Can You Imagine A More *STUPID* Suggestion?

[Ben Holmes]

>Should Marina and her kids have to give some form of compensatory payment
>to the descendants of JFK as a consequence of Oswald's assassination of
>JFK.

Found in the censored forum, this is clearly designed to elicit
comments... so I'll comment.

It takes a *REAL* moron to think up things as nonsensical as this.

(And I predict that "Chickenshit" will defend it...)

[Bud]

On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >Should Marina and her kids have to give some form of compensatory payment
> >to the descendants of JFK as a consequence of Oswald's assassination of
> >JFK.
>
> Found in the censored forum, this is clearly designed to elicit
> comments... so I'll comment.
>
> It takes a *REAL* moron to think up things as nonsensical as this.

This is why you don`t post in the moderated forum, all you have is ad hominem. You offered nothing about the idea.

> (And I predict that "Chickenshit" will defend it...)

Of course the Kennedy family had grounds for a civil suit. You are an idiot to suggest otherwise.

[David Von Pein]

Damn straight they did. Just like Ron Goldman's family was entitled to the $33-million that they were awarded in their civil suit against murderer O.J. Simpson in 1997.

[Ben Holmes]

Why didn't the Goldman family win a lawsuit against Marguerite Whitley?

This is, after all, a more legitimate analogy for what you are STUPIDLY
claiming.

I'm going to predict, right here and now, that David "Chester" Pein will
not, AND CANNOT - offer a *single* example of an uninvolved and innocent
family member, wife or otherwise, being successfully sued in court for the
actions of the husband, or brother, or sister, etc...

Watch as David demonstrates his VAST dishonesty in his failed attempt to
change the goalposts.

[Bud]

Who says Marina was uninvolved? She knew her husband was a homicidal maniac. She knew he had purchased a rifle for the purpose of committing political assassination. She expressed her disapproval to her husband about his activities, a wholly insufficient response. She had the information that could have shut Oswald down, yet she chose to keep it to herself.

[David Healy]

Top Post Only: Empty Claim(s) El Douche! Get back in the nest and try again!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Who says Marina was uninvolved? She knew her husband was a homicidal maniac. She knew he had purchased a rifle for the purpose of committing political assassination.

<snicker> Y'all know what's coming now....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs

Meanwhile, Shmucky is actively campaigning YouTube to take the video down.

[Bud]

I understand what it is and what it isn`t and you don`t. Marina told the WC what she had firsthand knowledge of. Nowhere in that video does she give any firsthand knowledge. It might be interesting to hear her explain how she had firsthand knowledge that heavily implicated her husband in a political assassination attempt using a rifle but thinks her husband is innocent of the successful political assassination using a rifle that took place as someone fired from her husband`s place of work, just to hear her tortured reasoning.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

It's almost as if she's a liar, isn't it, stupid?

[Bud]

One thing doesn`t speak to the other, stupid, your inability to make distinctions is showing again. The things she had firsthand knowledge of and her opinions are two different things.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

It must be nice to think yourself anything less than a total asshole to believe you get to be the arbiter of which is "knowledge" and which is "opinion." Whereas I have no trouble dismissing either statement completely, on the grounds of lack of integrity. But you don't have integrity. Hence your gravitation towards other pieces of shit like yourself.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:02:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:53:50 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:45:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 6:59:37 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who says Marina was uninvolved? She knew her husband was a homicidal maniac. She knew he had purchased a rifle for the purpose of committing political assassination.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> Y'all know what's coming now....
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile, Shmucky is actively campaigning YouTube to take the video down.
> > > >
> > > > I understand what it is and what it isn`t and you don`t. Marina told the WC what she had firsthand knowledge of. Nowhere in that video does she give any firsthand knowledge. It might be interesting to hear her explain how she had firsthand knowledge that heavily implicated her husband in a political assassination attempt using a rifle but thinks her husband is innocent of the successful political assassination using a rifle that took place as someone fired from her husband`s place of work, just to hear her tortured reasoning.
> > >
> > > It's almost as if she's a liar, isn't it, stupid?
> >
> > One thing doesn`t speak to the other, stupid, your inability to make distinctions is showing again. The things she had firsthand knowledge of and her opinions are two different things.
>
> It must be nice to think yourself anything less than a total asshole to believe you get to be the arbiter of which is "knowledge" and which is "opinion."

Of course you can`t tell when someone is expressing their opinion and someone is relating firsthand knowledge, you`re an idiot.

> Whereas I have no trouble dismissing either statement completely, on the grounds of lack of integrity. But you don't have integrity. Hence your gravitation towards other pieces of shit like yourself.

You are desperate to dismiss Marina because she heavily implicated your hero, Lee Harvey Oswald, one of the biggest pieces of shit to ever walk upright.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Of course you can`t tell when someone is expressing their opinion and someone is relating firsthand knowledge, you`re an idiot.

<snicker> So for example, Marina *knows* she took the BY photos, but it's her *opinion* that she doesn't know how to operate the camera. Tell us more.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 8:29:26 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course you can`t tell when someone is expressing their opinion and someone is relating firsthand knowledge, you`re an idiot.
>
> <snicker> So for example, Marina *knows* she took the BY photos, but it's her *opinion* that she doesn't know how to operate the camera.

I see you are still struggling with the different concepts of "knowledge" and "opinion".

> Tell us more.

Your stupid idea, you tell us more.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > <snicker> So for example, Marina *knows* she took the BY photos, but it's her *opinion* that she doesn't know how to operate the camera.
>
> I see you are still struggling with the different concepts of "knowledge" and "opinion".

<snicker> The retard runs from all the points I made, lurkers.

>
> > Tell us more.
>
> Your stupid idea, you tell us more.

Okay. Well, if someone was accusing of killing the president, and his wife was someone he smacked around regularly and mistreated, I might second-guess her loyalty. Add to that threats of deportation, a small child she felt maternally inclined to protect, her struggles with English (doubly so under the glare of high-pressure inquisition) and donations she received at the time...if I were to look at all those right things "correctly" I'd consider her a somewhat compromised witness.

Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.

[Bud]

Of course you would, as explained, you`re an idiot. Anyone who wasn`t scratching around for reasons to disregard her would do what I suggest below.

> Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.

Everyone should read Marina`s testimony and see whether she seems to be working from a script or relating events as she knew them to be.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Okay. Well, if someone was accusing of killing the president, and his wife was someone he smacked around regularly and mistreated, I might second-guess her loyalty. Add to that threats of deportation, a small child she felt maternally inclined to protect, her struggles with English (doubly so under the glare of high-pressure inquisition) and donations she received at the time...if I were to look at all those right things "correctly" I'd consider her a somewhat compromised witness.
>
> Of course you would, as explained, you`re an idiot. Anyone who wasn`t scratching around for reasons to disregard her would do what I suggest below.

