealt with the comparison tests performed
by Guinn.

You whine that they've offered a *ENTIRE* scenario - yet they didn't.

And *they* knew it too.

>> Nor do you have the courage to even try.
>
> I'm sane enough to understand the crime only happened one way, and
> satisfied with the explanation history accepts.

You're lying again, moron.

Your cowardice is quite amusing!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 07:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

You demand that critics post their "ENTIRE* scenario - yet believers
refuse to post anything at all.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Already researched, conclusions made, historically accepted.

Post your scenario.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Ben keeps moving the goalposts.

Another royal Ben screw-up, but he'll try and swamp post his way out of it.

No pizza for you!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:40 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

The "goalposts" in THIS thread were simple... can you count to 50?

Can you count the threads I started this last week, and get up to 50?

And by your ABSOLUTE SILENCE on the topic, it's clear that your answer
is "no."

What a COWARD you are!

> Another royal Ben screw-up, but he'll try and swamp post his way out
> of it.

What "screw-up?"

Explain it.


But you won't... it's simply another ad hominem deflection from your
cowardice.


>No pizza for you!


No character for you!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:06:53 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're lying again.


>Post your scenario.

Certainly! And in JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citatons
as you can offer.

Get busy coward!

[Mark Ulrik]

The difference is that you have the benefit of knowing their scenario (or at least 99% of it). It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

What I **DON'T** know is the *EVIDENCE* for that scenario. The Warren
Commission lied about their evidence, and you refuse to defend their
lies.

I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
believer is willing to post.

But you're not willing to post what you believe.

You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.

This fear you have tells the tale.

> It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?

In the old Amazon forums, and right here. You should remember it well,
you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied about snipping it.

You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Sorry Ben, but you're moving the goalposts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The scenario is out there, historically accepted. That must really frost you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

And indeed, you proved yourself a liar... you couldn't explain it.

>> >No pizza for you!
>>
>> No character for you!
>
>Sorry Ben, but you're moving the goalposts.

The fact that you're lying is proven by your refusal to state what it
is in this thread.

Quite the coward, aren't you Chucky?

Tell us, do you show any of your friends these posts?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:33:07 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Circular reasoning, begging the question.

>
> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
> believer is willing to post.

Get busy then.

>
> But you're not willing to post what you believe.

It's posted. If you feel something different occurred, that's your burden. Carry it.

>
> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.
>
> This fear you have tells the tale.
>
> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
>
> In the old Amazon forums, and right here.

Logical fallacy Argumentum ad Tony Marshium

You should remember it well,
> you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied about snipping it.

Logical fallacy Argumentum ad The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.

>
> You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.

I live rent-free in your mind, Ben.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Circular reasoning.

>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Chucky?

Ad Hominem.

>
> Tell us, do you show any of your friends these posts?

I don't know anyone else interested in the JFK assassination, and if I did, I'd steer them away from the flame fest that is acj.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:43:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:34:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:31:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:15:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:09:40 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 10:02:03 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:

...

>> >> > Another royal Ben screw-up, but he'll try and swamp post his way out
>> >> > of it.
>> >>
>> >> What "screw-up?"
>> >>
>> >> Explain it.
>> >>
>> >> But you won't... it's simply another ad hominem deflection from your
>> >> cowardice.
>>
>>
>> And indeed, you proved yourself a liar... you couldn't explain it.
>>
>>
>> >> >No pizza for you!
>> >>
>> >> No character for you!
>> >
>> >Sorry Ben, but you're moving the goalposts.
>>
>> The fact that you're lying is proven by your refusal to state what it
>> is in this thread.
>
>Circular reasoning.

And *STILL* refused to state what the goalposts in this thread is.

*STILL* a coward, aren't you Chucky?

>> Quite the coward, aren't you Chucky?
>
>Ad Hominem.

No moron... calling you a moron is ad hominem. Pointing out your
refusal to answer the question is simply pointing out your cowardice.

You refuse to offer any other reason.

Nor will you.

>> Tell us, do you show any of your friends these posts?
>
>
> I don't know anyone else interested in the JFK assassination, and if
> I did, I'd steer them away from the flame fest that is acj.

Embarrassed by your posting, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 09:38:25 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:22:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >tirsdag den 15. maj 2018 kl. 17.03.30 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 07:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> >> wrote:

...

