How Could Anyone Actually Believe The Magic Bullet Theory?

[lazu...@gmail.com]

It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.

What's your theory?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
SBT.

Where's your evidence???

WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nah. I'm not playing your game. You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence better than the prevailing, historical narrative stating Oswald fired the shots that killed or injured anyone that day.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:31:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
>> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
>> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
>> >> all the key witnesses.
>> >
>> >What's your theory?
>>
>> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
>> SBT.
>>
>> Where's your evidence???
>>
>> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
>
> Nah. I'm not playing your game. You're challenging the case, so it's
> your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
> better than the prevailing, historical narrative stating Oswald fired
> the shots that killed or injured anyone that day.

And you're DEFENDING THE CASE.

I've met my burden. I *HAVE* produced a scenario that explains the
evidence far better than the one that the Warren Commission produced.

I'VE MET MY BURDEN... you simply snipped it, and ran away... (then
lied about snipping it... remember?)

But you're not carrying your burden.

Why are you so terrified of defending your wacky ideas?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Nah. I'm not playing your game. You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence better than the prevailing, historical narrative stating Oswald fired the shots that killed or injured anyone that day.

CE399 had no blood or tissue on it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol, Ben is really frustrated with this line because I'm not taking his "bait" to constantly answer his begged questions and deal with his non-stop logical fallacies. Ben's entire schtick is a series of ad hominem attacks, inferences, and other logical fallacies. In f act, it's the same schtick nearly every JFK Truther employs.

Ben obviously disagrees, but I don't need to do a damn thing to defend the WC. This is not a trial whereby if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. The WC findings is the pillar that historians use when writing the history of 11/22/63. The kooks need to present a positive case that spells out what they believe happened in Dealey Plaza that day. This can then be examined on its own merit.

Get moving, Yellow Pants. Carry your burden.

So there is no co-burden, no equal burden.

[Jason Burke]

His theory is that his mama got most of his brain with the rusty coat
hanger.

Pretty much similar to all CT fools.

[Jason Burke]

Are you HONESTLY this fucking stupid, Holmes?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:52:36 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:36:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 11:31:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
>> >> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
>> >> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
>> >> >> all the key witnesses.
>> >> >
>> >> >What's your theory?
>> >>
>> >> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
>> >> SBT.
>> >>
>> >> Where's your evidence???

Chuckles doesn't know. He's terrified that others might know the case
evidence better than he does.

>> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
>> >
>> > Nah. I'm not playing your game. You're challenging the case, so it's
>> > your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
>> > better than the prevailing, historical narrative stating Oswald fired
>> > the shots that killed or injured anyone that day.
>>
>> And you're DEFENDING THE CASE.
>>
>> I've met my burden. I *HAVE* produced a scenario that explains the
>> evidence far better than the one that the Warren Commission produced.
>>
>> I'VE MET MY BURDEN... you simply snipped it, and ran away... (then
>> lied about snipping it... remember?)

Dead silence. Chuckles just ignores what he can't refute.

>> But you're not carrying your burden.
>>
>> Why are you so terrified of defending your wacky ideas?
>
> Lol, Ben is really frustrated with this line because I'm not taking
> his "bait" to constantly answer his begged questions and deal with his
> non-stop logical fallacies. Ben's entire schtick is a series of ad
> hominem attacks, inferences, and other logical fallacies. In f act,
> it's the same schtick nearly every JFK Truther employs.

Who's "frustrated?"

I *EXPECT* lies and cowardice... this is all believers have.

If I were "frustrated" by liars and cowards, I'd have long ago stopped
posting on this topic.

> Ben obviously disagrees, but I don't need to do a damn thing to
> defend the WC.

Yes moron, you do. The fact that you refuse to even try shows that you
know you can't.

> This is not a trial whereby if the glove doesn't fit, you must
> acquit. The WC findings is the pillar that historians use when writing
> the history of 11/22/63. The kooks need to present a positive case
> that spells out what they believe happened in Dealey Plaza that day.
> This can then be examined on its own merit.

And as historians begin to review newer material, and begin to accept
the latest research, and latest investigatory conclusions, where are
you going to go???

If you can't defend your faith now, it's only going to get worse...

>Get moving, Yellow Pants. Carry your burden.

Been there, done that, you snipped it and ran away... then lied about
having snipped it.

This fact shows that you know you can't answer...

>So there is no co-burden, no equal burden.

There is **ALWAYS** a burden for an honest person to be capable of
justifying that which you believe.

So yes stupid, there *IS* an absolutely equal burden.

CARRY YOUR BURDEN!!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The burden was carried. Now it's your turn to produce a case. Get busy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:39:26 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Which means, of course, that the theory supported by evidence showing
that this bullet was swapped in for the real bullet that was found
explains the known evidence BETTER than the Warren Commission's theory
that everyone was wrong.

Chuckles thinks everyone was simply mistaken.

It's easier to simply accept that Chuckles is mistaken.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:35:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You've offered *NOTHING* but unsubstantiated claims.

WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE???

Stop lying, and produce the evidence...

> Now it's your turn to produce a case. Get busy.

Been there, done that... you snipped it and ran away... then lied and
claimed you'd never snipped it.

CARRY YOUR BURDEN, COWARD!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Which means, of course, that the theory supported by evidence showing
> that this bullet was swapped in for the real bullet that was found
> explains the known evidence BETTER than the Warren Commission's theory
> that everyone was wrong.
>
> Chuckles thinks everyone was simply mistaken.
>
> It's easier to simply accept that Chuckles is mistaken.

He didn't even acknowledge I said it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 12:45:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Chuckles fails to acknowledge most anything that contradicts his
faith. He's not unusual in this - most believers are cowards.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
> >> all the key witnesses.
> >
> >What's your theory?
>
> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
> SBT.

The evidence does that quite nicely, lurkers.

The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a person was seen shooting from.

Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.

Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.

Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.

The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.

> Where's your evidence???

Evidence is neutral, lurkers, there is no "yours/ours". This wording goes to show that Ben is merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???

A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?

As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post, one must remind the troll that he failed beyond all redemption of proving the SBT. Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible. This is not a good thread for the troll to be spouting off.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?
>
> As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,

List them.

> one must remind the troll that he failed beyond all redemption of proving the SBT.

I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.

> Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.

How so?

> This is not a good thread for the troll to be spouting off.

If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
>
> List them.

- Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.

(It didn't)

- Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.

("A person"...even the troll can't admit the guy Brennan saw was Oswald).

Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.

(Cite this)

The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.

(It didn't)

>
> I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.

Lucky for you. Then you'd have even MORE evidence to deny.

>
> > Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.
>
> How so?

Well for one thing, the MythBusters test---which YOU cited---showed a bullet entering the back of the gelatin torso and transiting halfway down the chest, close to his stomach! That was a *beautiful* epic fail.

>
> If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?

Bluff and bluster, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
>> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
>> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
>> >> all the key witnesses.
>> >
>> >What's your theory?
>>
>> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
>> SBT.
>
> The evidence does that quite nicely, lurkers.

If it did, then believers wouldn't be TERRIFIED all the time of
providing it.

Notice that dufus refused to cite any evidence also... and what little
he listed, is easily refuted.

> The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
> person was seen shooting from.

No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc

Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
"line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.

If you can see the *side* of the limo, you're looking at an angle to
the limo.

To line up - you wouldn't see the *side* of the limo so clearly...
which demonstrates the *ANGLE* that dufus is too dishonest to
acknowledge.

This is one of the major problems that believers have - they simply
accept what the Warren Commission said without checking it for
themselves.

> Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.

This is a blatant lie. And stump knows it. The Warren Commission went
out of their way to explain a *delayed* reaction on the part of
Connally. This would have been *completely* unnecessary had Connally
actually reacted at the same time as JFK.

Dufus is calling the Warren Commission wrong, but not courageous
enough to actually say it.

It's only been in recent years that believers have changed their mind,
and pretend that some movement or other of Connally's is now the
"reaction" that they need.

Then simply ignore the *OBVIOUS* reaction.

Indeed, the Warren Commission simply *LIED* with their claim that "it
is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to
determine just which shot hit Gov. Connally." - it was ABSOLUTELY
necessary.

If Connally were *NOT* hit by the SBT - then there was a PROVABLE
conspiracy.

End of story.

And not *one single believer* is honest enough to acknowledge this
blatant lie by the Warren Commission.

Certainly not Chuckles or dufus.

> Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on
> the floor a person was seen shooting from.

Sorry, this has *NOTHING* to do with the SBT.

It doesn't support it, it doesn't refute it. It literally has NOTHING
WHATSOEVER to do with the SBT.

Sorta like saying both men were in a limo - therefore the *LIMO*
demonstrates that one shot hit both men.

Silly!

> Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same
> ammunition, which did not break up during the test.

No-one has asserted that a single bullet cannot go through two men.
But the Warren Commission *NEVER* produced a bullet in the same
condition as CE-399 from their testing... and you know this.

So you're simply lying again.

When you repeatedly lie, and *KNOWINGLY* lie - to support your faith,
you're not going to convince anyone.

> The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck
> and exited his throat.

No... once again you're lying, and you *KNOW* you're lying. There was
*NOTHING* at the autopsy which demonstrated transit, and they clearly
RULED TRANSIT OUT during the autopsy.

They "concluded" transit AFTER THE BODY WAS GONE - and there's no
medical evidence WHATSOEVER that demonstrates transit.

So you're simply lying.

Can't you do better than this?

Can't you defend your faith without flagrantly lying?

>> Where's your evidence???
>
> Evidence is neutral, lurkers, there is no "yours/ours". This
> wording goes to show that Ben is merely playing silly games with the
> deaths of these men.

Evidence is not "neutral" - it shows what happened. If you have a
gunshot wound at the autopsy, you don't go looking for the suspect's
knife - that would be silly.

So once again - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE SBT???

You've lied about the victims being lined up, you've lied about the
timing, you've lied about what the autopsy showed... NOTHING BUT
SPECULATION AND LIES!

Where's your evidence???

WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEF THAT JFK AND CONNALLY WERE
STRUCK BY THE SAME BULLET???

>> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
>

> I'm a retard what could matter less, lurkers?

Indeed.

But the issue here is the inability of Chuckles and dufus to cite the
evidence.

As shown here, Chuckles was right to keep his mouth shut... dufus
tried, and failed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:01:32 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Well stated.

Dufus failed miserably. Where's the "A" team?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:10:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:01:33 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?
>>
>> As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
>
> List them.

I took the time to do so.

Refute me if you can.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence

CE399 had no blood or tissue on it. And you're right, I *can't* explain that. Can you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:58:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
>
> CE399 had no blood or tissue on it. And you're right, I *can't*
> explain that. Can you?

Chuckles won't. He'll run like the coward he is. He won't even *try*
to answer.

I've predicted it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Great post! On behalf of people who actually care, thank you for putting far more effort into your answers than I did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

Oh, I didn't say anything that dufus couldn't have written. Chuckles
simply doesn't know enough about this case... David Chester Pein isn't
smart enough, and no other believers around here had the knowledge.

But stump could easily have written my reply.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:22:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
> >
> > List them.
>
> - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
>
> (It didn't)

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> - Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.

How is this a lie? Be specific.

> ("A person"...even the troll can't admit the guy Brennan saw was Oswald).

Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.

> Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
>
> (Cite this)

The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.

>
> The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
>
> (It didn't)

The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?

