JFK Kook (and friend of "Mr. Healy") Jim Fetzer in the News:

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Conspiracism is a disease.

Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.

So is disgraced professor Jame Fetzer.

When you go down the rabbit hole...

https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/crime-and-courts/2720695-Judge-rules-against-former-UMD-professor-in-Sandy-Hook-case?fbclid=IwAR1ODQ95K-7rrnHbkN_-gxfRwxEZF8P7YIX9qebPgkUfCDuj3VnwD1XZFqE#.XQuZKb6W4a8.facebook

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 07:10:32 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Conspiracism is a disease.


An acceptance that crimes frequently involve more than a single
perpetrator is merely common sense.

It takes a moron to label that a "disease."

>Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.

So is the majority of America.

[David Healy]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 7:10:33 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> Conspiracism is a disease.
>
> Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.

tanning up those pale white thighs of yours is NOT going to advance your foolish lone nut/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome argument, gorgeous.

> So is disgraced professor Jame Fetzer.

Fetzer, to this day has done more to rip apart the 1964 WCR than any single individual in the past 30 years. And made your life and every .johnite life hell. Enjoy toot's.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Conspiracism is a disease.

the moron stonewalled.

>
> Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.

So are these people:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/11/19-famous-people-who-believe-jfk-conspiracy.html

What's your point?

>
> So is disgraced professor Jame Fetzer.
>
> When you go down the rabbit hole...
>
> https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/crime-and-courts/2720695-Judge-rules-against-former-UMD-professor-in-Sandy-Hook-case?fbclid=IwAR1ODQ95K-7rrnHbkN_-gxfRwxEZF8P7YIX9qebPgkUfCDuj3VnwD1XZFqE#.XQuZKb6W4a8.facebook

Go down this rabbit hole, retard:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

Agree or disagree?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> >Conspiracism is a disease.
>
>
> An acceptance that crimes frequently involve more than a single
> perpetrator is merely common sense.

The loser started this thread clearly as a means of stonewalling, and bumping the other threads down. It's Poisoning the Well 101. So I won't respond in this thread after this. Let the retard hang himself

>
> It takes a moron to label that a "disease."

You know what else a disease is? You ask someone if 9/11 was a conspiracy, and they answer "no." Meaning, they believe one person flew all four planes. That's the kind of knee-jerk reaction the word "conspiracy" has. They'd rather believe something impossibly idiotic than something reasonable, simply because that word is attached to it.

>
>
> >Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.
>
>
> So is the majority of America.

So was almost half the Warren Commission. But every LNer alive knows more than they did. Just ask them yourself, they'll tell you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 12:52:58 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Conspiracism is a disease.
> >
> >
> > An acceptance that crimes frequently involve more than a single
> > perpetrator is merely common sense.
>
> The loser started this thread clearly as a means of stonewalling, and bumping the other threads down. It's Poisoning the Well 101. So I won't respond in this thread after this. Let the retard hang himself
>
> >
> > It takes a moron to label that a "disease."
>
> You know what else a disease is? You ask someone if 9/11 was a conspiracy, and they answer "no." Meaning, they believe one person flew all four planes.

Some 911 Truthers believe the planes were actually drones. You can't make it up. Boris literally just shit on himself. Yep, some 911 Truthers believe NO PEOPLE flew the four planes, or that what struck the WTCs weren't planes at all. This is the insanity that is conspiracism.

https://911planeshoax.com/tag/911-drone/

In fact, perhaps Boris is behind one of these websites:

https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/p/drone-technology-employed-on-911.html

No planes:

https://airline-whistleblower.blogspot.com/p/drone-technology-employed-on-911.html

>That's the kind of knee-jerk reaction the word "conspiracy" has. They'd rather believe something >impossibly idiotic than something reasonable, simply because that word is attached to it.

Everyone knows 911 was a conspiracy, dolt.

There is a difference between conspiracy (nineteen hijackers) and conspiracism (something else happened, somehow, involving magical explosives and collusion between the Jews, the FDNY, Bush, Cheney, the Port Authority, PNAC, NSA, CIA, FBI, United Airlines, American Airlines, and so on).

If you come up with a conspiracy to test against the Oswald Alone narrative, it can be compared to the historically accepted case. You can make a positive case for what you allege. Until then you fall into the 'something else happened, somehow' camp, and that doesn't cut it.

>
> >
> >
> > >Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.
> >
> >
> > So is the majority of America.
>
> So was almost half the Warren Commission.