>> >> You demand that critics post their "ENTIRE* scenario - yet believers
>> >> refuse to post anything at all.
>> >>
>> >> Where is the consistency in that?
>> >
>> > The difference is that you have the benefit of knowing their
>> > scenario (or at least 99% of it).
>>
>> What I **DON'T** know is the *EVIDENCE* for that scenario. The Warren
>> Commission lied about their evidence, and you refuse to defend their
>> lies.
>
>Circular reasoning, begging the question.

No moron... it's a FACT that I don't know the evidence for the Warren
Commission's theory. Indeed, **THEY** didn't know either.

As Redlich wrote in a memo: "I should add that the facts which we now
have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the
FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left
uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture."

It's a **FACT** that you cannot dispute... this is why you ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to cite the evidence for your belief.

Because EVEN THE WARREN COMMISSION knew that it didn't fit their
preconceived theory.

No "circular reasoning" here... and no "begging the question."

Merely facts that you cannot refute honestly.

>> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
>> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
>> believer is willing to post.
>
>Get busy then.

Still that illiteracy problem.

>> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
>
>It's posted.

You're lying again, Chucky.

You've **NEVER** posted your scenario. Indeed, you claim not to have
one.

How can you *NOT* have a scenario, and at the same time have posted
that non-existent scenario?

One of those statements **MUST** be a lie. (Indeed, in this case, both
of them are.)

>> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
>> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.
>>
>> This fear you have tells the tale.
>>
>> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
>>
>> In the old Amazon forums, and right here.
>
>Logical fallacy Argumentum ad Tony Marshium

You're lying again, moron.

I can't help it if Amazon cleared out the forums.

But I can PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that what I say is true.

You can **PROVE** me a liar, simply post your scenario, and if I
refuse to match it in detail and number of citations, then you'll have
**PROVEN** your claim.

But you know better than to try.

>> You should remember it well, you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied
>> about snipping it.
>
>Logical fallacy Argumentum ad The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.

Nope. Merely a fact that I cited for.

I can cite it again if you're stupid enough to publicly deny that you
ever snipped my scenario.

>> You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.
>
>I live rent-free in your mind, Ben.

Nah... you're simply trying desperately to get some lies past me...
but I'm the lie-detector that ALL believers fear.

You know you can't answer my simple questions.

Perfectly VALID questions about the evidence in this case.

Go ahead moron, lie and say you never snipped my scenario.

Go ahead moron, lie and say you never denied snipping my scenario.

Go ahead moron, lie and say I've never matched a believer's scenario
in both detail and citation.

[Bud]

Not when Ben starts threads, lurkers. He postjacks from the moderated board and then erects strawmen rather than touch the topics that were being discussed, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >Quit while you're behind!
> >>
> >>
> >> Run while you're being spanked!
> >>
> >>
> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
> >
> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>
>
> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.

The only person Ben has ever shown to be a liar is Ben, lurkers. He still shooting blanks on this issue, he hasn`t produced anything to back of his assertions.

>
> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>
>
> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.

If what Ben produced is his *entire* scenario than most of what he post is off topic, as it doesn`t pertain to the event at all, lurkers.

>
> >What's the delay this decade?
>
>
> What delay?

Ben has a point, lurkers, "delay" assumes it is something that is going to happen. Ben will never put a case on the table using the known evidence that explains this event. He never has and never will.

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to provide the cite that I referenced.

[Bud]

Ben lies, lurkers, he knows it, he just doesn`t accept it.

> The Warren
> Commission lied about their evidence, and you refuse to defend their
> lies.

Again Ben want to make this where he attacks the WC without producing anything, lurkers. Until he can produce something the WCR wins by default. It has been winning for over fifty years now, and all the tards can do is shake their fists at it ineffectually.

> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
> believer is willing to post.

He loves to lie, lurkers. When I posted it he snipped it out.

> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
>
> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.

Bluff and bluster is all this guy has to offer, lurkers.

> This fear you have tells the tale.
>
> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
>
> In the old Amazon forums, and right here. You should remember it well,
> you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied about snipping it.

If what Ben produced is his explanation of this event than everything he posts that falls outside of that shooting scenario is irrelevant to his case, lurkers. So why does he bring up so many issues outside of his scenario if they are too irrelevant to include in his scenario?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I'm not embarrassed about what I post, but I am sometimes embarrassed that I post here.