How so?

>
> > Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.
>
> Everyone should read Marina`s testimony and see whether she seems to be working from a script or relating events as she knew them to be.

Empty claim.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 9:24:06 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay. Well, if someone was accusing of killing the president, and his wife was someone he smacked around regularly and mistreated, I might second-guess her loyalty. Add to that threats of deportation, a small child she felt maternally inclined to protect, her struggles with English (doubly so under the glare of high-pressure inquisition) and donations she received at the time...if I were to look at all those right things "correctly" I'd consider her a somewhat compromised witness.
> >
> > Of course you would, as explained, you`re an idiot. Anyone who wasn`t scratching around for reasons to disregard her would do what I suggest below.
>
> How so?

Non sequitur.

> > > Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.
> >
> > Everyone should read Marina`s testimony and see whether she seems to be working from a script or relating events as she knew them to be.
>
> Empty claim.

Non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

I wonder if you're man enough to admit that you've changed the topic.

Tell us, with a straight face, that Ron Goldman's family was entitled
to sue Marguerite Whitley.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > Okay. Well, if someone was accusing of killing the president, and his wife was someone he smacked around regularly and mistreated, I might second-guess her loyalty. Add to that threats of deportation, a small child she felt maternally inclined to protect, her struggles with English (doubly so under the glare of high-pressure inquisition) and donations she received at the time...if I were to look at all those right things "correctly" I'd consider her a somewhat compromised witness.
> > >
> > > Of course you would, as explained, you`re an idiot. Anyone who wasn`t scratching around for reasons to disregard her would do what I suggest below.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Non sequitur.

<snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.

>
> > > > Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.
> > >
> > > Everyone should read Marina`s testimony and see whether she seems to be working from a script or relating events as she knew them to be.
> >
> > Empty claim.
>
> Non sequitur.

Show this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:29:12 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>>>> Okay. Well, if someone was accusing of killing the president,
>>>>> and his wife was someone he smacked around regularly and mistreated, I
>>>>> might second-guess her loyalty. Add to that threats of deportation, a
>>>>> small child she felt maternally inclined to protect, her struggles
>>>>> with English (doubly so under the glare of high-pressure inquisition)
>>>>> and donations she received at the time...if I were to look at all
>>>>> those right things "correctly" I'd consider her a somewhat compromised
>>>>> witness.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you would, as explained, you`re an idiot. Anyone who
>>>> wasn`t scratching around for reasons to disregard her would do what I
>>>> suggest below.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.

He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
HSCA considered her a liar.

Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
29 page list of her lies.

Yet "Chickenshit" and other believers frequently run to Marina.

>>>>> Let bub speak to her reliability, lurkers. Even the WC couldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone should read Marina`s testimony and see whether she
>>>> seems to be working from a script or relating events as she knew them
>>>> to be.

That's not possible - because much of what she said was in
non-documented interrogations... and in Russian...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:56:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:52:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>Should Marina and her kids have to give some form of compensatory payment
>>>>>>to the descendants of JFK as a consequence of Oswald's assassination of
>>>>>>JFK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Found in the censored forum, this is clearly designed to elicit
>>>>> comments... so I'll comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes a *REAL* moron to think up things as nonsensical as this.
>>>>
>>>> This is why you don`t post in the moderated forum, all you have is ad
>>>> hominem. You offered nothing about the idea.
>>>>
>>>>> (And I predict that "Chickenshit" will defend it...)
>>>>
>>>> Of course the Kennedy family had grounds for a civil suit.
>>>
>>> Damn straight they did. Just like Ron Goldman's family was entitled to
>>> the $33-million that they were awarded in their civil suit against
>>> murderer O.J. Simpson in 1997.
>>
>>
>> Why didn't the Goldman family win a lawsuit against Marguerite Whitley?

Dead silence...

>> This is, after all, a more legitimate analogy for what you are STUPIDLY
>> claiming.
>>
>> I'm going to predict, right here and now, that David "Chester" Pein will
>> not, AND CANNOT - offer a *single* example of an uninvolved and innocent
>> family member, wife or otherwise, being successfully sued in court for the
>> actions of the husband, or brother, or sister, etc...

Amusingly, David didn't...

> Who says Marina was uninvolved?

Empty claim, Dumbass... But I'd imagine you'd rather be known as
"Dumbass" than "Chickenshit."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> ><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
>
>
> He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
> HSCA considered her a liar.

Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat. Probably the most exercise they get all day.

>
> Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
> 29 page list of her lies.

LN retards cover a 29-page spread by breakfast.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >
>> ><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
>> HSCA considered her a liar.
>
> Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over
> any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to
> watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in
> side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat. Probably the most
> exercise they get all day.

Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
believers believe.

That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
just where the truth lies.

>> Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
>> 29 page list of her lies.
>
>LN retards cover a 29-page spread by breakfast.

I don't recall a believer ever acknowledging the existence of this
report, let alone attempting to refute it.

"Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
name of that 29 page report.

[Bud]

Being a coward Ben was forced to remove most of my response because he had no answer to it. Here is what terrified him...

"Who says Marina was uninvolved? She knew her husband was a homicidal maniac. She knew he had purchased a rifle for the purpose of committing political assassination. She expressed her disapproval to her husband about his activities, a wholly insufficient response. She had the information that could have shut Oswald down, yet she chose to keep it to herself."

The audience will notice Ben called it an "empty claim" after he removed the support. Pretty yellow.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Being a coward Ben was forced to remove most of my response because he had no answer to it. Here is what terrified him...
>
> "Who says Marina was uninvolved? She knew her husband was a homicidal maniac. She knew he had purchased a rifle for the purpose of committing political assassination. She expressed her disapproval to her husband about his activities, a wholly insufficient response. She had the information that could have shut Oswald down, yet she chose to keep it to herself."

Yeah, a passage so "terrifying" and devastating that a 30-second YouTube clip IN MONO completely destroyed it. Note the LN retard bub then ran from all the points I made, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> ><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
> >> HSCA considered her a liar.
> >
> > Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over
> > any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to
> > watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in
> > side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat. Probably the most
> > exercise they get all day.
>
>
> Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
> statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
> believers believe.

Amazing that this loner`s wife would be the sole source for much of his activities. And she was backed up by others, and physical evidence.

> That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
> just where the truth lies.

You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her husband`s activities.

> >> Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
> >> 29 page list of her lies.
> >
> >LN retards cover a 29-page spread by breakfast.
>
>
> I don't recall a believer ever acknowledging the existence of this
> report, let alone attempting to refute it.
>
> "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
> name of that 29 page report.

But you called them lies, because you are a liar.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:02:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > ><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
> > HSCA considered her a liar.
>
> Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat.

You aren`t teachable, even after I explained to you the difference between a person expressing their opinion and a person giving first hand accounts you still can`t discern the difference.