They all thought Oswald was guilty as sin.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Some 911 Truthers

Blah, blah. Boring. ANSWER to these:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

> > >
> > > >Ben Holmes is afflicted. So is Boris the Truther. So is David Healy.
> > >
> > >
> > > So is the majority of America.
> >
> > So was almost half the Warren Commission.
>
> They all thought Oswald was guilty as sin.

So do I. Now what?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

We all find something new to discuss.

Was Obama born in Kenya?

Was Hillary part of a pedo ring operating out of a pizza place in DC?

Did nano-thermite bring down the WTCs?

Is Big Pharma holding back the cure for cancer?

Are the Maple Leafs actually trying to lose every year on purpose?

This JFK thing is as stale as year-old bread. Now that you admit LHO is guilty as sin, let go of the last part (conspiracy) and find something new.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > They all thought Oswald was guilty as sin.
> >
> > So do I. Now what?
>
> We all find something new to discuss.

Try this:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

Hasn't been discussed yet.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Endlessly discussed.

You just don't like the answers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > >
> > > We all find something new to discuss.
> >
> > Try this:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> >
> > Hasn't been discussed yet.
>
> Endlessly discussed.

There we go. That's the answer I was waiting for.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ

Look, Ben! Took less than a week.

Liars are predictable.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

You nailed it, Boris!

Lyin' Chuckles will never cite nor quote where that topic has been
"discussed" by him, or any other believer in this forum.

He can't... he's lying.

[Bud]

Here is DVP addressing the first quote of Humes 13 years ago...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/q_UUlASFfLo/pDc9Z-KRVuMJ

If you know how to search you can likely find the other quotes addressed in the archives. I was thinking of addressing them, since you keep referring to them as if you found gold, but it is clearly just the case of an idiot looking at the wrong things incorrectly. And I don`t care that an idiot looks at the wrong things incorrectly.

Since it is clear you can`t make conspiracy arguments using this information there really isn`t anything to do but chalk it up as another failure for your side.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

And that's the response I was expecting.

It took less than 10 minutes.

Here's your answer. Again.

You are inferring off of begged questions.

You are employing a fallacy of composition.

When you can fix the subjectivity of what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.

When you can make a positive case on your own for what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.

For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view. How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?

It's like me arguing that June 21st is the longest day in the year in the northern hemisphere when you think the North Pole is the South Pole, and when you think the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. There's no basis for establishing anything with you guys if we don't even agree on basics.

So do your Snoopy dance and keep telling yourself you haven't been answered.

Flush.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Liars are predictable.
>
> Here is DVP addressing the first quote of Humes 13 years ago...

Speaking of predictable liars...here comes bub "I Have You On Ignore" swooping in, supposedly having taken me off "ignore", but only long enough to respond to a post he didn't see, because I was on "ignore."

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/q_UUlASFfLo/pDc9Z-KRVuMJ
>
> If you know how to search you can likely find the other quotes addressed in the archives.

Yup, as I thought: speculative garbage from DVP that retards just happen to like the sound of. And of course, speculation is all he's got, because the WC never dared to follow up with Humes on what he meant.

Remember, retard..."ignore" means you can't see my posts.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You are inferring off of begged questions.

You are using a fallacy of composition and assuming what is true of a part applies to the whole.

You need to make a positive case for what you allege.

You need to fix the subjective to the objective before you stand on third base and pretend you hit a triple.

Until you up your game, you have no basis for claiming your questions haven't been answered.

They have been answered, just not in the way you'd like. I'm not playing Fetch the Stick.

Now lie again and say you haven't been answered.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:55:14 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:04:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We all find something new to discuss.
> > > >
> > > > Try this:
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> > > >
> > > > Hasn't been discussed yet.
> > >
> > > Endlessly discussed.
> >
> > There we go. That's the answer I was waiting for.
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ
> >
> > Look, Ben! Took less than a week.
> >
> > Liars are predictable.
>
> And that's the response I was expecting.
>
> It took less than 10 minutes.
>
> Here's your answer. Again.
>
> You are inferring off of begged questions.
>
> You are employing a fallacy of composition.
>
> When you can fix the subjectivity of what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
>
> When you can make a positive case on your own for what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
>
> For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view. How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?