> >
> > I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.
>
> Lucky for you. Then you'd have even MORE evidence to deny.

So why do you keep asking for proof when the only possible proof is unavailable?

> >
> > > Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Well for one thing, the MythBusters test---which YOU cited---showed a bullet entering the back of the gelatin torso and transiting halfway down the chest, close to his stomach!

Show where the bullet exited.

> That was a *beautiful* epic fail.
>
>
> >
> > If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?
>
> Bluff and bluster, lurkers.

The retards don`t like the SBT. It is like trying to get a kid who hates carrots to eat carrots.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Looks like it's your turn to be ignored, Ben. No doubt the troll read the entirety of your comprehensive response before it slunk past it. Did you see, the troll actually cited a GIF as evidence!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
> >> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
> >> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
> >> >> all the key witnesses.
> >> >
> >> >What's your theory?
> >>
> >> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
> >> SBT.
> >
> > The evidence does that quite nicely, lurkers.
>
>
> If it did, then believers wouldn't be TERRIFIED all the time of
> providing it.
>
> Notice that dufus refused to cite any evidence also... and what little
> he listed, is easily refuted.

Retards don`t like the SBT or the support for it. They want to bitch about the ideas while never presenting anything themselves and they want to pretend that reasonable people are somehow prevented from drawing reasonable conclusions because they can`t, lurkers.

>
> > The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
> > person was seen shooting from.
>
>
> No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc

What does Ben think think shows, lurkers.

> Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
> "line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.

Lurkers, computer modeling shows Ben is wrong...

1:30 on...

https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA

> If you can see the *side* of the limo, you're looking at an angle to
> the limo.
>
> To line up - you wouldn't see the *side* of the limo so clearly...
> which demonstrates the *ANGLE* that dufus is too dishonest to
> acknowledge.
>
> This is one of the major problems that believers have - they simply
> accept what the Warren Commission said without checking it for
> themselves.
>
>
> > Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
>
>
> This is a blatant lie.

Anyone can see it for themselves, lurkers...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> And stump knows it. The Warren Commission went
> out of their way to explain a *delayed* reaction on the part of
> Connally. This would have been *completely* unnecessary had Connally
> actually reacted at the same time as JFK.
>
> Dufus is calling the Warren Commission wrong, but not courageous
> enough to actually say it.

I`m saying what I said, lurkers. Ben can misdirect anywhere he likes.

> It's only been in recent years that believers have changed their mind,
> and pretend that some movement or other of Connally's is now the
> "reaction" that they need.

Why is Connally acting like he does in that .gif if he wasn`t shot, lurkers?

> Then simply ignore the *OBVIOUS* reaction.

He was hit by a bullet, lurkers. Amazing that the film shows just what the SBT requires. Thats what happens when your ideas are grounded in reality.

> Indeed, the Warren Commission simply *LIED* with their claim that "it
> is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to
> determine just which shot hit Gov. Connally." - it was ABSOLUTELY
> necessary.

For Ben to understand how this came about he would need some measure of honesty that he lacks, lurkers.

> If Connally were *NOT* hit by the SBT - then there was a PROVABLE
> conspiracy.
>
> End of story.
>
> And not *one single believer* is honest enough to acknowledge this
> blatant lie by the Warren Commission.
>
> Certainly not Chuckles or dufus.
>
>
> > Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on
> > the floor a person was seen shooting from.
>
>
> Sorry, this has *NOTHING* to do with the SBT.

It is supportive of shots fired from the location a shooter was seen shooting when the two victims were lined up one in front of the other from that vantage. This kind of information is no use to retards, but reasoning people can use it just fine.

> It doesn't support it, it doesn't refute it. It literally has NOTHING
> WHATSOEVER to do with the SBT.

This is why retards are never tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers. They have no understanding of the consilience of evidence. Even the number of shots largely reported is a factor.

> Sorta like saying both men were in a limo - therefore the *LIMO*
> demonstrates that one shot hit both men.
>
> Silly!
>
>
> > Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same
> > ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
>
>
> No-one has asserted that a single bullet cannot go through two men.
> But the Warren Commission *NEVER* produced a bullet in the same
> condition as CE-399 from their testing... and you know this.

Why would you expect exact results if you don`t recreate the event exactly, lurkers? How could you recreate the event exactly?

> So you're simply lying again.

Since conspiracy retards have no ability to reason they see all reasoning as some sort of deceit.

> When you repeatedly lie, and *KNOWINGLY* lie - to support your faith,
> you're not going to convince anyone.
>
>
> > The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck
> > and exited his throat.
>
>
> No...

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. That was indeed the finding of the autopsy.

> once again you're lying, and you *KNOW* you're lying. There was
> *NOTHING* at the autopsy which demonstrated transit, and they clearly
> RULED TRANSIT OUT during the autopsy.
>
> They "concluded" transit AFTER THE BODY WAS GONE - and there's no
> medical evidence WHATSOEVER that demonstrates transit.
>
> So you're simply lying.
>
> Can't you do better than this?
>
> Can't you defend your faith without flagrantly lying?
>
>
> >> Where's your evidence???
> >
> > Evidence is neutral, lurkers, there is no "yours/ours". This
> > wording goes to show that Ben is merely playing silly games with the
> > deaths of these men.
>
> Evidence is not "neutral" - it shows what happened. If you have a
> gunshot wound at the autopsy, you don't go looking for the suspect's
> knife - that would be silly.
>
> So once again - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE SBT???

I posted it, lurkers.

> You've lied about the victims being lined up, you've lied about the
> timing, you've lied about what the autopsy showed... NOTHING BUT
> SPECULATION AND LIES!
>
> Where's your evidence???
>
> WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEF THAT JFK AND CONNALLY WERE
> STRUCK BY THE SAME BULLET???

Still there, lurkers, unharmed by Ben`s objections.

>
> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
> >
> > I'm a retard what could matter less, lurkers?
>
> Indeed.
>
> But the issue here is the inability of Chuckles and dufus to cite the
> evidence.
>
> As shown here, Chuckles was right to keep his mouth shut... dufus
> tried, and failed.

As a retard judges things, lurkers.

These children hate their carrots.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:58:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
>
> CE399 had no blood or tissue on it.

Who tested it for these things?

And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he did wipe some matter off the bullet.

[Bud]

Wait til Healy finds out someone else has filled his old position.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:01:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?
>
> As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post, one must remind the troll that he failed beyond all redemption of proving the SBT. Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.

Impossible to whom?

This is not a good thread for the troll to be spouting off.

The Dunning-Kruger effect was coined to describe people like you and Ben.

Definition: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.

[Bud]

Where am I going to find stupid pills, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:22:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
>> >
>> > List them.
>>
>> - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
>>
>> (It didn't)
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>> - Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.
>
> How is this a lie? Be specific.

The answer to this moronic question is in the very next statement.

>> ("A person"...even the troll can't admit the guy Brennan saw was Oswald).
>
> Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.

A response that doesn't address the point made.

>> Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
>>
>> (Cite this)
>
> The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.

So you're not even using Warren Commission data...

*AMAZING*!!!

If that program showed something contrary to what the Warren
Commission testing showed, then it's meaningless, isn't it?

And the testing performed by the Warren Commission could *NEVER*
produce a bullet that looked nearly as pristine as CE-399.

That's a fact.

My guess is that the "program" didn't either. Or did by cheating in
the testing.

>> The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
>>
>> (It didn't)
>
> The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?

No they didn't.

You'll *NEVER* cite Drs. Humes, Boswell, or Finck as stating that they
located a transiting bullet path during the autopsy.

So you're not only lying, you *KNOW* you're lying.

It's a *FACT* that the "conclusion" of transit came *AT LEAST* a day
later, and was **NOT** based on the primary examination of the body.

>> > I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.
>>
>> Lucky for you. Then you'd have even MORE evidence to deny.
>
> So why do you keep asking for proof when the only possible proof is unavailable?

This is simple - we're showing that you can't support your faith with
evidence.

But clearly, you think lies will work.

>> > > Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> Well for one thing, the MythBusters test---which YOU
>> cited---showed a bullet entering the back of the gelatin torso and
>> transiting halfway down the chest, close to his stomach!
>
> Show where the bullet exited.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter. If it didn't break bone, and come
out as pristine as CE-399 did - fired from the same distance and same
ammunition & rifle - it simply isn't relevant.

>> That was a *beautiful* epic fail.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?
>>
>> Bluff and bluster, lurkers.
>

> I'm a retard who hates carrots.

No-one cares.

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:17:32 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.

My Theory Chuck is it didn't happen. Just imagine if you were sitting around with the Late Sibert-O'Neill-Custer-Crenshaw-PerryJenkins-O'Conner etc. and they told you in tandem it was BS! Would you make an ass of yourself and say" You guys don't know what you are talking about! Would you question a Vietnam vet who told you of their experiences" No it couldn't have happened that way? Some jackass who was never there knows better?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:58:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
>>
>> CE399 had no blood or tissue on it.
>
> Who tested it for these things?

The FBI.

But you knew that.

> And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he
> did wipe some matter off the bullet.

No, I think people would discover that you're lying again:

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination?
That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and
it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet
when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no,
sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to
actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

Why do you think you can lie with impunity?

>> And you're right, I *can't* explain that. Can you?

Dufus did... but only by lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:09:03 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 4:01:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > A conspiracy retard call perfectly ration ideas "wacky", what could matter less, lurkers?
>>
>> As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
>> one must remind the troll that he failed beyond all redemption of
>> proving the SBT. Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was
>> impossible.
>
>Impossible to whom?

To any honest intelligent person.

Sorry Chuckles... you don't qualify.

>This is not a good thread for the troll to be spouting off.

Then why are you spouting off?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > CE399 had no blood or tissue on it.
>
> Who tested it for these things?
>
> And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he did wipe some matter off the bullet.

Here's Frazier's testimony:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Frazier.htm

Thanks for coming out to play.

And I already know which part of his testimony you're going to attempt to cite next. And, more importantly, the part you're going to leave out.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
> >
> > (It didn't)
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

I love this gif. He's still holding his Stetson!!

>
> Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.

And?

>
> > Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
> >
> > (Cite this)
>
> The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.

LOL!! You didn't learn your lesson citing "evidence" from your TV set the first time, I see. Shall all *my* evidence going forward be nine-part "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" program? Nah.

> >
> > The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
> >
> > (It didn't)
>
> The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?

Feel free to cite these "expects".

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> The Dunning-Kruger effect was coined to describe people like you and Ben.

Oh, I thought it was coined as a tool of stonewalling for trolls like yourself, to avoid questions they can't answer.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> >
> > > The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
> > > person was seen shooting from.
> >
> >
> > No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc
>
> What does Ben think think shows, lurkers.
>
> > Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
> > "line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.
>
> Lurkers, computer modeling shows Ben is wrong...
>
> 1:30 on...
>
> https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA
>

Bud believes someone's computer model trumps *actual* footage of a *real* car, in the *real* location, from the *actual* vantage point of the sixth floor window.

Don't be like Bud.