> Probably the most exercise they get all day.

You couldn`t do what I do.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
> > statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
> > believers believe.
>
> Amazing that this loner`s wife would be the sole source for much of his activities. And she was backed up by others, and physical evidence.

Let bub show she was not a compromised witness. I've already shown she was.

>
> > That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
> > just where the truth lies.
>
> You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her husband`s activities.

<snicker> Apparently she provided so much information regarding her husband's activities that she doesn't realize she provided it. Hence her statement, "I would like for people in official capacity who say that he is guilty to come up with the proof...not one-sided, but all evidence on the table."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs

Remember, kids, being a LNer means being a retard your whole life.

> >
> > "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
> > name of that 29 page report.
>
> But you called them lies, because you are a liar.

<snicker> Let bub show the difference between statements of a contradictory nature, and lies. Let bub show how the two are in no way connected. Let bub show he's not a complete waste.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:33:39 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:02:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > ><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
> > >
> > >
> > > He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
> > > HSCA considered her a liar.
> >
> > Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat.
>
> You aren`t teachable,

Ad hominem, lurkers.

>
> even after I explained to you the difference between a person expressing their opinion and a person giving first hand accounts you still can`t discern the difference.

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
> > Probably the most exercise they get all day.
>
> You couldn`t do what I do.

<snicker> Literally your only function is to exist as a springboard for critics to segue into their ideas and evidence in any given conversation. You provide nothing else here, nor anything in your personal life.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:41:13 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
> > > statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
> > > believers believe.
> >
> > Amazing that this loner`s wife would be the sole source for much of his activities. And she was backed up by others, and physical evidence.
>
> Let bub show she was not a compromised witness. I've already shown she was.
>
> >
> > > That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
> > > just where the truth lies.
> >
> > You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her husband`s activities.
>
> <snicker> Apparently she provided so much information regarding her husband's activities that she doesn't realize she provided it. Hence her statement, "I would like for people in official capacity who say that he is guilty to come up with the proof...not one-sided, but all evidence on the table."

Nothing there about the first hand information she provided about her husband`s activities.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs
>
> Remember, kids, being a LNer means being a retard your whole life.
>
>
> > >
> > > "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
> > > name of that 29 page report.
> >
> > But you called them lies, because you are a liar.
>
> <snicker> Let bub show the difference between statements of a contradictory nature, and lies.

You still can`t make distinctions. Try an online dictionary, stupid, I`m tired of trying to give you lessons.

[Bud]

Your greatest achievement in life is waking up to dry sheets. And you don`t achieve that very often.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her husband`s activities.
> >
> > <snicker> Apparently she provided so much information regarding her husband's activities that she doesn't realize she provided it. Hence her statement, "I would like for people in official capacity who say that he is guilty to come up with the proof...not one-sided, but all evidence on the table."
>
> Nothing there about the first hand information she provided about her husband`s activities.

<snicker> Easily the dumbest comment of the day. I wonder why someone with so much first-hand information would dare LNers to "come up with the proof."

Don't be a LNer, kids. Do drugs instead LOL!!

>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs
> >
> > Remember, kids, being a LNer means being a retard your whole life.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
> > > > name of that 29 page report.
> > >
> > > But you called them lies, because you are a liar.
> >
> > <snicker> Let bub show the difference between statements of a contradictory nature, and lies.
>
> You still can`t make distinctions. Try an online dictionary, stupid, I`m tired of trying to give you lessons.
>
> > Let bub show how the two are in no way connected. Let bub show he's not a complete waste.

<snicker> bub still can't refute the points I made, lurkers. He's still running.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her husband`s activities.
> > >
> > > <snicker> Apparently she provided so much information regarding her husband's activities that she doesn't realize she provided it. Hence her statement, "I would like for people in official capacity who say that he is guilty to come up with the proof...not one-sided, but all evidence on the table."
> >
> > Nothing there about the first hand information she provided about her husband`s activities.
>
> <snicker> Easily the dumbest comment of the day. I wonder why someone with so much first-hand information would dare LNers to "come up with the proof."

I wonder why a person would disregard all the first hand information she supplied and focus on her opinions.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> > <snicker> Easily the dumbest comment of the day. I wonder why someone with so much first-hand information would dare LNers to "come up with the proof."
>
> I wonder why a person would disregard all the first hand information she supplied and focus on her opinions.

Maybe you should ask her, you trust her so much. It would be a better use of your time than loitering around here, avoiding all the points I make.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I wonder why a person would disregard all the first hand information she supplied and focus on her opinions.

This is literally what LNers did with the autopsy report.

We now raise the level on the dumbest comment of the day...courtesy of the previous imbecile, who now breaks his own record.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I wonder why a person would disregard all the first hand information she supplied and focus on her opinions.

Schmucky? bub? Why do you disregard all the findings in the autopsy report in lieu of focusing on its opined conclusions?

bub? oh bub? Schmucky? Enter the House of Boris.

<snicker>

[Bud]

I`ll get my opinions from experts, you get yours from housewives.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:20:48 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I wonder why a person would disregard all the first hand information she supplied and focus on her opinions.
>
> Schmucky? bub? Why do you disregard all the findings in the autopsy report in lieu of focusing on its opined conclusions?

https://dictionary.thelaw.com/expert-opinion/

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I`ll get my opinions from experts,

Nah, you won't...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

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

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

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1

>
> you get yours from housewives.

That's funny, because you quoted her first.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wQqoaap3FO0/k4bjvxwsAQAJ

Remember, kids, being a LNer means you ALWAYS throw someone under the bus, even if you've ****just relied on their statements to fortify your position***

Don't be a LNer, kids. You'll betray your own mother eventually.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:33:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I`ll get my opinions from experts,
>
> Nah, you won't...
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>
> http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>
> https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1

Now I need to explain to you what this information is, and what it is not?

>
> >
> > you get yours from housewives.
>
> That's funny, because you quoted her first.

Funny you still can`t make the distinction.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 5:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:33:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I`ll get my opinions from experts,
> >
> > Nah, you won't...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >
> > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> >
> > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> >
> > https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1
>
> Now I need to explain to you what this information is, and what it is not?

Sure. Let bub explain the difference between information and not-information. Let bub show how that explanation applies to **everything** he purports to believe, and **none** of this expert testimony.

>
> >
> > >
> > > you get yours from housewives.
> >
> > That's funny, because you quoted her first.
>
> Funny you still can`t make the distinction.