You should be, too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 11:57:11 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Still running, aren't you coward?

You've been proven a liar with your "goalpost" assertion...
embarrassing, isn't it?

>> >> Quite the coward, aren't you Chucky?
>> >
>> >Ad Hominem.
>>
>> No moron... calling you a moron is ad hominem. Pointing out your
>> refusal to answer the question is simply pointing out your cowardice.
>>
>> You refuse to offer any other reason.
>>
>> Nor will you.

Another prediction fulfilled perfectly.

That this doesn't embarrass you simply reflects poorly on your
upbringing.

Can you *cite* the definition of a coward?

And show how it doesn't apply to you?

>> >> Tell us, do you show any of your friends these posts?
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't know anyone else interested in the JFK assassination, and if
>> > I did, I'd steer them away from the flame fest that is acj.
>>
>> Embarrassed by your posting, aren't you?
>
> I'm not embarrassed about what I post, but I am sometimes
> embarrassed that I post here.

Why are you so terrified to defend what you believe, coward?

I never am...


>You should be, too.


Why would I be embarrassed to post in a forum dedicated to what *most*
of America accepts???

You won't answer, of course... not with any honest and credible
answer, that is.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What did the WC conclude?

>
>
> >> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
> >> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
> >> believer is willing to post.
> >
> >Get busy then.
>
>
> Still that illiteracy problem.
>
>
>
> >> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
> >
> >It's posted.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chucky.
>
> You've **NEVER** posted your scenario. Indeed, you claim not to have
> one.

I don't need one. The one out there is fine.

>
> How can you *NOT* have a scenario, and at the same time have posted
> that non-existent scenario?

I didn't post a non-existent scenario.

>
> One of those statements **MUST** be a lie. (Indeed, in this case, both
> of them are.)

Almost all of your statements are a lie.

>
>
> >> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
> >> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.

What's stopping you?

> >>
> >> This fear you have tells the tale.
> >>
> >> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
> >>
> >> In the old Amazon forums, and right here.
> >
> >Logical fallacy Argumentum ad Tony Marshium
>
>
> You're lying again, moron.
>
> I can't help it if Amazon cleared out the forums.

Logical fallacy The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.

>
> But I can PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that what I say is true.

Why are you wasting time here then? What's left of the remaining Kennedys who haven't skied into trees, killed in plane crashes and drug overdoses and shot to death would love to have final closure, if that's what you're offering regarding JFK. Bring your info to a DA.

>
> You can **PROVE** me a liar,

Who gets to decide if you're a liar? I pick Bud.

simply post your scenario, and if I
> refuse to match it in detail and number of citations, then you'll have
> **PROVEN** your claim.
>
> But you know better than to try.

I know I don't need to try. My scenario is out there. Where's your scenario?

>
>
> >> You should remember it well, you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied
> >> about snipping it.
> >
> >Logical fallacy Argumentum ad The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.
>
>
> Nope. Merely a fact that I cited for.
>
> I can cite it again if you're stupid enough to publicly deny that you
> ever snipped my scenario.

If I snipped your 300 word scenario, tough toenails. Post it again. If it doesn't account for all of the evidence in a way better than the WC, you'll need to keep working on it.

>
>
>
> >> You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.
> >
> >I live rent-free in your mind, Ben.
>
> Nah... you're simply trying desperately to get some lies past me...
> but I'm the lie-detector that ALL believers fear.

If you only knew how pathetic you sound.

>
> You know you can't answer my simple questions.

Not my job. Provide answers to your own questions and stop relying on me.

>
> Perfectly VALID questions about the evidence in this case.
>
> Go ahead moron, lie and say you never snipped my scenario.
>
> Go ahead moron, lie and say you never denied snipping my scenario.

If I did, cool.

>
> Go ahead moron, lie and say I've never matched a believer's scenario
> in both detail and citation.

You've never matched the research that led to the historically accepted conclusion that Oswald killed JFK, no known help. I don't really care if you "matched" something Conan posted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:15:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Logical fallacy.

You're evading the facts I just posted.

Acknowledge the fact that there was no "circular reasoning" or
"begging the question" - then I'll be happy to answer your question.

But you cannot continue as a coward...