>
> > And stump knows it. The Warren Commission went
> > out of their way to explain a *delayed* reaction on the part of
> > Connally. This would have been *completely* unnecessary had Connally
> > actually reacted at the same time as JFK.
> >
> > Dufus is calling the Warren Commission wrong, but not courageous
> > enough to actually say it.
>
> I`m saying what I said, lurkers. Ben can misdirect anywhere he likes.
>
> > It's only been in recent years that believers have changed their mind,
> > and pretend that some movement or other of Connally's is now the
> > "reaction" that they need.
>
> Why is Connally acting like he does in that .gif if he wasn`t shot, lurkers?
>
> > Then simply ignore the *OBVIOUS* reaction.
>
> He was hit by a bullet, lurkers. Amazing that the film shows just what the SBT requires. Thats what happens when your ideas are grounded in reality.

Chucky was smart enough to ignore the issues brought up in the last few hours and instead snipe non-sequitirs from the perimeter without actually addressing anything. Bud wasn't.

Don't be like Bud.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:17:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:34:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:22:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
> >> >
> >> > List them.
> >>
> >> - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
> >>
> >> (It didn't)
> >
> > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> >
> >> - Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.
> >
> > How is this a lie? Be specific.
>
>
> The answer to this moronic question is in the very next statement.
>
>
> >> ("A person"...even the troll can't admit the guy Brennan saw was Oswald).
> >
> > Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.
>
>
> A response that doesn't address the point made.

I don`t understand these retards, lurkers. If you write a sentence containing too much information they get confused.

My statement contained these elements...

A person was seen shooting.

That shooting location was a particular floor.

On that particular floor a rifle was found.

That rifle was matched ballistically to the bullet fragments found in the limo.

Somehow when these things a put together in a sentence it become a lie to the tards, but they can`t seem to come out and say what the lie is. "Boris" seemed to think the things had something to do with Oswald, even though I only used the term "shooter".

> >> Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
> >>
> >> (Cite this)
> >
> > The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.
>
>
> So you're not even using Warren Commission data...

> *AMAZING*!!!
>
> If that program showed something contrary to what the Warren
> Commission testing showed, then it's meaningless, isn't it?
>
> And the testing performed by the Warren Commission could *NEVER*
> produce a bullet that looked nearly as pristine as CE-399.
>
> That's a fact.

They didn`t shoot a bullet through Kennedy and Connally like Oswald did, lurkers.

> My guess is that the "program" didn't either. Or did by cheating in
> the testing.

My guess is that conspiracy retards will always reject things that do harm to their silly hobby, lurkers.

>
> >> The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
> >>
> >> (It didn't)
> >
> > The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?
>
> No they didn't.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. The autopsy did indeed find what I said they had.

>
> You'll *NEVER* cite Drs. Humes, Boswell, or Finck as stating that they
> located a transiting bullet path during the autopsy.
>
> So you're not only lying, you *KNOW* you're lying.
>
> It's a *FACT* that the "conclusion" of transit came *AT LEAST* a day
> later, and was **NOT** based on the primary examination of the body.
>
>
>
> >> > I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.
> >>
> >> Lucky for you. Then you'd have even MORE evidence to deny.
> >
> > So why do you keep asking for proof when the only possible proof is unavailable?
>
>
> This is simple - we're showing that you can't support your faith with
> evidence.

I can`t convince children who hate carrots to eat their carrots, lurkers.

> But clearly, you think lies will work.

Ben clearly thinks that ad hominem can help him, lurkers.

> >> > > Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> Well for one thing, the MythBusters test---which YOU
> >> cited---showed a bullet entering the back of the gelatin torso and
> >> transiting halfway down the chest, close to his stomach!
> >
> > Show where the bullet exited.
>
>
> Quite frankly, it doesn't matter. If it didn't break bone, and come
> out as pristine as CE-399 did - fired from the same distance and same
> ammunition & rifle - it simply isn't relevant.

<snicker> Such exactitude necessary, such a high, unattainable bar set. If Ben can show how the event can be perfectly replicated then we can see what is and isn`t possible. But with such a high level of proof required one wonder why have any testing at all? They can say "can`t" and we can counter with "can".

But let look at what was done. They took the exact same type rifle and using the same ammo took a shot from the same height to where they positioned replicas of the men, painstakingly trying to get details like bullet entrance, how they are lined up, ect as exact as they could. Then they fired a shot to see what would happen. This is what happened...

https://youtu.be/PZRUNYZY71g

Now, I see this as highly supportive of the SBT, but the tards see it as giving no insight into the event. I suppose they see the supportive elements as just being some sort of cosmic coincidence.

> >> That was a *beautiful* epic fail.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?
> >>
> >> Bluff and bluster, lurkers.
> >

> > "I'm a retard who hates carrots." -Ben Holmes
>
> No-one cares.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
>> >> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
>> >> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
>> >> >> all the key witnesses.
>> >> >
>> >> >What's your theory?
>> >>
>> >> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
>> >> SBT.
>> >
>> > The evidence does that quite nicely, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> If it did, then believers wouldn't be TERRIFIED all the time of
>> providing it.
>>
>> Notice that dufus refused to cite any evidence also... and what little
>> he listed, is easily refuted.
>

> I'm a retard.


This isn't a refutation of what I stated.

>> > The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
>> > person was seen shooting from.
>>
>>
>> No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc
>
> What does Ben think think shows, lurkers.

That you're a provable liar. What *else* did you think it showed?

>> Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
>> "line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.
>
> Lurkers, computer modeling shows Ben is wrong...

Can't "line up" when there's an angle to the limo.

> 1:30 on...
>
> https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA

Fail.

I showed the actual line of sight of the shooter. You showed
speculation.

Speculation loses to fact every single time.

>> If you can see the *side* of the limo, you're looking at an angle to
>> the limo.
>>
>> To line up - you wouldn't see the *side* of the limo so clearly...
>> which demonstrates the *ANGLE* that dufus is too dishonest to
>> acknowledge.
>>
>> This is one of the major problems that believers have - they simply
>> accept what the Warren Commission said without checking it for
>> themselves.
>>
>>
>> > Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
>>
>> This is a blatant lie.
>
> Anyone can see it for themselves, lurkers...
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

Actually... no.

And the Warren Commission are liars, according to you.

*THEY* couldn't see it.

So they either lied, or they were so incredibly inept that nothing
else they produced can be counted on.

Which was it, dufus?

Or is there another explanation that I missed?

>> And stump knows it. The Warren Commission went
>> out of their way to explain a *delayed* reaction on the part of
>> Connally. This would have been *completely* unnecessary had Connally
>> actually reacted at the same time as JFK.
>>
>> Dufus is calling the Warren Commission wrong, but not courageous
>> enough to actually say it.
>
> I`m saying what I said, lurkers. Ben can misdirect anywhere he likes.

If *YOU* are right, then the Warren Commission made a TREMENDOUSLY
HUGE MISTAKE.

That means that you can't count on them for anything.

If they couldn't see what you claim "anyone" can see... then someone
is lying.


On what basis are you contradicting the Warren Commission?

>> It's only been in recent years that believers have changed their mind,
>> and pretend that some movement or other of Connally's is now the
>> "reaction" that they need.
>
> Why is Connally acting like he does in that .gif if he wasn`t shot, lurkers?

What did he *SAY* he was doing?

(Run coward... RUN!)

>> Then simply ignore the *OBVIOUS* reaction.
>
> He was hit by a bullet, lurkers. Amazing that the film shows just
> what the SBT requires. Thats what happens when your ideas are grounded
> in reality.

And once again, dufus ignores and fails to explain the *actual*
reaction.

Why do you suppose you know better than Connally & the Warren
Commission?

>> Indeed, the Warren Commission simply *LIED* with their claim that "it
>> is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to
>> determine just which shot hit Gov. Connally." - it was ABSOLUTELY
>> necessary.
>
> For Ben to understand how this came about he would need some
> measure of honesty that he lacks, lurkers.

EXPLAIN IT - MORON!!! I DARE YOU!!

But you won't. You'll evade again as you just did... pretending to
answer but not really saying anything other than ad hominems...

>> If Connally were *NOT* hit by the SBT - then there was a PROVABLE
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> End of story.
>>
>> And not *one single believer* is honest enough to acknowledge this
>> blatant lie by the Warren Commission.
>>
>> Certainly not Chuckles or dufus.

My prediction hit the nail on the head. dufus was unwilling to
acknowledge a simple fact.

Without the SBT, there *HAD TO BE* another weapon.


Unless, of course, you acknowledge that the film was edited... in
which case you don't necessarily need another shooter - but you've
proven a conspiracy in any case.

>> > Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on
>> > the floor a person was seen shooting from.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, this has *NOTHING* to do with the SBT.
>
> It is supportive of shots fired from the location a shooter was
> seen shooting when the two victims were lined up one in front of the
> other from that vantage.

As I already pointed out, it doesn't support it, it doesn't refute it,
it has NOTHING to do with the SBT.


> I'm a retard.

>
>> It doesn't support it, it doesn't refute it. It literally has NOTHING
>> WHATSOEVER to do with the SBT.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> Sorta like saying both men were in a limo - therefore the *LIMO*
>> demonstrates that one shot hit both men.
>>
>> Silly!

And yet, dufus had nothing to say.

>> > Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same
>> > ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
>>
>>
>> No-one has asserted that a single bullet cannot go through two men.
>> But the Warren Commission *NEVER* produced a bullet in the same
>> condition as CE-399 from their testing... and you know this.
>
> Why would you expect exact results if you don`t recreate the event
> exactly, lurkers? How could you recreate the event exactly?

Sad to say, every medical expert, and some of the ballistics experts,
contradict you - and *THEY* believe that such a bullet trajectory
would have resulted in far more damage to the bullet.

This **IS** what the testing showed.

This logical fallacy of stump's won't fly.

>> So you're simply lying again.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> When you repeatedly lie, and *KNOWINGLY* lie - to support your faith,
>> you're not going to convince anyone.
>>
>>
>> > The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck
>> > and exited his throat.
>>
>> No...
>

> I love to lie, lurkers.

>
>> once again you're lying, and you *KNOW* you're lying. There was
>> *NOTHING* at the autopsy which demonstrated transit, and they clearly
>> RULED TRANSIT OUT during the autopsy.
>>
>> They "concluded" transit AFTER THE BODY WAS GONE - and there's no
>> medical evidence WHATSOEVER that demonstrates transit.
>>
>> So you're simply lying.
>>
>> Can't you do better than this?
>>
>> Can't you defend your faith without flagrantly lying?

Evidently not.

>> >> Where's your evidence???
>> >
>> > Evidence is neutral, lurkers, there is no "yours/ours". This
>> > wording goes to show that Ben is merely playing silly games with the
>> > deaths of these men.
>>
>> Evidence is not "neutral" - it shows what happened. If you have a
>> gunshot wound at the autopsy, you don't go looking for the suspect's
>> knife - that would be silly.
>>
>> So once again - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE SBT???
>
> I posted it, lurkers.

Then you've made my case.

>> You've lied about the victims being lined up, you've lied about the
>> timing, you've lied about what the autopsy showed... NOTHING BUT
>> SPECULATION AND LIES!
>>
>> Where's your evidence???
>>
>> WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEF THAT JFK AND CONNALLY WERE
>> STRUCK BY THE SAME BULLET???
>
> Still there, lurkers, unharmed by Ben`s objections.

And that, folks, tells the tale.

Lies and speculation are all that dufus could offer.

>> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
>> >
>> > I'm a retard what could matter less, lurkers?
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> But the issue here is the inability of Chuckles and dufus to cite the
>> evidence.
>>
>> As shown here, Chuckles was right to keep his mouth shut... dufus
>> tried, and failed.
>

> I'm a retard, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:58:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > You're challenging the case, so it's your burden to put up a different theory that explains the evidence
> >>
> >> CE399 had no blood or tissue on it.
> >
> > Who tested it for these things?
>
> The FBI.