Empty claim.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 5:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:33:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I`ll get my opinions from experts,
> > >
> > > Nah, you won't...
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> > >
> > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > >
> > > https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1
> >
> > Now I need to explain to you what this information is, and what it is not?
>
> Sure. Let bub explain the difference between information and not-information.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 8:50:18 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 8:20:01 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 5:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:33:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I`ll get my opinions from experts,
> > > >
> > > > Nah, you won't...
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> > > >
> > > > http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
> > > >
> > > > http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
> > > >
> > > > https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm#Table_1
> > >
> > > Now I need to explain to you what this information is, and what it is not?
> >
> > Sure. Let bub explain the difference between information and not-information.
>
> If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

So that's a big fat zero from a big fat zero. Bluff and bluster, lurkers.

But tell you what. The entirety of the "evidence" surrounding the Walker shooting revolves solely around "what Marina said."

Meanwhile, officers at the scene recovered 30.06 bullet shells, and they remained 30.06 in every extant report until November 22, 1963.

I'll believe the experts. You believe the housewife.

[Bud]

You will do what all conspiracy idiots do, look at the wrong things incorrectly.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > But tell you what. The entirety of the "evidence" surrounding the Walker shooting revolves solely around "what Marina said."
> >
> > Meanwhile, officers at the scene recovered 30.06 bullet shells, and they remained 30.06 in every extant report until November 22, 1963.
> >
> > I'll believe the experts. You believe the housewife.
>
> You will do what all conspiracy idiots do, look at the wrong things incorrectly.

<snicker> The retard continues to run from all the points I made, lurkers. He's an idiot, that's all he can do.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So you're claiming that the 30.06 report from the Walker attempt in April was changed on November 22nd?

>
> I'll believe the experts. You believe the housewife.

The experts say Oswald took a shot at Walker, Boris Dunning-Kruger.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Still no case from Boris.

Instead of asking questions, why don't you answer questions?

When did you change your mind on the Tippit killing? Earlier, you told me you thought Oswald was involved, and at another thread you now say he was somewhere else when Tippit was killed.

What changed your mind? Be specific.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Not changed, moron. They simply stopped being reported as 30.06 shell casings.

> >
> > I'll believe the experts. You believe the housewife.
>
> The experts say Oswald took a shot at Walker, Boris Dunning-Kruger.

Oh? Is there a General Walker expert I don't know about? You're actually just lying right now, aren't you? That's what I thought. So, are you a sometimes-believer of Marina too? I say "sometimes" because, well, you know...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, officers at the scene recovered 30.06 bullet shells, and they remained 30.06 in every extant report until November 22, 1963.
> > > >
> > > > I'll believe the experts. You believe the housewife.
> > >
> > > You will do what all conspiracy idiots do, look at the wrong things incorrectly.
> >
> > <snicker> The retard continues to run from all the points I made, lurkers. He's an idiot, that's all he can do.
>
>
> Still no c

<snicker> Another moron full of bluff and bluster, running from all the points I made.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Man, you are a stump. You kooks haven't come up with anything new in decades. We're bouncing the rubble.

Let's try something new:

Tell us what you think happened. Give us as much detail as possible.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Man, yo

So, just ignoring this post, are you?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/wQqoaap3FO0/AiWus2WHAgAJ

School us, moron. Who are these General Walker experts? We'll wait. And laugh while we do so.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

There's a term called consilience that you apparently don't know about.

>You're actually just lying right now, aren't you? That's what I thought. So, are you a sometimes-believer of Marina too? I say "sometimes" because, well, you know...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs

It might've been interesting to call her to the stand if her husband was tried, but oh wait...there's that pesky spousal privilege guideline that may have gotten in the way at a criminal trial.

Keep spinning the propeller on your tinfoil beanie.

After two years of your drivel with nary a word about what you think happened (that's actually a smart move on your part), I suppose it goes over your head (again!) to point out that witness testimony is often contradictory and needs to be weighed in context, and sorted for consistency.

Marina's words on the Walker attempt are damning, and they are extensive, and she's never wavered from her belief that your hero Oswald tried to kill Walker. Couple that with the note, and a bullet found from the Walker scene that cannot be excluded as being from Oswald's rifle, and that's what makes the most sense. Oswald is historically guilty of taking a shot at Walker.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > The experts say Oswald took a shot at Walker, Boris Dunning-Kruger.
> >
> > Oh? Is there a General Walker expert I don't know about?
>
> There's a te

So that's a no. There is no "expert" who said Oswald took a shot at Walker. You're just an asshole liar. Big surprise. All you have is "what Marina said". Don't feel bad. That's all *anyone* had on the Walker incident. That's why you like her so much.

Until you don't, of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs

>
> Couple that with the note,

A note!

That said what?

>
> and a bullet found from the Walker scene that cannot be excluded as being from Oswald's rifle,

Wrong. Different caliber. You're lying again. You should have consulted the expert Walkerologists who testified. They would have told you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 9:41:45 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The experts say Oswald took a shot at Walker, Boris Dunning-Kruger.
> > >
> > > Oh? Is there a General Walker expert I don't know about?
> >
> > There's a te
>
> So that's a no. There is no "expert" who said Oswald took a shot at Walker. You're just an asshole liar. Big surprise. All you have is "what Marina said". Don't feel bad. That's all *anyone* had on the Walker incident. That's why you like her so much.
>
> Until you don't, of course.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs
>
>
> >
> > Couple that with the note,
>
> A note!
>
> That said what?

This is a Fringe Reset. You know about the note.

>
> >
> > and a bullet found from the Walker scene that cannot be excluded as being from Oswald's rifle,
>
> Wrong. Different caliber.

Wrong. Same caliber. 6.5mm.

>You're lying again. You should have consulted the expert Walkerologists who testified. They would have told you.

He's historically guilty of taking a shot at Walker. Perhaps your hard-hitting, insightful thoughts on the subject can get the good folks at The Smithsonian to change their mind?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/before-jfk-lee-harvey-oswald-tried-to-kill-an-army-major-general-609517/

Or maybe your friend the midget can try and quick-edit Wikipedia again?

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

Here's what the WCR said. And Frazier and Nicol said the Walker bullet couldn't be ruled out as having been fired from Oswald's rifle.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

Pics of CE 573 and CE 399. (You'll need to scroll down.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:41:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The experts say Oswald took a shot at Walker, Boris Dunning-Kruger.
> > >
> > > Oh? Is there a General Walker expert I don't know about?
> >
> > There's a te
>
> So that's a no. There is no "expert" who said Oswald took a shot at Walker. You're just an asshole liar. Big surprise. All you have is "what Marina said". Don't feel bad. That's all *anyone* had on the Walker incident. That's why you like her so much.
>
> Until you don't, of course.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0enPrUqqs
>
>
> >
> > Couple that with the note,
>
> A note!
>
> That said what?
>

It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)

Do you, Boris, think this note left by LHO (CE1) is referring to some OTHER (non-Walker) terrible thing that Oswald was planning on doing on 4/10/63?

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

If the note isn't referring to the shooting of General Edwin Walker, then what could that terrible and illegal thing might have been that Oswald thinks might get him killed (or arrested) on April 10th?