>> >> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
>> >> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
>> >> believer is willing to post.
>> >
>> >Get busy then.
>>
>> Still that illiteracy problem.
>>
>> >> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
>> >
>> >It's posted.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chucky.
>>
>> You've **NEVER** posted your scenario. Indeed, you claim not to have
>> one.
>
>I don't need one. The one out there is fine.

So you're lying. You *DO* have a scenario, you're just unwilling to
post it.


Or defend it.

>> How can you *NOT* have a scenario, and at the same time have posted
>> that non-existent scenario?
>
>I didn't post a non-existent scenario.

You claim not to have one.

You lied.

>> One of those statements **MUST** be a lie. (Indeed, in this case, both
>> of them are.)
>
>Almost all of your statements are a lie.

Then show it.

Present the logical argument.

Or run away again as you usually do.

>> >> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
>> >> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.
>
>What's stopping you?

Illiteracy again...

What am I responding to???

>> >> This fear you have tells the tale.
>> >>
>> >> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
>> >>
>> >> In the old Amazon forums, and right here.
>> >
>> >Logical fallacy Argumentum ad Tony Marshium
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, moron.
>>
>> I can't help it if Amazon cleared out the forums.
>
>Logical fallacy The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.

Cite your last post on Amazon.

But you won't.

You'll whine.

>> But I can PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT that what I say is true.
>
> Why are you wasting time here then?

It's never a waste to point out liars & cowards.

>> You can **PROVE** me a liar,
>
> Who gets to decide if you're a liar? I pick Bud.

*Anyone* can see if you post a scenario, and I fail to respond.

Are you a moron?

>> simply post your scenario, and if I
>> refuse to match it in detail and number of citations, then you'll have
>> **PROVEN** your claim.
>>
>> But you know better than to try.
>
> I know I don't need to try. My scenario is out there. Where's your
> scenario?


Where's your scenario?



>> >> You should remember it well, you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied
>> >> about snipping it.
>> >
>> >Logical fallacy Argumentum ad The Dog Ate my Homeworkium.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Merely a fact that I cited for.
>>
>> I can cite it again if you're stupid enough to publicly deny that you
>> ever snipped my scenario.
>
>
> If I snipped your 300 word scenario, tough toenails. Post it again.

You're lying again, moron.

There's no "if" involved here.

You don't need me to repost it, it's still posted.

> If it doesn't account for all of the evidence in a way better than the
> WC, you'll need to keep working on it.

It provably does.

That's why you snipped it instead of refuting it.

RUN COWARD... RUN QUICK!!!

>> >> You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.
>> >
>> >I live rent-free in your mind, Ben.
>>
>> Nah... you're simply trying desperately to get some lies past me...
>> but I'm the lie-detector that ALL believers fear.
>
>If you only knew how pathetic you sound.

If you only knew what a coward you look like.

>> You know you can't answer my simple questions.
>
> Not my job. Provide answers to your own questions and stop relying
> on me.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with believers... they can't
answer *ANY* of the evidence in this case, and critics can answer it
all... and do so anytime.

Credibly.

Believers simply run away.

Can you cite the evidence that Redlich was referring to?

>> Perfectly VALID questions about the evidence in this case.
>>
>> Go ahead moron, lie and say you never snipped my scenario.
>>
>> Go ahead moron, lie and say you never denied snipping my scenario.
>
>If I did, cool.

What a MORON!

>> Go ahead moron, lie and say I've never matched a believer's scenario
>> in both detail and citation.
>
> You've never matched the research that led to the historically
> accepted conclusion that Oswald killed JFK, no known help. I don't
> really care if you "matched" something Conan posted.

Douglas Horne's Five Volume Set.

Matched.

And there's *NOTHING* you can do but whine about it. Because you'll
*NEVER* try to refute it.

What a COWARD you are!!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Who does he say did it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 16 May 2018 18:50:44 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Amusingly - Chucky RAN from everything.

EVERYTHING!!!

Looks like Chucky got spanked.

>Who does he say did it?

Who did the Warren Commission say did it?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Translation: Doug Horne wrote five volumes of nothing.

P.S. the WC concluded Your Hero did it. And Your Hero was a cop killer, too. That, and Your Hero was a wife beater, and an America-hating Commie sympathizer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:56:11 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Translation: The Warren Commission wrote a report of nothing.