Did they, lurkers?

> But you knew that.

Did I, lurkers?

I vaguely remember that Tomlinson put the bullet in his pocket for awhile and then he gave it to some other guy, who put it in his pocket for awhile. I would think walking around with a bullet in your pocket would tend to wipe material off of it.

Be interesting to find Tomlinson`s pants, check the pockets for DNA. How many retard talking points would be destroyed by a DNA match to Kennedy?

> > And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he
> > did wipe some matter off the bullet.
>
> No, I think people would discover that you're lying again:

Impossible, lurkers, but Ben can`t make distinctions and doesn`t understand qualifiers.

> Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination?
> That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and
> it was not necessary to change it in any way.
> Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet
> when you received it?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no,
> sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been
> removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to
> actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
>
> Why do you think you can lie with impunity?

My memory isn`t that great, It`s a wonder I remembered he said something on the subject. He didn`t rule out that there was blood traces on it, which damages Boris`s assertion that...

"CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:43:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Dunning-Kruger effect was coined to describe people like you and Ben.
>
> Oh, I thought it was coined as a tool of stonewalling for trolls like yourself, to avoid questions they can't answer.

See? You learned something today. You and Ben are the poster children for Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:42:05 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
> > >
> > > (It didn't)
> >
> > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> I love this gif. He's still holding his Stetson!!

All the way to Parkland. Does the holding of the Stetson mean he was never shot?

> >
> > Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.
>
> And?

Why did you bring up Brennan?

> >
> > > Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
> > >
> > > (Cite this)
> >
> > The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.
>
> LOL!! You didn't learn your lesson citing "evidence" from your TV set the first time, I see. Shall all *my* evidence going forward be nine-part "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" program? Nah.

Do you use this argument when you deny we landed on the moon idiot? Since it appeared on TV it wasn`t real...

> > >
> > > The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
> > >
> > > (It didn't)
> >
> > The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?
>
> Feel free to cite these "expects".

The autopsy report can be found online.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I vaguely remember that Tomlinson put the bullet in his pocket for awhile and then he gave it to some other guy, who put it in his pocket for awhile. I would think walking around with a bullet in your pocket would tend to wipe material off of it.
>
> Be interesting to find Tomlinson`s pants, check the pockets for DNA.

And until you do it's a sobbing deluge of begged questions and empty claims on your part.

>
> My memory isn`t that great, It`s a wonder I remembered he said something on the subject.

This is as close as Bud will ever get to being man enough to admit he didn't know something.

>
> He didn`t rule out that there was blood traces on it, which damages Boris`s assertion that... "CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."

Strange how some people can interpret "The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way" as "the bullet had blood on it."

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:50:12 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
> > > > person was seen shooting from.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc
> >
> > What does Ben think think shows, lurkers.
> >
> > > Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
> > > "line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.
> >
> > Lurkers, computer modeling shows Ben is wrong...
> >
> > 1:30 on...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA
> >
>
> Bud believes someone's computer model trumps *actual* footage of a *real* car, in the *real* location, from the *actual* vantage point of the sixth floor window.

Who has shown they are in conflict?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:29:45 PM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:17:32 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.
>
> My Theory Chuck is it didn't happen.

Saying you have a theory about what didn't happen is not a theory. JFK was killed, JBC badly wounded. Explain what did happen, not what didn't happen.

Just imagine if you were sitting around with the Late Sibert-O'Neill-Custer-Crenshaw-PerryJenkins-O'Conner etc. and they told you in tandem it was BS! Would you make an ass of yourself and say" You guys don't know what you are talking about! Would you question a Vietnam vet who told you of their experiences" No it couldn't have happened that way? Some jackass who was never there knows better?

I don't think the individuals you are referencing are lying, I just think they're wrong. And the military has produced studies that show how different the experiences relayed by soldiers can be even when fighting along side each other and participating in and witnessing the exact same firefight, for example. During WW2, fighter pilots in the heat of battle routinely over claimed air-to-air kills by a ratio of 2 to 1. Lying or just mistaken in the heat of battle? I'll go with mistaken.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:52:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:03:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 12:31:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:17:32 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person
> >> >> >> could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is
> >> >> >> contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by
> >> >> >> all the key witnesses.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What's your theory?
> >> >>
> >> >> This is *YOUR* burden, Chuckly... **YOU** have to support the wacky
> >> >> SBT.
> >> >
> >> > The evidence does that quite nicely, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> If it did, then believers wouldn't be TERRIFIED all the time of
> >> providing it.
> >>
> >> Notice that dufus refused to cite any evidence also... and what little
> >> he listed, is easily refuted.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
>
> This isn't a refutation of what I stated.

Ben is a coward who has to change my words because he is afraid of them, lurkers.

>
> >> > The victims lined up one in front of the other from the vantage a
> >> > person was seen shooting from.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, that's simply not true. As anyone can note from here:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAjEPOxjmc
> >
> > What does Ben think think shows, lurkers.
>
>
> That you're a provable liar. What *else* did you think it showed?

When you challenge a retard like Ben to support his position all you get is ad hominem, lurkers.

>
> >> Only far beyond where the fatal shot occurred would JFK and Connally
> >> "line up" from the viewpoint of the snipers nest.
> >
> > Lurkers, computer modeling shows Ben is wrong...
>
> Can't "line up" when there's an angle to the limo.

Ben says things but shows nothing, lurkers.

Check 3:28...

https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA

>
> > 1:30 on...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA
>
>
> Fail.
>
> I showed the actual line of sight of the shooter.

He showed a car driving down the street, lurkers. He made a series of empty claims about what that meant. He said some things but showed nothing.


> You showed
> speculation.

I showed computer modeling, lurkers.

For the consideration of the lurkers...

https://youtu.be/nTwGrc37xNk

> Speculation loses to fact every single time.
>
>
> >> If you can see the *side* of the limo, you're looking at an angle to
> >> the limo.
> >>
> >> To line up - you wouldn't see the *side* of the limo so clearly...
> >> which demonstrates the *ANGLE* that dufus is too dishonest to
> >> acknowledge.
> >>
> >> This is one of the major problems that believers have - they simply
> >> accept what the Warren Commission said without checking it for
> >> themselves.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
> >>
> >> This is a blatant lie.
> >
> > Anyone can see it for themselves, lurkers...
> >
> > https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>
> Actually... no.

Let Ben tell us why we should not believe that this .gif shows these men being shot at the same time, lurkers.

>
> And the Warren Commission are liars, according to you.

Ben goes right for the misdirection, lurkers.

> *THEY* couldn't see it.

> So they either lied, or they were so incredibly inept that nothing
> else they produced can be counted on.
>
> Which was it, dufus?
>
> Or is there another explanation that I missed?

>
> >> And stump knows it. The Warren Commission went
> >> out of their way to explain a *delayed* reaction on the part of
> >> Connally. This would have been *completely* unnecessary had Connally
> >> actually reacted at the same time as JFK.
> >>
> >> Dufus is calling the Warren Commission wrong, but not courageous
> >> enough to actually say it.
> >
> > I`m saying what I said, lurkers. Ben can misdirect anywhere he likes.
>
> If *YOU* are right, then the Warren Commission made a TREMENDOUSLY
> HUGE MISTAKE.
>
> That means that you can't count on them for anything.
>
> If they couldn't see what you claim "anyone" can see... then someone
> is lying.
>
>
> On what basis are you contradicting the Warren Commission?
>
>
> >> It's only been in recent years that believers have changed their mind,
> >> and pretend that some movement or other of Connally's is now the
> >> "reaction" that they need.
> >
> > Why is Connally acting like he does in that .gif if he wasn`t shot, lurkers?
>
>
> What did he *SAY* he was doing?

What is shown, lurkers?

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> (Run coward... RUN!)
>
>
> >> Then simply ignore the *OBVIOUS* reaction.
> >
> > He was hit by a bullet, lurkers. Amazing that the film shows just
> > what the SBT requires. Thats what happens when your ideas are grounded
> > in reality.
>
>
> And once again, dufus ignores and fails to explain the *actual*
> reaction.

The *actual* reaction is two men being struck by the same bullet, lurkers...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

What reason is there to believe what people can see with their own eyes isn`t what actually occurred?

> Why do you suppose you know better than Connally & the Warren
> Commission?
>
>
> >> Indeed, the Warren Commission simply *LIED* with their claim that "it
> >> is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to
> >> determine just which shot hit Gov. Connally." - it was ABSOLUTELY
> >> necessary.
> >
> > For Ben to understand how this came about he would need some
> > measure of honesty that he lacks, lurkers.
>
>
> EXPLAIN IT - MORON!!! I DARE YOU!!

Ben has the information, he just lacks the honesty, lurkers.

I`ll give him enough to look it up, it was in that Senator`s phone call to JFK, where he told them he got them to change a little of the wording. He gave great weight to what Connally testified to and thought anything that conflicted with that was tantamount to calling Connally a liar. Being a lawyer he should have known better, and known that honest men can relate information that isn`t true, especially under these circumstance. So he kicked up a fuss and to appease him and get the process moving they gave in to his demands for this change in wording.

Ben doesn`t understand that firing a bullet directly into a wrist bone has little bearing on the actual event, lurkers. Unless the tests reflect what actually occurred they give little insight.

> This logical fallacy of stump's won't fly.
>
>
> >> So you're simply lying again.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
> >
> >> When you repeatedly lie, and *KNOWINGLY* lie - to support your faith,
> >> you're not going to convince anyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> > The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck
> >> > and exited his throat.
> >>
> >> No...
> >
> > I love to lie, lurkers.

Ben lied when he denied the prosectors determined the bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat, lurkers. He loves to lie.

> >
> >> once again you're lying, and you *KNOW* you're lying. There was
> >> *NOTHING* at the autopsy which demonstrated transit, and they clearly
> >> RULED TRANSIT OUT during the autopsy.
> >>
> >> They "concluded" transit AFTER THE BODY WAS GONE - and there's no
> >> medical evidence WHATSOEVER that demonstrates transit.
> >>
> >> So you're simply lying.
> >>
> >> Can't you do better than this?
> >>
> >> Can't you defend your faith without flagrantly lying?
>
>
> Evidently not.
>
>
> >> >> Where's your evidence???
> >> >
> >> > Evidence is neutral, lurkers, there is no "yours/ours". This
> >> > wording goes to show that Ben is merely playing silly games with the
> >> > deaths of these men.
> >>
> >> Evidence is not "neutral" - it shows what happened. If you have a
> >> gunshot wound at the autopsy, you don't go looking for the suspect's
> >> knife - that would be silly.
> >>
> >> So once again - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE SBT???
> >
> > I posted it, lurkers.
>
>
> Then you've made my case.

Ben should claim victory and run away, lurkers.