Please enlighten us, Mr. CTer. Or would you rather stick to the usual wishy-washy cop-out answer that most CTers like to use---i.e., "It's Fake"?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 19:23:32 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Been there, done that, you ran.

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

Why would anyone think that you'll stick around and debate if someone
does it again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:41:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Actually, and David is too dishonest to mention this - but only one of
the three handwriting experts of the HSCA considered this authentic.

It's undated, and had neither Marina nor Oswald's fingerprints on it,
even though it had seven latent prints found on it.

Tell us David - why do you think lying will advance your cause?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in
> Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it proves that Lee was about to go
> out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963, that might land him
> in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)

Since the note is undated, where did you come up with a date for the
note?

Could it be that you're simply lying again?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Couple that with the note,
> >
> > A note!
> >
> > That said what?
>
> This is a Fringe Reset. You know about the note.

Rhetorical question, moron. And you clearly don't know about the note. Hence your "Fringe/Reset" bullshit, to disguise the fact.

> >
> > >
> > > and a bullet found from the Walker scene that cannot be excluded as being from Oswald's rifle,
> >
> > Wrong. Different caliber.
>
> Wrong. Same caliber. 6.5mm.

Then you'll be producing a police report pre-dating 11/22/63 that speaks to that effect. Oh, you won't? I didn't think so.

>
> >You're lying again. You should have consulted the expert Walkerologists who testified. They would have told you.
>
> He's historically guilty of taking a shot at Walker.

"history" is not "the experts," flat earther.

>
> Here's what the WCR said.

Also not experts.

>
> And Frazier and Nicol

You don't believe them.

>
> said the Walker bullet couldn't be ruled out as having been fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

Funny, the word "caliber" doesn't even appear in that article.

>
> Pics of CE 573 and CE 399. (You'll need to scroll down.)

Nor here.

>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Yes, they look exactly the same. Oh, wait...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Couple that with the note,
> >
> > A note!
> >
> > That said what?
> >
>
> It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Was it? Tell us what the handwriting experts had to say about it. And do try and answer a question.

>
> And it proves that Lee was about to go out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963,

Outstanding! Because it actually provides *the exact same amount of proof*
that he was about to go skydiving on June 17, 1958.

>
> might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)

Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note, and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.

>
> Do you, Boris, think this note left by LHO (CE1) is referring to some OTHER (non-Walker) terrible thing that Oswald was planning on doing on 4/10/63?

What "terrible thing" is the note referring to, imbecile? Do you realize I have a similar note in my safe deposit box right now, in the event of my eventual death?

And why would a lone loser with no ties to any intelligence agency want information RE: an attempted homicide sent to the Embassy, believing they will "come quickly to your assistance"?

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:36:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:41:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Actually, and David is too dishonest to mention this - but only one of
> the three handwriting experts of the HSCA considered this authentic.
>
> It's undated, and had neither Marina nor Oswald's fingerprints on it,
> even though it had seven latent prints found on it.

As Ben ignores the information that gives insight to put all his focus on something that can take him nowhere.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Actually, and David is too dishonest to mention this - but only one of
> > the three handwriting experts of the HSCA considered this authentic.
> >
> > It's undated, and had neither Marina nor Oswald's fingerprints on it,
> > even though it had seven latent prints found on it.
>
> As Ben ignores the information that gives insight to put all his focus on something that can take him nowhere.

<snicker> bub thinks Oswald's grocery list would provide enough insight linking him to Walker. Milk...eggs...cheese...hey, he shot Walker!

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Couple that with the note,
> > >
> > > A note!
> > >
> > > That said what?
> > >
> >
> > It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Was it? Tell us what the handwriting experts had to say about it. And do try and answer a question.
>
> >
> > And it proves that Lee was about to go out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963,
>
> Outstanding! Because it actually provides *the exact same amount of proof*
> that he was about to go skydiving on June 17, 1958.

And this is why idiots are rarely tapped to conduct investigations.

> >
> > might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
>
> Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note,

"If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge..."

> and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

> > Do you, Boris, think this note left by LHO (CE1) is referring to some OTHER (non-Walker) terrible thing that Oswald was planning on doing on 4/10/63?
>
> What "terrible thing" is the note referring to, imbecile? Do you realize I have a similar note in my safe deposit box right now, in the event of my eventual death?

<snicker> *Please* tell us more.

> And why would a lone loser with no ties to any intelligence agency want information RE: an attempted homicide sent to the Embassy, believing they will "come quickly to your assistance"?

Because Oswald had his own little world going on. Much like you, with your safety deposit notes. "In the event of my unexpected demise, let it be know it is the work of Tilly, the cafeteria lady who I ratted on for stealing bananas. I leave all my Legos to my only true friend, Teddy Ruxpin".

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > And it proves that Lee was about to go out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963,
> >
> > Outstanding! Because it actually provides *the exact same amount of proof*
> > that he was about to go skydiving on June 17, 1958.
>
> And this is why idiots are rarely tapped to conduct investigations.

<snicker> And this is why idiots see content in letters that isn't there.

>
> > >
> > > might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> >
> > Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note,
>
> "If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge..."

<snicker> Because Oswald had his own little world going on. "In the event I'm taken prisoner, let it be known it is the work of Tilly, the cafeteria lady who I ratted on for stealing bananas. I leave all my Legos to my only true friend, Teddy Ruxpin".

>
> > and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.

<snicker> A mysterious silence from the retard, lurkers.

> >
> > What "terrible thing" is the note referring to, imbecile? Do you realize I have a similar note in my safe deposit box right now, in the event of my eventual death?
>
> <snicker> *Please* tell us more.

<snicker> The retard silence continues, lurkers. What "terrible" thing does the note refer to, lurkers?

This is barring the separate debate of its authenticity, mind you.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:51:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And it proves that Lee was about to go out and do something pretty bad on April 10, 1963,
> > >
> > > Outstanding! Because it actually provides *the exact same amount of proof*
> > > that he was about to go skydiving on June 17, 1958.
> >
> > And this is why idiots are rarely tapped to conduct investigations.
>
> <snicker> And this is why idiots see content in letters that isn't there.

"It`s the evidence" the idiots cry. Meanwhile, they ignore the evidence.

> >
> > > >
> > > > might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > >
> > > Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note,
> >
> > "If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge..."
>
> <snicker> Because Oswald had his own little world going on. "In the event I'm taken prisoner, let it be known it is the work of Tilly, the cafeteria lady who I ratted on for stealing bananas. I leave all my Legos to my only true friend, Teddy Ruxpin".
>
> >
> > > and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.
>
> <snicker> A mysterious silence from the retard, lurkers.

I wasn`t silent, you removed what I wrote, stupid.

What I wrote was...