> P.S. the WC concluded Your Hero did it. And Your Hero was a cop
> killer, too. That, and Your Hero was a wife beater, and an
> America-hating Commie sympathizer.

"I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will

present a completely misleading picture." - Redlich.

What did the Warren Commission *base* their theory on? Douglas Horne
used evidence.

[Bud]

The WC looked into this events and published what they found, lurkers. Nobody was forced to accept these findings, they were offered as an explanation of this event. So far it is the only explanation on the table for consideration, despite Ben`s lies.

> > P.S. the WC concluded Your Hero did it. And Your Hero was a cop
> > killer, too. That, and Your Hero was a wife beater, and an
> > America-hating Commie sympathizer.
>
> "I should add that the facts which we now have in our
> possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
> Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
> present a completely misleading picture." - Redlich.
>
> What did the Warren Commission *base* their theory on?

Ben should refrain from asking stupid questions like this and just read the report, lurkers.

> Douglas Horne
> used evidence.

How did Doug Horne use the evidence to explain why Oswald was seen with a gun by so many people at the scene of the homicide of a police officer in Oak Cliff the day of the assassination, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Yet another empty claim.

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to show how any "postjacked" post is not dealing
PRECISELY with the claim being made.

Quite the coward, aren't you dufus?

>> >> >Quit while you're behind!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Run while you're being spanked!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
>> >> showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> >> morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
>> >
>> >Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>>
>>
>> Good of you to acknowledge that you're a liar too.
>
> The only person Ben has ever shown to be a liar is Ben, lurkers.
> He still shooting blanks on this issue, he hasn`t produced anything to
> back of his assertions.

Don't worry dufus... by the time you're reading this, it's already
been produced, and you're running will have commenced.

You'll *ABSOLUTELY REFUSE* to publicly admit that I've cited the very
evidence you claim I couldn't cite.

You'll probably change the topic to your *opinion* of the validity of
the citation... rather than, as you asserted, it's existence.

You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to have the honesty to admit that you were
wrong... which, of course, makes your claim a lie.

>> >Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>>
>> No you aren't. You've already **PROVEN** that.
>
> If what Ben produced is his *entire* scenario than most of what he
> post is off topic, as it doesn`t pertain to the event at all, lurkers.

No such thing as an "entire" scenario.

Where did the Warren Commission deal with Morales?

Or William Harvey?

The fact that you can't cite this is proof that **YOU** know you're
lying. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

>> >What's the delay this decade?
>>
>> What delay?
>
> Ben has a point, lurkers, "delay" assumes it is something that is
> going to happen.

Dufus refuses to describe the "delay" too.

> Ben will never put a case on the table using the known evidence
> that explains this event. He never has and never will.

The fact that you refuse to address my scenario shows that you know
you're lying.

[Bud]

Ben shows his ignorance of the most basic facts here, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:22:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

...

>> What I **DON'T** know is the *EVIDENCE* for that scenario.
>
> Ben lies, lurkers, he knows it, he just doesn`t accept it.

Dufus is calling Warren Commission staffer Redlich a liar.

Because Redlich supports precisely what I said.

>> The Warren
>> Commission lied about their evidence, and you refuse to defend their
>> lies.
>
> Again Ben want to make this where he attacks the WC without
> producing anything, lurkers. Until he can produce something the WCR
> wins by default.

So because I *HAVE* produced my scenario in response to Conan's, the
WCR loses.

Good of you to acknowledge that fact.

> I'm a retard.

>
>> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
>> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
>> believer is willing to post.
>
> He loves to lie, lurkers. When I posted it he snipped it out.

Post it.

POST IT RIGHT HERE.

And I'll match it in detail and number of citations.


Watch as the coward refuses to do so...

>> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
>>
>> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
>> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.
>
> Bluff and bluster is all this guy has to offer, lurkers.

Prove it.

>> This fear you have tells the tale.
>>
>> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
>>
>> In the old Amazon forums, and right here. You should remember it well,
>> you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied about snipping it.
>
> If what Ben produced is his explanation of this event than
> everything he posts that falls outside of that shooting scenario is
> irrelevant to his case, lurkers.

There were multiple assassins.

That's all that *needs* to be said.

If you want to dispute it, do so on the basis of what the Warren
Commission already published in their report.