>
> >> You've lied about the victims being lined up, you've lied about the
> >> timing, you've lied about what the autopsy showed... NOTHING BUT
> >> SPECULATION AND LIES!
> >>
> >> Where's your evidence???
> >>
> >> WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEF THAT JFK AND CONNALLY WERE
> >> STRUCK BY THE SAME BULLET???
> >
> > Still there, lurkers, unharmed by Ben`s objections.
>
>
> And that, folks, tells the tale.
>
> Lies and speculation are all that dufus could offer.
>
>
> >> >> WHY ARE YOU SO TERRIFIED TO DEFEND YOUR WACKY IDEAS???
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard what could matter less, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> But the issue here is the inability of Chuckles and dufus to cite the
> >> evidence.
> >>
> >> As shown here, Chuckles was right to keep his mouth shut... dufus
> >> tried, and failed.
> >

> > "I'm a retard, lurkers." - Ben Holmes

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I vaguely remember that Tomlinson put the bullet in his pocket for awhile and then he gave it to some other guy, who put it in his pocket for awhile. I would think walking around with a bullet in your pocket would tend to wipe material off of it.
> >
> > Be interesting to find Tomlinson`s pants, check the pockets for DNA.
>
> And until you do it's a sobbing deluge of begged questions and empty claims on your part.
>
> >
> > My memory isn`t that great, It`s a wonder I remembered he said something on the subject.
>
> This is as close as Bud will ever get to being man enough to admit he didn't know something.

I remembered he spoke on the subject, just not exactly what he said. I only offered it so you could look it up.

> >
> > He didn`t rule out that there was blood traces on it, which damages Boris`s assertion that... "CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."
>
> Strange how some people can interpret "The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way" as "the bullet had blood on it."

You stated the bullet had no blood on it. The guy who handled it said... "Now there may have been slight traces..."

Note the difference.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:52:36 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:12:41 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I vaguely remember that Tomlinson put the bullet in his pocket for awhile and then he gave it to some other guy, who put it in his pocket for awhile. I would think walking around with a bullet in your pocket would tend to wipe material off of it.
> > >
> > > Be interesting to find Tomlinson`s pants, check the pockets for DNA.
> >
> > And until you do it's a sobbing deluge of begged questions and empty claims on your part.
> >
> > >
> > > My memory isn`t that great, It`s a wonder I remembered he said something on the subject.
> >
> > This is as close as Bud will ever get to being man enough to admit he didn't know something.
>
> I remembered he spoke on the subject, just not exactly what he said. I only offered it so you could look it up.

Oh, good. Then you'll be glad to know there was no blood on CE399 when Tomlinson first handled it either.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-impossible-one-day-journey-of-ce-399

So there's to your "pants" and "pockets" and "some other guy", whom I assume you mean Wright, who let's face it, you don't believe anyway.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 17:15:49 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 6:29:45 PM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:17:32 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.
>>
>> My Theory Chuck is it didn't happen.
>
> Saying you have a theory about what didn't happen is not a theory.
> JFK was killed, JBC badly wounded. Explain what did happen, not what
> didn't happen.

Saying "JFK was killed, JBC badly wounded" is not a theory. Explain
what did happen, and cite the evidence for it.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/26/2018 3:34 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 5:22:56 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As Bud sets a personal record for number of lies in a single post,
>>>
>>> List them.
>>

>> - Film evidence showing the victims reacting in the same split second.
>>
>> (It didn't)
>
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>

>> - Ballistic evidence found in the limo matching the rifle found on the floor a person was seen shooting from.
>
> How is this a lie? Be specific.
>

>> ("A person"...even the troll can't admit the guy Brennan saw was Oswald).
>

> Brennan wasn`t the only person who indicated a shooter in that window.
>

>> Testing showing the same wounding sequence being done by the same ammunition, which did not break up during the test.
>>

>> (Cite this)
>
> The Beyond the Magic Bullet program.
>
>>

>> The autopsy determining that a bullet entered Kennedy`s back/neck and exited his throat.
>>

>> (It didn't)
>
> The expects who performed the autopsy said it did, retards say it didn`t. Who to believe?
>
>>>

>>> I explained to you stupid, there were no high speed cameras filming the event to catch the bullet in flight.
>>
>> Lucky for you. Then you'd have even MORE evidence to deny.
>
> So why do you keep asking for proof when the only possible proof is unavailable?
>
>>>

>>>> Even the evidence he tried citing proved the SBT was impossible.
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> Well for one thing, the MythBusters test---which YOU cited---showed a bullet entering the back of the gelatin torso and transiting halfway down the chest, close to his stomach!
>
> Show where the bullet exited.
>

>> That was a *beautiful* epic fail.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If this is the level of your rebuttal that might apply to yourself much more. Alluding to unspecified lying and alluding to unspecified things that make the SBT impossible aren`t going to cut it. How did they think they would? Do I need to acquire a mannequin to become as stupid as you?
>>
>> Bluff and bluster, lurkers.
>

> The retards don`t like the SBT. It is like trying to get a kid who hates carrots to eat carrots.
>

Retards think they knows more than people who actually be fin to be
knowing what's going on.

That's why they be retards.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

A man in a building shot at some men in a car. The man in the car named Kennedy was killed, the man in the car named Connally was badly wounded. The evidence is in the WCR, the conclusion the WC drew from the evidence was that a man named Oswald fired the shots.

Everyone was sad.

And you're still retarded.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Retards think they knows more than people who actually be fin to be
> knowing what's going on.

Why, Jason, that's VERY good. You almost made a little sentence there! Keep practicing, champ. You're almost there!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> A man in a building shot at some men in a car. The man in the car named Kennedy was killed, the man in the car named Connally was badly wounded. The evidence is in the WCR, the conclusion the WC drew from the evidence was that a man named Oswald fired the shots.
>
> Everyone was sad.

Not everyone. I don't think Allen Dulles or LBJ gave a fuck.

Why didn't CE399 have any blood or tissue on it?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More JFK trivia to speculatively answer as Boris continues to play poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What does it matter either way? It could've been coated in blood and DNA tested 25 years later and linked to JFK and Connally and you'd claim that was suspicious, too. Heads you win, tails you win.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 01:17:32 UTC+10, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.

Hmmm, well I don't know so much about THAT, Laz.

I think in the years that have elapsed history has been rather kind to the SBT.

There are now MULTIPLE film studies done that actively to support the SBT, like the Rush/West study *Confirmation of the Single Bullet Theory* that was cited favorably in the Journal Of The American Medical Association.

The average Cyril Wecht representation of a *magic* bullet weaving from side to side *magically* has been superseded by a plethora of revelations like how far inwards and lower was the jump seat that Connally sat on; the release of the autopsy photos; the discovery of the lapel flip; the realization that FMJ bullets act the way they do in the JFK case; Kennedy assuming a Thorburn Position; the Dealey Plaza laser test results etc etc.

Ironically the efforts of the JFK-CT crowd to throw doubt on the WC conclusions have simply led to more and more in depth study of issues like the SBT, often to the detriment of the JFK-CT position.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> More JFK trivia to speculatively answer as Boris continues to play poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Oh, not Fringe/Reset/whatever anymore? Did you flip the page on your Phrase of the Month calendar a few days early? Relax troll, it's not July yet.

>
> What does it matter either way? It could've been coated in blood and DNA tested 25 years later and linked to JFK and Connally and you'd claim that was suspicious, too.

I'd claim you just spouted another straw man. But more importantly, a bullet coated in blood 25 years later would at least prove to resemble a bullet which oozed out of Connally's flesh wound onto a blood-soaked stretcher. Strange how everything Kennedy and Connally touched was soaked in blood except that....well, strange to everyone but you.

Of course we both know that if it really didn't matter, you'd have had your answer ready hours ago.

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 8:17:32 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.

Hey Chuck everyone that William Law interviewed for In The Eye Of History-not one of them believed the Magic Bullet Theory. Since they saw the body, most anyway, their opinion is a helluva lot better than any panel who relied on photos that most of the medical personnel at one time or another said were not accurate. Are you gonna believe James Jenkins and Paul O.Conner a foot or two away and worked on the body or a greaseball liar for hire lawyer never there such as Posner,Bugliosi or Belin? Not too hard is it!

[Jason Burke]

Wow. Why your momma failed with that rusty coat hanger defies all logic.

[Jason Burke]

Talking to yourself again, eh, shithead?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:58:59 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

>And I'm still retarded.

Several men who were probably policemen fired from the sixth floor of
the TSBD, several men at the Grassy Knoll, and likely one at the
opposite knoll all fired at JFK, striking him at least 3 and more
likely 4 times, killing him. They accidently hit Connally two or three
times. The evidence is in the WCR, and lied about by the Warren
Commission.

More details can be found in numorous books on the topic, such as
'Rush To Judgment," "Someone Would Have Talked," and the five volume
set by Douglas Horne.

Your mental challenges are yours...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:19:05 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:01:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > A man in a building shot at some men in a car. The man in the car named Kennedy was killed, the man in the car named Connally was badly wounded. The evidence is in the WCR, the conclusion the WC drew from the evidence was that a man named Oswald fired the shots.
>> >
>> > Everyone was sad.
>>
>> Not everyone. I don't think Allen Dulles or LBJ gave a fuck.
>>
>> Why didn't CE399 have any blood or tissue on it?
>

>More JFK trivia ...

Watch as Chuckly refuses to cite **ANY** evidence that's
"non-trivial."

For believers, the WCR is the bible.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:20:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 01:17:32 UTC+10, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.
>
>Hmmm, well I don't know so much about THAT, Laz.
>
>I think in the years that have elapsed history has been rather kind to the SBT.
>
>There are now MULTIPLE film studies done that actively to support the SBT,

G.I.G.O.

As dufus just illustrated, the evidence is weaker now for the SBT than
it's ever been.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> G.I.G.O.
>
> As dufus just illustrated, the evidence is weaker now for the SBT than
> it's ever been.

Believers value homemade computer models as evidence over the bloodless, undamaged bullet fired from the actual MC. They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings. They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.

Believers are like germs, forever mutating around the antidote.

[Bud]

Watch as Ben fails to establish the significance of the issues he raises, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:20:20 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 01:17:32 UTC+10, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> It is mind boggling, incomprehensible, that an Intelligent Person could buy a theory that so easily defies common sense, and is contradicted every step of the way, from Dealey Plaza, to Bethesda, by all the key witnesses.
> >
> >Hmmm, well I don't know so much about THAT, Laz.
> >
> >I think in the years that have elapsed history has been rather kind to the SBT.
> >
> >There are now MULTIPLE film studies done that actively to support the SBT,
>
>
> G.I.G.O.

R.E.T.A.R.D., lurkers.

> As dufus just illustrated, the evidence is weaker now for the SBT than
> it's ever been.

As Ben has illustrated, his grasp of reality is flawed, lurkers. It is the product of retard figuring.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 3:18:55 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > G.I.G.O.
> >
> > As dufus just illustrated, the evidence is weaker now for the SBT than
> > it's ever been.
>
> Believers value homemade computer models as evidence over the bloodless, undamaged bullet fired from the actual MC.

I value science over the empty claims of retards.

> They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.

A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".

>They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.

Why don`t you explain Kennedy`s backward movement, and how it gives insight into the event?

> Believers are like germs, forever mutating around the antidote.

You never say anything, why is that?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Believers value homemade computer models as evidence over the bloodless, undamaged bullet fired from the actual MC.
>
> I value science over the empty claims of retards.

Tangible evidence is not "empty claims"

>
> > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
>
> A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".

Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."

>
> >They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.
>
> Why don`t you explain Kennedy`s backward movement, and how it gives insight into the event?

If Alvarez couldn't, how can anyone?

>
> > Believers are like germs, forever mutating around the antidote.
>
> You never say anything, why is that?