"If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

With an idiot like you who is unable to make distinctions, the logic is indisputable. But if you think you are keep going to hold up apples and oranges and say they are the same, and expect me to point out the differences to you, you are sadly mistaken.

> > > What "terrible thing" is the note referring to, imbecile? Do you realize I have a similar note in my safe deposit box right now, in the event of my eventual death?
> >
> > <snicker> *Please* tell us more.
>
> <snicker> The retard silence continues, lurkers. What "terrible" thing does the note refer to, lurkers?

This is why idiots are not tapped to conduct investigations.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> "It`s the evidence" the idiots cry. Meanwhile, they ignore the evidence.

Name some. Name one. Put it up against the different caliber of bullets found at the scene. We'll examine which of us has "the evidence."

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > > >
> > > > Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note,
> > >
> > > "If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge..."
> >
> > <snicker> Because Oswald had his own little world going on. "In the event I'm taken prisoner, let it be known it is the work of Tilly, the cafeteria lady who I ratted on for stealing bananas. I leave all my Legos to my only true friend, Teddy Ruxpin".

<snicker>!!

> >
> > >
> > > > and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.
> >
> > <snicker> A mysterious silence from the retard, lurkers.
>
> I wasn`t silent, you removed what I wrote, stupid.
>
> What I wrote was...
>
> "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

You wrote garbage that didn't address any of the points made. The equivalent of silence. Then you just couldn't resist the retarded indignity of re-inserting it, thinking it restores some imagined gravitas you have.

>
> With an idiot like you who is unable to make distinctions, the logic is indisputable.

How so?

>
> But if you think you are keep going to hold up apples and oranges and say they are the same, and expect me to point out the differences to you, you are sadly mistaken.

You can't point out the differences, because it's an empty claim. There is no "apples and oranges," and you just can't delineate your platitude, and rather than risk exposing your accusation for the empty logical fallacy that it is, choose to run instead. Snicker.

> >
> > <snicker> The retard silence continues, lurkers. What "terrible" thing does the note refer to, lurkers?
>
> This is why idiots are not tapped to conduct investigations.

See above response.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3:29:12 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > "It`s the evidence" the idiots cry. Meanwhile, they ignore the evidence.

> > > >
> > > > > >

> > > > > > might land him in jail or the morgue. (What could that have been, do you suppose?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Begging the question. And frankly ASTOUNDING that you are able to glean **that much information** from such an innocuous note,
> > > >
> > > > "If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge..."
> > >
> > > <snicker> Because Oswald had his own little world going on. "In the event I'm taken prisoner, let it be known it is the work of Tilly, the cafeteria lady who I ratted on for stealing bananas. I leave all my Legos to my only true friend, Teddy Ruxpin".
>
>
> > >
> > > >

> > > > > and yet NO INFORMATION AT ALL from the Katzenbach memo. This shows your bias in triplicate.
> > >
> > > <snicker> A mysterious silence from the retard, lurkers.
> >
> > I wasn`t silent, you removed what I wrote, stupid.
> >
> > What I wrote was...
> >
> > "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."

> >

> > With an idiot like you who is unable to make distinctions, the logic is indisputable.

> > But if you think you are keep going to hold up apples and oranges and say they are the same, and expect me to point out the differences to you, you are sadly mistaken.

> > >

[borisba...@gmail.com]

LOL! Everyone look the non-answer from bub. Hit "reply" without inserting a rebuttal. In multiple threads.

Good news, though! I just unearthed evidence that Oswald was involved in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. I found the note he left Marina...

https://images.app.goo.gl/LfXE1Qep9RiNqaKP9

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:57:06 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

> LOL! Everyone look the non-answer from bub. Hit "reply" without
> inserting a rebuttal. In multiple threads.
>
> Good news, though! I just unearthed evidence that Oswald was
> involved in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. I found the note he
> left Marina...
>
>https://images.app.goo.gl/LfXE1Qep9RiNqaKP9

And the only reason Marina hasn't validated this is because the HSCA
didn't ask her.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I wouldn't be surprised if you thought Oswald was involved in De Gaulle's assassination attempt. Sounds about right for your grade-school level of reasoning.

So, Boris the Truther, tell us about the note. What's the significance behind it, what does it mean, etc.

Let's hear your take on it.


>
> https://images.app.goo.gl/LfXE1Qep9RiNqaKP9

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> So, Boris the Truther, tell us about the note.

"Us"...like you and the other "historians"?

>
> What's the significance behind it, what does it mean, etc.

It's amazing that from that note, LNer are able to derive intent, motive, timeline, a firm date, and a plan to assassinate the president.

And from the Katzenbach memo, they get absolutely nothing.

[Bud]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So, Boris the Truther, tell us about the note.
>
> "Us"...like you and the other "historians"?
>
> >
> > What's the significance behind it, what does it mean, etc.
>
> It's amazing that from that note, LNer are able to derive intent, motive, timeline, a firm date, and a plan to assassinate the president.

It seems like magic to you that people can use reason to come to conclusions from information.

> And from the Katzenbach memo, they get absolutely nothing.

The correct take.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 12:23:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > So, Boris the Truther, tell us about the note.
> >
> > "Us"...like you and the other "historians"?
> >
> > >
> > > What's the significance behind it, what does it mean, etc.
> >
> > It's amazing that from that note, LNer are able to derive intent, motive, timeline, a firm date, and a plan to assassinate the president.
>
> It seems like magic to you that people can use reason to come to conclusions from information.

Empty claim.

>
> > And from the Katzenbach memo, they get absolutely nothing.
>
> The correct take.

How so?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:26:58 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So, Boris the Truther, tell us about the note.
>
> "Us"...like you and the other "historians"?

If you've finished maneuvering a bullet out of some toddler's rectum, the few of us that post here would like you to tell us about the note. I'm afraid historians wrote you off decades ago.

>
> >
> > What's the significance behind it, what does it mean, etc.
>
> It's amazing that from that note, LNer are able to derive intent, motive, timeline, a firm date, and a plan to assassinate the president.

It's amazing that from that note, you can't.

>
> And from the Katzenbach memo, they get absolutely nothing.

What a moron you are, every day. As if we didn't discus this a few months ago. You have a memory like Glen Campbell. It's a Fringe Reset. Discussed endlessly. Boris predictably wants to flit off to a new topic and reset the argument from the fringe again to some old, well-worn freaky looking sh!t that still has him perplexed.

Try to keep your A.D.D. under control for just once and F-O-C-U-S on the note and tell us what YOU think it means. Here's your chance to trot out your very own Boris the Truther CONSPIRACY THEORY (Patent Pending) and dazzle us with your insight. Please provide a backstory, supporting evidence, any research you've done on the topic, or links and cites from the research of other brilliant researchers like "Mister" David Healy, etc. and let us know just what has your undies in a bunchie about the so-called Walker note, and why it absolutely couldn't have been written by Oswald and show evidence of intent in the Walker attempted murder.