If you cannot do so, then it falls outside of what the Commission
said, and is therefore irrelevant.

RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

> So why does he bring up so many issues outside of his scenario if
> they are too irrelevant to include in his scenario?

You must *HATE* Norman Redlich....

>> You're simply a provable coward, Chucky.

As is dufus.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You're lying again, Dufus.

I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.

By the time you're reading this, it's already been posted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> > >Quit while you're behind!
>> >
>> >
>> > Run while you're being spanked!
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > P.S. Help dufus out... he's in trouble over the existence of citations
>> > showing that Oswald read the newspaper in the Domino room in the
>> > morning. (Or show your cowardice there as well...)
>>
>> Bud is doing just fine on the issue.
>

> I put my cards on the table. Ben is still trying to bluff after
> his bluff has been called.


Au contraire, I'm giving everyone time to put their bets down.

So far, most are silent, thus showing that they know I can provide the
citation you've lied and claim I can't cite.

>> Any time you're ready to post your entire scenario, I'm ready to listen to it.
>>

[Bud]

If Ben thinks that Horne has explained this event, why does he pester people here to explain things to him, lurkers? He just needs to look the answers up in Horne`s work.

But one wonders why Horn`s explanation (if he really explains this event better than the WC did) hasn`t knocked the WCR`s findings out of the history books.

> Matched.
>
> And there's *NOTHING* you can do but whine about it. Because you'll
> *NEVER* try to refute it.

Easy to refute, lurkers, let Ben produce a history book containing Horne`s conclusions. Until he can it is no match at all, it is an empty claim.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:59:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:22:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> What I **DON'T** know is the *EVIDENCE* for that scenario.
> >
> > Ben lies, lurkers, he knows it, he just doesn`t accept it.
>
>
> Dufus is calling Warren Commission staffer Redlich a liar.

No, I was calling Ben one, lurkers.

> Because Redlich supports precisely what I said.

The same Redlich who signed off on the Warren Commission report, lurkers.

>
> >> The Warren
> >> Commission lied about their evidence, and you refuse to defend their
> >> lies.
> >
> > Again Ben want to make this where he attacks the WC without
> > producing anything, lurkers. Until he can produce something the WCR
> > wins by default.
>
> So because I *HAVE* produced my scenario in response to Conan's, the
> WCR loses.

The challenge was never for Ben to contrive a shooting scenario he likes better than the one the WC suggested, lurkers.

> Good of you to acknowledge that fact.
>
> > I'm a retard.
> >
> >> I've stated time and time again (and done so three times now) that I
> >> will match, in both detail and number of cites, anything that a
> >> believer is willing to post.
> >
> > He loves to lie, lurkers. When I posted it he snipped it out.
>
>
> Post it.
>
> POST IT RIGHT HERE.

Does Ben want to snip it out again, lurkers?

> And I'll match it in detail and number of citations.

That is what he said the first time, lurkers. Then he snipped and ran from it.

>
> Watch as the coward refuses to do so...

I don`t jump through hoops for retards, lurkers. Let Ben go back to where I did produce it and address it. I`ve even linked to the very post since then.

>
>
> >> But you're not willing to post what you believe.
> >>
> >> You're TERRIFIED that I can do exactly what I said I can do - and that
> >> it will be *MORE* credible than anything you can put up.
> >
> > Bluff and bluster is all this guy has to offer, lurkers.
>
>
> Prove it.

Ben provided the proof when all he offered was bluff and bluster, lurkers.

> >> This fear you have tells the tale.
> >>
> >> > It was published by the WC. Where was your scenario published?
> >>
> >> In the old Amazon forums, and right here. You should remember it well,
> >> you snipped it REPEATEDLY, then lied about snipping it.
> >
> > If what Ben produced is his explanation of this event than
> > everything he posts that falls outside of that shooting scenario is
> > irrelevant to his case, lurkers.
>
>
> There were multiple assassins.
>
> That's all that *needs* to be said.

The Ben should STFU then, lurkers. He has had his say.

> If you want to dispute it, do so on the basis of what the Warren
> Commission already published in their report.

Easy enough to do, lurkers. Let Ben produce *ONE* witness that supports his shooting scenario.

> If you cannot do so, then it falls outside of what the Commission
> said, and is therefore irrelevant.