Said the troll who, in his last post, actually spelled the word "retard" as his refutation against evidence.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 4:07:31 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Believers value homemade computer models as evidence over the bloodless, undamaged bullet fired from the actual MC.
> >
> > I value science over the empty claims of retards.
>
> Tangible evidence is not "empty claims"

By all means, present your evidence that establishes there was no blood on the bullet. You stated this as fact but you can`t establish it as fact. One of us realizes this and one of us doesn`t.

> > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> >
> > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
>
> Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
>
>
> >
> > >They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.
> >
> > Why don`t you explain Kennedy`s backward movement, and how it gives insight into the event?
>
> If Alvarez couldn't, how can anyone?

Then why do conspiracy retards keep bringing it up?

> > > Believers are like germs, forever mutating around the antidote.
> >
> > You never say anything, why is that?
>
> Said the troll who, in his last post, actually spelled the word "retard" as his refutation against evidence.

What evidence?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> By all means, present your evidence that establishes there was no blood on the bullet. You stated this as fact but you can`t establish it as fact. One of us realizes this and one of us doesn`t.

You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ

And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean, when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.

And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/CQHSs3gTCgAJ

But you'll deny it anyway. You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be. Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.

>
> > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > >
> > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> >
> > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.
> > >
> > > Why don`t you explain Kennedy`s backward movement, and how it gives insight into the event?
> >
> > If Alvarez couldn't, how can anyone?
>
> Then why do conspiracy retards keep bringing it up?

LNers who used the Nobel Prize winning physicist to help explain away the "back and to the left" movement are now forced to overrule him in favor of some forward motion. You hate when he's brought up, don't you?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 5:08:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > By all means, present your evidence that establishes there was no blood on the bullet. You stated this as fact but you can`t establish it as fact. One of us realizes this and one of us doesn`t.
>
> You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ

Are you are so stupid that you think if someone links to the Encyclopedia Brittania they are familiar with every entry?

> And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean,

Add the English language to the list of things you don`t understand.

> when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.

You aren`t even fighting strawmen, you are fighting the shadows of strawmen. You have such an attention deficiency I don`t think you are capable of maintaining a discussion. Your mind bounces around like a pinball.

> And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.

How so?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/CQHSs3gTCgAJ
>
> But you'll deny it anyway.

Try establishing something, just to see what it is like.

> You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be.

Support that.

> Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.
>
> >
> > > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > > >
> > > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> > >
> > > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >They value Alvarez's floppy melon test as evidence...except when they don't.
> > > >
> > > > Why don`t you explain Kennedy`s backward movement, and how it gives insight into the event?
> > >
> > > If Alvarez couldn't, how can anyone?
> >
> > Then why do conspiracy retards keep bringing it up?
>
> LNers who used the Nobel Prize winning physicist to help explain away the "back and to the left" movement are now forced to overrule him in favor of some forward motion. You hate when he's brought up, don't you?

Why do conspiracy retards bring the motion up? You can`t seem to say what the significance of it is.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ
>
> Are you are so stupid that you think if someone links to the Encyclopedia Brittania they are familiar with every entry?

Pfft! That's all you've got? Calling me stupid because YOU are unfamiliar with the testimony? Even when it was quoted directly in a post?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/QOVrPyQOCgAJ

>
> > And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean,
>
> Add the English language to the list of things you don`t understand.

Whatever that means.

>
> > when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.
>
> You aren`t even fighting strawmen, you are fighting the shadows of strawmen. You have such an attention deficiency I don`t think you are capable of maintaining a discussion. Your mind bounces around like a pinball.

So you're fine with his testimony then? Therefore making my citation adequate enough as evidence the bullet contained no blood or tissue on it.

>
> > And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.
>
> How so?

"Uh....maybe it got clean in Tomlinson's pocket" is the dictionary definition of begging the question. And it's rather stupid to argue, after that nonsense was debunked by Tomlinson himself.

>
> > You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be.
>
> Support that.

You trying to say with a straight face that bullets causing seven flesh wounds don't habitually come away bloody? Are you that desperate to cling to your hopelessly debunked shit faith?

>
> > Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > > > >
> > > > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> > > >
> > > > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >

This recent post contains your most pathetic collection of responses to date. You would have literally been better off saying nothing.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2018 at 10:57:02 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ
> >
> > Are you are so stupid that you think if someone links to the Encyclopedia Brittania they are familiar with every entry?
>
> Pfft! That's all you've got? Calling me stupid because YOU are unfamiliar with the testimony? Even when it was quoted directly in a post?
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/QOVrPyQOCgAJ

Add chronology to the list of things you don`t understand.

> >
> > > And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean,
> >
> > Add the English language to the list of things you don`t understand.
>
> Whatever that means.

I wrote...

"And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he did wipe some matter off the bullet."

Was I making a statement of fact?

You wrote...

"CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."

Were you making a statement of fact? Can you make the distinction? Ben couldn`t.

> > > when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.
> >
> > You aren`t even fighting strawmen, you are fighting the shadows of strawmen. You have such an attention deficiency I don`t think you are capable of maintaining a discussion. Your mind bounces around like a pinball.
>
> So you're fine with his testimony then? Therefore making my citation adequate enough as evidence the bullet contained no blood or tissue on it.

No testing was done. You have no basis to make an assertion.

> > > And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.
> >
> > How so?
>
> "Uh....maybe it got clean in Tomlinson's pocket" is the dictionary definition of begging the question.

It is called reasoning, I`m sure you don`t recognize it.

> And it's rather stupid to argue, after that nonsense was debunked by Tomlinson himself.

No, it really wasn`t. Tomlinson is way too weak a witness to establish as fact the bullet had no blood on it. Was he looking for blood. Could the bullet have had blood on it that Tomlinson missed? Did he hit it with a CSI blue light?

> > > You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be.

You can always tell an empty claim because the exact opposite position can be taken using the exact evidence offered.

> >
> > Support that.
>
> You trying to say with a straight face that bullets causing seven flesh wounds don't habitually come away bloody? Are you that desperate to cling to your hopelessly debunked shit faith?

You`re saying you can`t support your claims. That is why I call them empty.

> >
> > > Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> > > > >
> > > > > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
>
> This recent post contains your most pathetic collection of responses to date. You would have literally been better off saying nothing.

Certainly it would have better for you if your idiotic statements were left unresponded to.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ
> > >
> > > Are you are so stupid that you think if someone links to the Encyclopedia Brittania they are familiar with every entry?
> >
> > Pfft! That's all you've got? Calling me stupid because YOU are unfamiliar with the testimony? Even when it was quoted directly in a post?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/QOVrPyQOCgAJ
>
> Add chronology to the list of things you don`t understand.

Ignorance.

>
> > >
> > > > And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean,
> > >
> > > Add the English language to the list of things you don`t understand.
> >
> > Whatever that means.
>
> I wrote...
>
> "And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he did wipe some matter off the bullet."
>
> Was I making a statement of fact?
>
> You wrote...
>
> "CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."
>
> Were you making a statement of fact? Can you make the distinction? Ben couldn`t.

Lie.

>
>
> > > > when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.
> > >
> > > You aren`t even fighting strawmen, you are fighting the shadows of strawmen. You have such an attention deficiency I don`t think you are capable of maintaining a discussion. Your mind bounces around like a pinball.
> >
> > So you're fine with his testimony then? Therefore making my citation adequate enough as evidence the bullet contained no blood or tissue on it.
>
> No testing was done. You have no basis to make an assertion.
>

Denial.

> > > > And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.
> > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > "Uh....maybe it got clean in Tomlinson's pocket" is the dictionary definition of begging the question.
>
> It is called reasoning, I`m sure you don`t recognize it.
>

Logical fallacy.

> > And it's rather stupid to argue, after that nonsense was debunked by Tomlinson himself.
>
> No, it really wasn`t. Tomlinson is way too weak a witness to establish as fact the bullet had no blood on it. Was he looking for blood. Could the bullet have had blood on it that Tomlinson missed? Did he hit it with a CSI blue light?

Denial.

>
> > > > You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be.
>
> You can always tell an empty claim because the exact opposite position can be taken using the exact evidence offered.
>
> > >
> > > Support that.
> >
> > You trying to say with a straight face that bullets causing seven flesh wounds don't habitually come away bloody? Are you that desperate to cling to your hopelessly debunked shit faith?
>
> You`re saying you can`t support your claims. That is why I call them empty.

Denial.

>
> > >
> > > > Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> > This recent post contains your most pathetic collection of responses to date. You would have literally been better off saying nothing.

So in summation, I provided...

Testimony, witness statement, tangible evidence.

You provided...

Ignorace, lie, denial, logical fallacy, denial, and denial.

Thanks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:05:07 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Excellent summation.

This is quite typical. dufus is simply a coward and a liar.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Dunning-Kruger effect in play with Boris once again. Kooks are so self assured that they've got something figured out yet they can't go anywhere with it.

He even used the word "summation." Wow.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:41:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:


>Dunning-Kruger effect in play ...

What's it called when someone makes a claim, then runs way and refuses
to defend or support it?

[Bud]

Ben Holmes and his Woman in the Yellow Pants theory, lurkers.

Or just about anything else he says.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 9:05:08 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > You're a liar or an imbecile. You know I've already cited Frazier's testimony.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/ucEaFXUOCgAJ
> > > >
> > > > Are you are so stupid that you think if someone links to the Encyclopedia Brittania they are familiar with every entry?
> > >
> > > Pfft! That's all you've got? Calling me stupid because YOU are unfamiliar with the testimony? Even when it was quoted directly in a post?
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x6SVzSKqHWQ/QOVrPyQOCgAJ
> >
> > Add chronology to the list of things you don`t understand.
>
> Ignorance.

Explain you ignorance. How did you go through life with no understanding of chronology?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > And you know you *tried* lying about him stating he wiped it clean,
> > > >
> > > > Add the English language to the list of things you don`t understand.
> > >
> > > Whatever that means.
> >
> > I wrote...
> >
> > "And I think if you were to check you`d find that Frazier said he did wipe some matter off the bullet."
> >
> > Was I making a statement of fact?
> >
> > You wrote...
> >
> > "CE399 had no blood or tissue on it."
> >
> > Were you making a statement of fact? Can you make the distinction? Ben couldn`t.
>
> Lie.

Explain why you and Ben felt the need to lie about this.

> >
> >
> > > > > when it was never said. And before you try, you should be wary of trashing his testimony, as he says some things which on the surface appear to help you.
> > > >
> > > > You aren`t even fighting strawmen, you are fighting the shadows of strawmen. You have such an attention deficiency I don`t think you are capable of maintaining a discussion. Your mind bounces around like a pinball.
> > >
> > > So you're fine with his testimony then? Therefore making my citation adequate enough as evidence the bullet contained no blood or tissue on it.
> >
> > No testing was done. You have no basis to make an assertion.
> >
>
> Denial.

Explain why you deny that there was no testing done. Are you aware of any?

> > > > > And you know your begged question about Tomlinson was an empty claim.
> > > >
> > > > How so?
> > >
> > > "Uh....maybe it got clean in Tomlinson's pocket" is the dictionary definition of begging the question.
> >
> > It is called reasoning, I`m sure you don`t recognize it.
> >
>
> Logical fallacy.

Explain which logical fallacy you are employing.

Explain how you lived so long but are completely ignorant of the fact that putting a metal object with a substance on it might tend to have that substance rubbed off.