C'mon, Boris! Let that inner-Truther light shine!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > It's amazing that from that note, LNer are able to derive intent, motive, timeline, a firm date, and a plan to assassinate the president.
>
> It's amazing that from that note, you can't.

How so?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Well you got me there. I guess I shouldn't be amazed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:56:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:52:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>Should Marina and her kids have to give some form of compensatory payment
>>>>>>>>to the descendants of JFK as a consequence of Oswald's assassination of
>>>>>>>>JFK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Found in the censored forum, this is clearly designed to elicit
>>>>>>> comments... so I'll comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It takes a *REAL* moron to think up things as nonsensical as this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is why you don`t post in the moderated forum, all you have is ad
>>>>>> hominem. You offered nothing about the idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And I predict that "Chickenshit" will defend it...)


Amusingly, "Chickenshit" proceeded to do exactly that... but he's too
dishonest to admit that there's no legal cause to go after Marina - so
he uses speculation to pretend that there was...

He can't admit that a fellow believer posted something so completely
inane and flat wrong.


>>>>>> Of course the Kennedy family had grounds for a civil suit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damn straight they did. Just like Ron Goldman's family was entitled to
>>>>> the $33-million that they were awarded in their civil suit against
>>>>> murderer O.J. Simpson in 1997.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't the Goldman family win a lawsuit against Marguerite Whitley?
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...


This alone proves "Chickenshit" and David liars...



>>>> This is, after all, a more legitimate analogy for what you are STUPIDLY
>>>> claiming.
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to predict, right here and now, that David "Chester" Pein will
>>>> not, AND CANNOT - offer a *single* example of an uninvolved and innocent
>>>> family member, wife or otherwise, being successfully sued in court for the
>>>> actions of the husband, or brother, or sister, etc...
>>
>> Amusingly, David didn't...


Nor could "Chickenshit."

That fact tells the tale...


>>> Who says Marina was uninvolved?
>>
>> Empty claim, Dumbass... But I'd imagine you'd rather be known as
>> "Dumbass" than "Chickenshit."
>
> Being a coward Ben was forced to remove most of my response
> because he had no answer to it. Here is what terrified him...


Speculation removed again. Why are you refusing to cite for your empty
claims?


>>>> Watch as David demonstrates his VAST dishonesty in his failed attempt to
>>>> change the goalposts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You are an idiot to suggest otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
>>>> HSCA considered her a liar.
>>>
>>> Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over
>>> any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to
>>> watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in
>>> side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat. Probably the most
>>> exercise they get all day.
>>
>>
>> Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
>> statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
>> believers believe.
>
> Amazing that this loner`s wife would be the sole source for much
> of his activities. And she was backed up by others, and physical
> evidence.


Notice, lurkers... that "Chickenshit" is pretending to refute what I
stated without actually doing so.


>> That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
>> just where the truth lies.
>
> You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive
> reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her
> husband`s activities.


Ad hominem shows that you don't have any citations, evidence, or
logical argument.


>>>> Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
>>>> 29 page list of her lies.
>>>
>>>LN retards cover a 29-page spread by breakfast.
>>
>>
>> I don't recall a believer ever acknowledging the existence of this
>> report, let alone attempting to refute it.
>>
>> "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
>> name of that 29 page report.
>
> But you called them lies, because you are a liar.


Notice that my statement stands unrefuted. "Chickenshit" is proving
that believers cannot publicly acknowledge that both the WC and the
HSCA showed that they knew Marina had lied.

And "Chickenshit" can't acknowledge so much as a *single* lie from
Marina.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

An honest man might wonder at the evidence factory that the Paines'
house turned into.

This note was somehow missed by police during their search - despite
the fact that they specifically looked in all the books for loose
sheets or notes.

I take that fact, combine it with the fact that it didn't have Marina
or Oswald's prints, and draw an appropriate conclusion that you can't.

The fact that David, you, and Chuckles all have to flagrantly LIE
about this evidence tells an intelligent reader all he needs to know.

So clearly, it's "Chickenshit" who's ignoring information he can't
explain.

>> Tell us David - why do you think lying will advance your cause?

Dead silence...

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:17:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 11:33:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:58:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:56:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:05:07 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 4:52:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:44:33 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Should Marina and her kids have to give some form of compensatory payment
> >>>>>>>>to the descendants of JFK as a consequence of Oswald's assassination of
> >>>>>>>>JFK.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Found in the censored forum, this is clearly designed to elicit
> >>>>>>> comments... so I'll comment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It takes a *REAL* moron to think up things as nonsensical as this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is why you don`t post in the moderated forum, all you have is ad
> >>>>>> hominem. You offered nothing about the idea.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (And I predict that "Chickenshit" will defend it...)
>
>
> Amusingly, "Chickenshit" proceeded to do exactly that... but he's too
> dishonest to admit that there's no legal cause to go after Marina - so
> he uses speculation to pretend that there was...
>
> He can't admit that a fellow believer posted something so completely
> inane and flat wrong.

Clearly I am making persuasive arguments that you have no answer to, necessitating their removal.

> >>>>>> Of course the Kennedy family had grounds for a civil suit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Damn straight they did. Just like Ron Goldman's family was entitled to
> >>>>> the $33-million that they were awarded in their civil suit against
> >>>>> murderer O.J. Simpson in 1997.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why didn't the Goldman family win a lawsuit against Marguerite Whitley?
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence...
>
>
> This alone proves "Chickenshit" and David liars...

It was a non sequitur.

>
>
> >>>> This is, after all, a more legitimate analogy for what you are STUPIDLY
> >>>> claiming.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm going to predict, right here and now, that David "Chester" Pein will
> >>>> not, AND CANNOT - offer a *single* example of an uninvolved and innocent
> >>>> family member, wife or otherwise, being successfully sued in court for the
> >>>> actions of the husband, or brother, or sister, etc...
> >>
> >> Amusingly, David didn't...
>
>
> Nor could "Chickenshit."
>
> That fact tells the tale...

Clearly I am making persuasive arguments that you have no answer to, necessitating their removal.

> >>> Who says Marina was uninvolved?
> >>
> >> Empty claim, Dumbass... But I'd imagine you'd rather be known as
> >> "Dumbass" than "Chickenshit."
> >
> > Being a coward Ben was forced to remove most of my response
> > because he had no answer to it. Here is what terrified him...
>
>
> Speculation removed again. Why are you refusing to cite for your empty
> claims?

Clearly I am making persuasive arguments that you have no answer to, necessitating their removal.