How can what the WC said fall outside what the WC said, lurkers?

> RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
>
>
>
> > So why does he bring up so many issues outside of his scenario if
> > they are too irrelevant to include in his scenario?
>
>
> You must *HATE* Norman Redlich....

He affirmed the WCR`s conclusions, lurkers.

[Bud]

Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t said that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I* have already provided.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Who did he conclude did it?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Dufus shows his ignorance of Douglas Horne's five volume set here.

And pretends that believers are allowed to ask questions forbidden to
critics.

And that fact tells the tale...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:56:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:31:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:56:11 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 9:29:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 16 May 2018 18:50:44 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:

...

>> >> >Who does he say did it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Who did the Warren Commission say did it?
>> >
>> >Translation: Doug Horne wrote five volumes of nothing.
>>
>> Translation: The Warren Commission wrote a report of nothing.
>
> The WC looked into this events and published what they found,

No they didn't. You're lying again, dufus... and the **PROOF** that
you're lying is that you cannot cite the evidence that Redlich
referred to.

Where is it?

The Warren Commission DID NOT publish everything they found.

> lurkers. Nobody was forced to accept these findings,

And, the American people have largely refused to do so.

> they were offered as an explanation of this event. So far it is the
> only explanation on the table for consideration, despite Ben`s lies.

No, it's *NOT* the only explanation on the table. Books have been
written giving the alternative.

It's simple: multiple assassins.

And no matter how many times I correct you on this lie, you just keep
repeating it.

The actions of a moron...

>> > P.S. the WC concluded Your Hero did it. And Your Hero was a cop
>> > killer, too. That, and Your Hero was a wife beater, and an
>> > America-hating Commie sympathizer.
>>
>> "I should add that the facts which we now have in our
>> possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and
>> Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
>> present a completely misleading picture." - Redlich.
>>
>> What did the Warren Commission *base* their theory on?
>
> Ben should refrain from asking stupid questions like this and just
> read the report, lurkers.

It wasn't based on the evidence, as I just *CITED* for.

What was it based on, dufus?

Was Redlich merely lying to the committee?

>> Douglas Horne used evidence.
>
> How did Doug Horne use the evidence to explain why Oswald was seen
> with a gun by so many people at the scene of the homicide of a police
> officer in Oak Cliff the day of the assassination, lurkers?

When you lie to make a point, all you've done is demonstrate that
you're willing to lie...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 08:43:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:59:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:52:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 12:22:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> What I **DON'T** know is the *EVIDENCE* for that scenario.
>> >
>> > Ben lies, lurkers, he knows it, he just doesn`t accept it.
>>
>> Dufus is calling Warren Commission staffer Redlich a liar.
>
> No, I was calling Ben one, lurkers.

Then all you have to do is answer the question... on *what* was the
Warren Commission's theory based?

It couldn't have been on the FBI & Secret Service material - as
Redlich makes clear.

You pretend that I know the answer, yet you can't give it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 08:47:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:59:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 10:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:02:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

...

>> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers. He hasn`t stated that he is going to
>> > provide the cite that I referenced.
>>
>> You're lying again, Dufus.
>>
>> I've *ALREADY* stated that I plan to provide it soon.
>
> Ben should learn to read for comprehension, lurkers. He hasn`t
> said that the cite he is going to provide is the same cite that *I*
> have already provided.

Why would I?

Cite has now been provided, and you're proven to be a liar.

Run liar... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 17 May 2018 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

If stump thinks that the Warren Commission explained this event over
50 years ago, why is he here whining to every lurker he can imagine?

Stump merely needs to read the Warren Commision report to calm himself
down.

> But one wonders why Horn`s explanation (if he really explains this
> event better than the WC did) hasn`t knocked the WCR`s findings out of
> the history books.

An issue well explored in a number of books, Michael Kurtz comes to
mind. You can also read Roger Remington. Both, of course, are
historians.

So you don't have to wonder anymore, I've provided you with source
material that will answer your ignorance.

>> Matched.
>>
>> And there's *NOTHING* you can do but whine about it. Because you'll
>> *NEVER* try to refute it.
>
> Easy to refute, lurkers, let Ben produce a history book containing
> Horne`s conclusions. Until he can it is no match at all, it is an
> empty claim.

Done above.