And while you are at it, explain why idiots feel they are competent enough to second guess the work of accomplished people in relevant fields.

> > > And it's rather stupid to argue, after that nonsense was debunked by Tomlinson himself.
> >
> > No, it really wasn`t. Tomlinson is way too weak a witness to establish as fact the bullet had no blood on it. Was he looking for blood. Could the bullet have had blood on it that Tomlinson missed? Did he hit it with a CSI blue light?
>
> Denial.

Explain your denial of the fact that just because someone says something that does not establish that thing as fact.

> >
> > > > > You need to, so I can't begrudge you anything but your arrogance. Even though you've never seen or heard or encountered any evidence that the bullet *was* horrendously gory. Which it would need to be.
> >
> > You can always tell an empty claim because the exact opposite position can be taken using the exact evidence offered.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Support that.
> > >
> > > You trying to say with a straight face that bullets causing seven flesh wounds don't habitually come away bloody? Are you that desperate to cling to your hopelessly debunked shit faith?
> >
> > You`re saying you can`t support your claims. That is why I call them empty.
>
> Denial.

Explain your denial of the empty claim you made about how the bullet Tomlinson found should have looked.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Everything else about them was, even artifacts which weren't taken directly from flesh wounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They recognize a prime time TV special as evidence over their own WC's findings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A retard tries to poison the well, "since it appeared on TV it isn`t valid".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Except when TV contradicts the findings of said well. LN believers can believe two contradictory things simultaneously. George Orwell literally called it "doublethink."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > This recent post contains your most pathetic collection of responses to date. You would have literally been better off saying nothing.
>
>
>
> So in summation, I provided...

Nothing.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Dunning-Kruger effect in play with Boris once again.

Chuck's Phrase of the Month calendar didn't explain to him what this means. He is basically accusing us of thinking we're smarter than we are. Which is funny, because of the two of us I'm the only one who's ever flat-out admitted "I don't know" something, rather than try to half-assed assume my way through the question.

He's also saying, in an indirect way, that I lack the cognition of the evidence I'm presenting...in this case, Frazier's testimony. But really he just throws that out there as a "just because", since there is no evidence at all which points to blood and tissue on CE399, and PLENTY of evidence which points to CE399 being clean and pristine after causing seven flesh wounds.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/115/Just-Because-Fallacy


It also means we lack self-awareness, which is hysterical coming from someone who falsely accusing people of straw man fallacies, and then COMMITS ONE HIMSELF in the very next sentence...so blatantly that he even admits it (i.e., "my bad")

>
> He even used the word "summation." Wow.

Indeed, a word three whole syllables long! Chuck is rendered confounded.

[Bud]

<snicker> Boris ran from every point I made and Ben gives him an "attaboy".

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 12:34:58 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger effect in play with Boris once again.
>
> Chuck's Phrase of the Month calendar didn't explain to him what this means.

It's a pretty well known phrase and used in online discussions, particularly in reference to 911 Truthers and moon landing deniers, JFK buffs, etc.

He is basically accusing us of thinking we're smarter than we are. Which is funny, because of the two of us I'm the only one who's ever flat-out admitted "I don't know" something, rather than try to half-assed assume my way through the question.

That's not true. There's plenty I don't know about the JFK assassination, and I admit it. It's why we have experts to look into this. I respect the process and the work that was done, even if I know some of the work was flawed.

> He's also saying, in an indirect way, that I lack the cognition of the evidence I'm presenting...in this case, Frazier's testimony. But really he just throws that out there as a "just because", since there is no evidence at all which points to blood and tissue on CE399, and PLENTY of evidence which points to CE399 being clean and pristine after causing seven flesh wounds.

Pristine? The best evidence is that it was fired from Oswald's rifle and zipped through JFK and JBC. Whether it was coated with tissue and blood or appeared clean, whether someone in the shock of the moment wiped it dry or did it on purpose, etc. isn't relevant to determining the source of the bullet. It's a ballistic match to Oswald's rifle. You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)that it must have been planted, whether on its own or as part of a swap, like Ben says. And that is logically fallacious. You are assuming your conclusion, begging the question.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Pristine? The best evidence is that it was fired from Oswald's rifle and zipped through JFK and JBC.

The best evidence is it was fired from CE139, the MC rifle, as per Frazier's testimony. The rest is presumptive, because there is actually NO evidence it "zipped through" any person. It is not damaged. It is not twisted. And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all. I don't even need to get into what Tomlinson and Wright in particular said about it, because that's just overkill.

The REAL fact is, there isn't a shred of physical evidence that bullet was used in the murder, other than your assumption that it was. And while I can produce paragraphs of evidence to the contrary, you'll *never* produce evidence showing it was used that day.

So who's begging the question?

You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must have been fired at that moment. Therefore, you must assume the MC had never been fired before Nov. 22. And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet. You are only presuming it.

>
> You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)

Is that what we're calling sworn expert testimony now? "Snippets" of what "some people" said?

>
> that it must have been planted, whether on its own or as part of a swap, like Ben says. And that is logically fallacious. You are assuming your conclusion, begging the question.

What a strange thing to say. Because up until this point, I posed a question, and ONLY a question: Why didn’t CE399 have any blood or tissue on it? And from that you gathered a conclusion. And then from THAT, developed your argument based on something I hadn't said yet. Sounds like you're filling in the blanks yourself. Like subconsciously you already know the problem, and struggle with yourself to explain it away.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 8:01:48 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Pristine? The best evidence is that it was fired from Oswald's rifle and zipped through JFK and JBC.
>
> The best evidence is it was fired from CE139, the MC rifle, as per Frazier's testimony. The rest is presumptive,

As *must* be the case.

BTW, presumptive means "giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief." It is the product of reasoning, and reasoning eludes you.

> because there is actually NO evidence it "zipped through" any person.

Everything needed to conclude this is available. The film. The positioning of the victims. The positing of the shooter and the location of rifle ballistically matched to the bullet.

> It is not damaged.

You`re lying.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg

> It is not twisted. And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all.

You can say this until you are blue in the face. what you can`t do is establish this as fact. Repeating any empty claim over and over is not supporting the claim.

> I don't even need to get into what Tomlinson and Wright in particular said about it, because that's just overkill.

I don`t think you are capable of forming an argument. Best to vaguely allude to things while handwaving away anything inconvenient.

> The REAL fact is, there isn't a shred of physical evidence that bullet was used in the murder, other than your assumption that it was.

Being ballically matched to the rifle found where someone was sen shooting is not considered evidence to retards.

> And while I can produce paragraphs of evidence to the contrary, you'll *never* produce evidence showing it was used that day.

The ballistic match is all the evidence needed.

There is little reason to expect more under the circumstances.

> So who's begging the question?
>
> You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must have been fired at that moment.

Certainly that is the most reasonable presumption.

> Therefore, you must assume the MC had never been fired before Nov. 22.

Doesn`t follow.

> And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet.

The ballistic match is the only evidence needed.

> You are only presuming it.

How else? A film crew following its travels?

> >
> > You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)
>
> Is that what we're calling sworn expert testimony now? "Snippets" of what "some people" said?

Produce exactly what the people said and show how it supports your ideas.

> >
> > that it must have been planted, whether on its own or as part of a swap, like Ben says. And that is logically fallacious. You are assuming your conclusion, begging the question.
>
> What a strange thing to say. Because up until this point, I posed a question, and ONLY a question: Why didn’t CE399 have any blood or tissue on it?

You`re lying again. You *stated* that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it.

> And from that you gathered a conclusion. And then from THAT, developed your argument based on something I hadn't said yet. Sounds like you're filling in the blanks yourself. Like subconsciously you already know the problem, and struggle with yourself to explain it away.
>
> Do you ever tire of being wrong?

"CE399 had no blood or tissue on it." - "Boris"

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Everything needed to conclude this is available. The film. The positioning of the victims. The positing of the shooter and the location of rifle ballistically matched to the bullet.

Yeah, so? No one is debating they were shot, dummy.

>
> > It is not damaged.
>
> You`re lying.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg
>
> > It is not twisted. And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all.

Hmm, yeah, looks JUST like this, right dummy?

https://goo.gl/images/zfxYiG

Even your silly MythBusters video had a more deformed piece of shit bullet.

>
> You can say this until you are blue in the face. what you can`t do is establish this as fact. Repeating any empty claim over and over is not supporting the claim.

By empty claim, do you mean Frazier's sworn expert testimony?

>
> Being ballically matched to the rifle found where someone was sen shooting is not considered evidence to retards.

I explained this in my last post, and much better than you. Besides, no one said the bullet matched the rifle except for Frazier. Are you prepared to cite the very same testimony that was an "empty claim" when I cited it?

>
> > And while I can produce paragraphs of evidence to the contrary, you'll *never* produce evidence showing it was used that day.
>
> The ballistic match is all the evidence needed.

You're too dumb for this one. Let Chucky take over for a bit.

>
> > Therefore, you must assume the MC had never been fired before Nov. 22.
>
> Doesn`t follow.

Not to a LN retard.

>
> > And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet.
>
> The ballistic match is the only evidence needed.

By that logic, EVERY bullet ever fired from the MC hit Kennedy and Connally.

>
> > You are only presuming it.
>
> How else? A film crew following its travels?

LOL, you dummy.

>
> > >
> > > You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)
> >
> > Is that what we're calling sworn expert testimony now? "Snippets" of what "some people" said?
>
> Produce exactly what the people said and show how it supports your ideas.

Look it up yourself, dumb fuck. Is spoonfeeding the link to you not enough?

> >
> > What a strange thing to say. Because up until this point, I posed a question, and ONLY a question: Why didn’t CE399 have any blood or tissue on it?
>
> You`re lying again. You *stated* that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it.

Yes, I stated a fact. I at no point stated what I meant by it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:39:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 8:01:48 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

>> And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet.
>
> The ballistic match is the only evidence needed.

CE-853 provably matched the Carcano.

Therefore, JFK is a goat.

This is the sort of nonsense that believers "logic" leads you to.
dufus makes the STARTLINGLY stupid claim that the only evidence you
need is a "ballistics match" to prove that a bullet was fired by
Oswald.

Watch as dufus REFUSES to retract his INCREDIBLY stupid remark.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I don't know how this thread got overlooked.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/l51SRSJeeWI/26Y9P-m1xO8J

Gil Jesus thoroughly demolishes CE399 beyond repair, in every area we've discussed so far, as well as some new ones.

The Neutron Activation Analysis was an exceptional paragraph. Bud and Chucky's subsequent denial of it will further demonstrate their rejection of science over faith.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Here's Gil Jesus's superb post in another community forum:

http://alt.conspiracy.jfk.narkive.com/1DOWoQAN/more-on-the-ce399-scam#post15

Naturally, every single point he made went completely ignored, both in the first thread I cited, then in the second.

This will be the third.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 9:01:31 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Everything needed to conclude this is available. The film. The positioning of the victims. The positing of the shooter and the location of rifle ballistically matched to the bullet.
>
> Yeah, so?

It`s like I`m talking to child, or a retard. I said...

"Everything needed to conclude this is available."

Do you know what I was referring to when I said "this"? It is the idea we are exploring.