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7:14:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:02:04 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>><snicker> The retard continues to run from the points I made about Marina, lurkers.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> He has to... Let's not forget that both the Warren Commission AND the
> >>>> HSCA considered her a liar.
> >>>
> >>> Liars are attracted to liars. LNers would take Marina's side over
> >>> any decorated officer like Roger Craig any day. But it's enjoyable to
> >>> watch them dance from "I believe her" to "well, that's her opinion" in
> >>> side-to-side shuffle jumps without missing a beat. Probably the most
> >>> exercise they get all day.
> >>
> >>
> >> Amusingly, Roger Craig was CORROBORATED by others in a number of his
> >> statements, but Marina was the sole witness for many "facts" that
> >> believers believe.
> >
> > Amazing that this loner`s wife would be the sole source for much
> > of his activities. And she was backed up by others, and physical
> > evidence.
>
>
> Notice, lurkers... that "Chickenshit" is pretending to refute what I
> stated without actually doing so.

*You* brought up that Marina was the sole witness to many of these things. I brought up the proper context with which to view your claim.

> >> That believers can't publicly acknowledge these sorts of facts show
> >> just where the truth lies.
> >
> > You idiots have no interest in the truth so you have to contrive
> > reasons to disregard the information that Marina provided about her
> > husband`s activities.
>
>
> Ad hominem shows that you don't have any citations, evidence, or
> logical argument.

I just pointed out the way you idiots operate.

> >>>> Perhaps not inherently, perhaps forced... but the HSCA even produced a
> >>>> 29 page list of her lies.
> >>>
> >>>LN retards cover a 29-page spread by breakfast.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't recall a believer ever acknowledging the existence of this
> >> report, let alone attempting to refute it.
> >>
> >> "Marina Oswald Porter's Statements Of A Contradictory Nature." is the
> >> name of that 29 page report.
> >
> > But you called them lies, because you are a liar.
>
>
> Notice that my statement stands unrefuted.

Your claim remains an empty one.

> "Chickenshit" is proving
> that believers cannot publicly acknowledge that both the WC and the
> HSCA showed that they knew Marina had lied.

Yet you can`t seem to be able to show either of these entities taking that position.

> And "Chickenshit" can't acknowledge so much as a *single* lie from
> Marina.

Did Marina lie when she said she was married to Lee Harvey Oswald?

[David Healy]

LMFAO! What-a-croc!

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:36:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:41:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.
> >>
> >> Actually, and David is too dishonest to mention this - but only one of
> >> the three handwriting experts of the HSCA considered this authentic.
> >>
> >> It's undated, and had neither Marina nor Oswald's fingerprints on it,
> >> even though it had seven latent prints found on it.
> >
> > As Ben ignores the information that gives insight to put all his
> > focus on something that can take him nowhere.
>
>
> An honest man might wonder at the evidence factory that the Paines'
> house turned into.

And this is how you idiots operate. If there is evidence it is suspicious and if there isn`t evidence it is suspicious.

> This note was somehow missed by police during their search - despite
> the fact that they specifically looked in all the books for loose
> sheets or notes.

And this is also how you idiots operate. Evidence being missed is presented as being some hugely fantastic occurrence, but evidence being forged and introduced into the evidential record and getting Marina to lie about this note, this is all mundane and considered a given.

> I take that fact, combine it with the fact that it didn't have Marina
> or Oswald's prints, and draw an appropriate conclusion that you can't.
>
> The fact that David, you, and Chuckles all have to flagrantly LIE
> about this evidence tells an intelligent reader all he needs to know.

That you are so afraid of this evidence because it does harm to the silly games you play with the deaths of these men is all the audience needs to know. All the evidence that implicates Lee is brushed aside as forged, coerced, lies, planted, ect. It is a silly game played idiots to steer Lee Harvey Oswald through all the obstacles that indicate his guilt and guide him to the promised land of patsyhood. But you won`t write it all out into a narrative because you know how ridiculous it would look.

> So clearly, it's "Chickenshit" who's ignoring information he can't
> explain.

Explain what, the note being missed? It was missed by being missed. It was unfound during the initial search because it wasn`t found during the initial search.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:27:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:46:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 10:36:26 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:40:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 10:41:45 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's a note that was positively proven to have been written (in Russian) by Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, and David is too dishonest to mention this - but only one of
>>>> the three handwriting experts of the HSCA considered this authentic.
>>>>
>>>> It's undated, and had neither Marina nor Oswald's fingerprints on it,
>>>> even though it had seven latent prints found on it.
>>>
>>> As Ben ignores the information that gives insight to put all his
>>> focus on something that can take him nowhere.
>>
>>
>> An honest man might wonder at the evidence factory that the Paines'
>> house turned into.
>
> And this is how you idiots operate. If there is evidence it is
> suspicious and if there isn`t evidence it is suspicious.


An honest man might wonder at the evidence factory that the Paines'
house turned into.

There was a reason I specified an *HONEST* man...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2019 15:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

"refute" is your strawman. I was looking at the information correctly.

[Bud]

Which excludes you. You`re an idiot who finds it suspicious when there evidence and when there isn`t evidence.

[Bud]

You promptly fled from your position that she was "uninvolved", why was that?

> He can't admit that a fellow believer posted something so completely
> inane and flat wrong.

Begged.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

As you aren't an honest man, you have no interest in the evidence
factory that the Paine residence turned into.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Do you think Ruth Paine was somehow involved in a nefarious way with this so-called evidence factory?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

No, it was her pet parakeet who "found" all this new evidence after
the house had been searched by the DPD. Obviously the parakeet was the
guilty party. Ruth Paine didn't know anything, she simply handed over
to officials what the parakeet "found."

But perhaps **YOU** have a better solution.

Go for it!

[Bud]

"evidence factory" is begged, it implies what you can`t show, that evidence was manufactured, O honest one.

[Bud]

Ben would much rather vaguely allude to things than make a specific argument he might have to back up.

> Obviously the parakeet was the
> guilty party. Ruth Paine didn't know anything, she simply handed over
> to officials what the parakeet "found."
>
> But perhaps **YOU** have a better solution.

Shifting the burden. Try to make an argument, just to see what it is like.

> Go for it!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Begged.


Notice again that I was right... "Chickenshit" simply cannot admit
that a fellow believer posted something so provably dumb.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 15:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Notice lurkers... that "Chickenshit" is *still* pretending to refute
what I stated without actually doing so. And Roger Craig was
corroborated, while Marina was not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:35:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

It's not possible to show anything to a dishonest person.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 10:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

"Chickenshit" and Chuckles would rather stick their head in the sand
than to admit what is obvious.

>> Obviously the parakeet was the
>> guilty party. Ruth Paine didn't know anything, she simply handed over
>> to officials what the parakeet "found."
>>
>> But perhaps **YOU** have a better solution.
>
> Shifting the burden. Try to make an argument, just to see what it is like.

It's your burden.


>> Go for it!