> No one is debating they were shot, dummy.
>
> >
> > > It is not damaged.
> >
> > You`re lying.
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/1/11/Photo_ce399_base.jpg
> >
> > > It is not twisted. And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all.
>
> Hmm, yeah, looks JUST like this, right dummy?
>
> https://goo.gl/images/zfxYiG

Retard figuring. Why don`t you link to a photo of a missile hitting the Pentagon?

> Even your silly MythBusters video had a more deformed piece of shit bullet.

It hit (and broke) two ribs instead of one. This is where tards set the bar so high that only exact and precise duplication is accepted. You look at the wrong thing and take away nothing from the demonstration. Just like when I linked to the .gif of Kennedy and Connally being hit by the same bullet and you focused on the fact that Connally was holding his hat. Can`t do anything with retards but pity them.

> >
> > You can say this until you are blue in the face. what you can`t do is establish this as fact. Repeating any empty claim over and over is not supporting the claim.
>
> By empty claim, do you mean Frazier's sworn expert testimony?

He said what he said. Use some of what he said to make a valid argument.

> >
> > Being ballistically matched to the rifle found where someone was seen shooting is not considered evidence to retards.

>
> I explained this in my last post, and much better than you. Besides, no one said the bullet matched the rifle except for Frazier. Are you prepared to cite the very same testimony that was an "empty claim" when I cited it?

What specifically did Frazier say that you think supports your claim?

> >
> > > And while I can produce paragraphs of evidence to the contrary, you'll *never* produce evidence showing it was used that day.
> >
> > The ballistic match is all the evidence needed.
>
> You're too dumb for this one.

You hurl ad hominem while you run from the point made. You aren`t any more up to the discussion of ideas than Ben is.

> Let Chucky take over for a bit.
>
> >
> > > Therefore, you must assume the MC had never been fired before Nov. 22.
> >
> > Doesn`t follow.
>
> Not to a LN retard.

Show how it follows, stupid.

> >
> > > And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet.
> >
> > The ballistic match is the only evidence needed.
>
> By that logic, EVERY bullet ever fired from the MC hit Kennedy and Connally.

Were they all found where his victims were taken?

> >
> > > You are only presuming it.
> >
> > How else? A film crew following its travels?
>
> LOL, you dummy.

Yet you can`t explain how else. The simplest questions demonstrate the weakness of your ideas.

> > > >
> > > > You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)
> > >
> > > Is that what we're calling sworn expert testimony now? "Snippets" of what "some people" said?
> >
> > Produce exactly what the people said and show how it supports your ideas.
>
> Look it up yourself, dumb fuck.

It is my job to find the support for your ideas?

> Is spoonfeeding the link to you not enough?

Then I`ll just link to the WCR and tell you to go find the answers to any questions you raise.

>
> > >
> > > What a strange thing to say. Because up until this point, I posed a question, and ONLY a question: Why didn’t CE399 have any blood or tissue on it?
> >
> > You`re lying again. You *stated* that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it.
>
> Yes, I stated a fact.

At no point did you establish it as fact, thus making it an empty claim.

> I at no point stated what I meant by it.

<snicker> By all means, tell us what you meant by this...

"CE399 had no blood or tissue on it." - "Boris"

Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 9:48:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:39:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 8:01:48 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY evidence CE399 is the bullet.
> >
> > The ballistic match is the only evidence needed.
>
> CE-853 provably matched the Carcano.
>
> Therefore, JFK is a goat.

This is why retards are never tapped to conduct investigations, lurkers.

If they fired a bullet at a goat and it went through the goat and was found in the field behind the goat, only a conspiracy retard would jump to the conclusion that it was planted.

> This is the sort of nonsense that believers "logic" leads you to.
> dufus makes the STARTLINGLY stupid claim that the only evidence you
> need is a "ballistics match" to prove that a bullet was fired by
> Oswald.

I asked Boris what other evidence could be expected under these circumstances and both Ben and Boris had nothing, lurkers.

> Watch as dufus REFUSES to retract his INCREDIBLY stupid remark.

Notice that real criminal investigators didn`t have the problem of seeing this evidence being tied the assassination, but retard hobbyist do. That tells you all you need to know, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:26:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Excellent cite.

Chuckly & dufus are indeed science deniers...

And the guilt of someone in the US Government is shown by the fact
that the Connally fragments were swapped by the time Guinn re-examined
them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Pristine? The best evidence is that it was fired from Oswald's rifle and zipped through JFK and JBC.
>
> The best evidence is it was fired from CE139, the MC rifle, as per Frazier's testimony.

So far so good.

>The rest is presumptive, because there is actually NO evidence it "zipped through" any person.

So the bullet in evidence (CE399) is trumped by the bullet(s) we don't have in evidence?

>It is not damaged. It is not twisted.

Um, yeah, it is damaged.

>And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all.

1.) We can't be sure of that. 2.) It's irrelevant whether or not it was wiped clean accidentally or on purpose or not at all and was simply clean enough for a ballistics examination. Moot point.

>I don't even need to get into what Tomlinson and Wright in particular said about it, because that's just overkill.
>
> The REAL fact is, there isn't a shred of physical evidence that bullet was used in the murder, other than your assumption that it was. And while I can produce paragraphs of evidence to the contrary, you'll *never* produce evidence showing it was used that day.

Dunning-Kruger. You're not more competent than the FBI, cops, WC lawyers, etc. Sorry, you're not. And there's a consilience of evidence that links CE399 to the shooting of JFK and JBC that day. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water.

>
> So who's begging the question?

You. You're assuming your conclusion that CE399 was not fired at JFK and was a pristine, undamaged bullet. (It was bent, flattened on one side and extruding lead. Look at pictures of it.)

>
> You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must have been fired at that moment.

You're presuming it was planted. Occam's Razor works nicely here.

>Therefore, you must assume the MC had never been fired before Nov. 22.

Baloney. Hasty Generalization fallacy, inductive reasoning fallacy., illicit generalization, fallacy of insufficient sample, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, blanket statement, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample, etc. parts of all of those work.

>And if you take a moment of impartiality to reflect on that, you'll realize you don't actually have ANY >evidence CE399 is the bullet. You are only presuming it.

You are presuming bullets not in evidence trump the bullet in evidence. I make no presumption.

>
> >
> > You seem to be concluding that because the bullet seemed clean (your estimation based on snippets of what some people said)
>
> Is that what we're calling sworn expert testimony now? "Snippets" of what "some people" said?

I'm sorry, where is the expert testimony that the bullet was examined for tissue and blood?

>
> >
> > that it must have been planted, whether on its own or as part of a swap, like Ben says. And that is logically fallacious. You are assuming your conclusion, begging the question.
>
> What a strange thing to say. Because up until this point, I posed a question, and ONLY a question: Why >didn’t CE399 have any blood or tissue on it? And from that you gathered a conclusion. And then from THAT, developed your argument based on something I hadn't said yet. Sounds like you're filling in the blanks yourself. Like subconsciously you already know the problem, and struggle with yourself to explain it away.

Now you're being disingenuous. Didn't you just write this?

Boris: "The best evidence is it was fired from CE139, the MC rifle, as per Frazier's testimony. The rest is presumptive, because there is actually NO evidence it "zipped through" any person. It is not damaged. It is not twisted. And it was not found with any blood or tissue on it at all. I don't even need to get into what Tomlinson and Wright in particular said about it, because that's just overkill.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:

...

>> You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must
>> have been fired at that moment.
>
> You're presuming it was planted. Occam's Razor works nicely here.

No moron... there's nothing here that Occam's Razor applies to.

You're pretending that a bullet THAT WAS PROVABLY PICKED UP AND MOVED,
could not have been picked up and moved at a prior time. Indeed, that
bullet was "picked up and moved" dozens of times. THAT'S A FACT.

WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE BULLET WAS PICKED UP AND MOVED... MANY
TIMES.

You can't use "Occam's Razor" to dismiss the idea that the bullet was
picked up and moved... WE KNOW THAT IT WAS.

You're TERRIFIED of presenting any real arguments against the planting
of CE-399 - because you got caught lying about that theory.

And the **MOMENT** you try to present any arguments against CE-399
being planted, you're going to prove yourself a liar.

Occam's Razor doesn't help you at all.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:29:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must
> >> have been fired at that moment.
> >
> > You're presuming it was planted. Occam's Razor works nicely here.
>
> No moron... there's nothing here that Occam's Razor applies to.

Yeah, it does.

>
> You're pretending that a bullet THAT WAS PROVABLY PICKED UP AND MOVED,
> could not have been picked up and moved at a prior time. Indeed, that
> bullet was "picked up and moved" dozens of times. THAT'S A FACT.
>
> WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE BULLET WAS PICKED UP AND MOVED... MANY
> TIMES.

How does picking up and handling CE399 prove it was planted? Should they have moved it by teleporting it?

>
> You can't use "Occam's Razor" to dismiss the idea that the bullet was
> picked up and moved... WE KNOW THAT IT WAS.

I'm not. Strawman argument. That's not the argument.

>
> You're TERRIFIED of presenting any real arguments against the planting
> of CE-399 - because you got caught lying about that theory.

I'm not presenting any ideas against the planting of CE399. You can present arguments in favor of planting CE399, but the consilience of evidence, the circumstantial evidence, the ballistic evidence, etc. all point to the fact that CE399 pierced JFK and tumbled through Connally. Good luck on your quest.

>
> And the **MOMENT** you try to present any arguments against CE-399
> being planted, you're going to prove yourself a liar.

Not my burden to prove it wasn't planted. That's your hobbyhorse. Ride it.

>
> Occam's Razor doesn't help you at all.

Um, yeah. It kind of does. Let's review the definition of Occam's Razor for oh...the millionth time or so:


Occam's Razor: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

So how does this not help me Yellow Pants? Be specific.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:29:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 7:01:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ...
>> >> You presume that because it was fired from the MC, that it must
>> >> have been fired at that moment.
>> >
>> > You're presuming it was planted. Occam's Razor works nicely here.
>>
>> No moron... there's nothing here that Occam's Razor applies to.
>
>Yeah, it does.

No, it doesn't.

As explained in detail below:

>> You're pretending that a bullet THAT WAS PROVABLY PICKED UP AND MOVED,
>> could not have been picked up and moved at a prior time. Indeed, that
>> bullet was "picked up and moved" dozens of times. THAT'S A FACT.
>>
>> WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE BULLET WAS PICKED UP AND MOVED... MANY
>> TIMES.
>
> How does picking up and handling CE399 prove it was planted? Should
> they have moved it by teleporting it?

Tut tut tut, Chuckles... you claimed that Occam's Razor applies here.

I've proven that it doesn't.

The PROVABLE fact that it was picked up and moved MANY TIMES proves
that you can't whine that Occam's Razor shows that it was **NOT**
picked up and moved.

>> You can't use "Occam's Razor" to dismiss the idea that the bullet was
>> picked up and moved... WE KNOW THAT IT WAS.
>
>I'm not. Strawman argument. That's not the argument.

It was *YOU* who made it. Running from your own claim now?

Tell us, oh moron... just *WHAT* is it about Occam's Razor that
precludes the bullet from being picked up and moved?

>> You're TERRIFIED of presenting any real arguments against the planting
>> of CE-399 - because you got caught lying about that theory.
>
> I'm not presenting any ideas against the planting of CE399.

Yep. You lose.

You can't provide *ANY* argument against the bullet being planed.

I've mentioned or cited the evidence. You've simply ran.

You lose!

[Jason Burke]

Gil Jesus?!?
I thought he killed himself in shame.