Thats exactly right. He trots out Humes and Finck and represents them to be experts on wounds they never examined. He trots out other people and represents them as experts in fields they have no expertise in, making examinations they never made. Who`s job is it to correct idiots, or try to get them to think correctly? Not mine!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ
> >
> > Look, Ben! Took less than a week.
> >
> > Liars are predictable.
>
> And that's the response I was expecting.

Naturally. Because you knew you were lying.

>
> It took less than 10 minutes.

Naturally. Because I knew you would lie, so I had the link saved.

>
> Here's your answer. Again.
>
> You are inferring off of begged questions.

You say "begged questions", I say "expert testimony."

>
> You are employing a fallacy of composition.

Dunning-Kruger.

>
> When you can fix the subjectivity of what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.

Using big words you don't understand again?

>
> When you can make a positive case on your own for what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.

No need, because the WC didn't make a positive case, so I have no so-called "positive" case to counter. Because if they did make a positive case, these discrepancies wouldn't exist:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'

>
> For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view.

https://youtu.be/DJsOmYjsy88?t=723

Note the CIA operative conceding, "I know, I know" throughout.

There's always distortion.

>
> How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?

LOL, you're the one who doesn't believe that. Ask yourself.

>
> It's like me arguing that June 21st

Boring.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'

Agree? Or disagree?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:00:53 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:55:14 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:04:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We all find something new to discuss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Try this:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
> > > > >
> > > > > Hasn't been discussed yet.
> > > >
> > > > Endlessly discussed.
> > >
> > > There we go. That's the answer I was waiting for.
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ
> > >
> > > Look, Ben! Took less than a week.
> > >
> > > Liars are predictable.
> >
> > And that's the response I was expecting.
> >
> > It took less than 10 minutes.
> >
> > Here's your answer. Again.
> >
> > You are inferring off of begged questions.
> >
> > You are employing a fallacy of composition.
> >
> > When you can fix the subjectivity of what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
> >
> > When you can make a positive case on your own for what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
> >
> > For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view. How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?
>
> Thats exactly right. He trots out Humes and Finck and represents them to be experts on wounds they never examined. He trots out other people and represents them as experts in fields they have no expertise in, making examinations they never made. Who`s job is it to correct idiots, or try to get them to think correctly? Not mine!

The Truther, the drunk, and the midget do this ALL the time.

If the entire case is nothing but planted/altered/forged/swapped photos, bullets, film, testimony, prints, money orders, etc., they have no business arguing against anything.

I'm sure this escapes them.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:58:43 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Liars are predictable.
> >
> > Here is DVP addressing the first quote of Humes 13 years ago...
>
>
> Speaking of predictable liars...here comes bub "I Have You On Ignore" swooping in, supposedly having taken me off "ignore", but only long enough to respond to a post he didn't see, because I was on "ignore."

I did ignore it the first dozen times or so you linked to it. You were so proud with your "what about this?" list. Chuck said the issues were discussed. You called him a liar for saying so. I thought I`d let any readers know who the real liar was.

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/q_UUlASFfLo/pDc9Z-KRVuMJ
> >
> > If you know how to search you can likely find the other quotes addressed in the archives.
>
> Yup, as I thought: speculative garbage from DVP that retards just happen to like the sound of.

So you were just lying for practice when you insinuated these issues were never discussed. You think discussions started when you showed up.

> And of course, speculation is all he's got, because the WC never dared to follow up with Humes on what he meant.

What is telling is that idiots focus on *this*. Not the things that give insight, just the muddle.

> Remember, retard..."ignore" means you can't see my posts.

Wrong.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view. How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?
>
> Thats exactly right. He trots out Humes and Finck and represents them to be experts on wounds they never examined. He trots out other people and represents them as experts in fields they have no expertise in, making examinations they never made. Who`s job is it to correct idiots, or try to get them to think correctly? Not mine!

LN trolls trot out Humes and Finck as "experts in postmortem medicine", often quote their autopsy report conclusions, and yet entrust completely in those conclusions despite lack of examinations made.

Hilarious, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I did ignore it the first dozen times or so you linked to it.

You should have continued. Now you're making a "Bud" of yourself.

>
> You were so proud with your "what about this?" list.

It *is* a good list. Care to give it a try?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ

Do you agree with the experts?

>
> Chuck said the issues were discussed. You called him a liar for saying so. I thought I`d let any readers know who the real liar was.

The first liar would be Chuck, as I don't see his name anywhere in that "discussion" thread.

The second liar would be you, for thinking DVP's **speculative** guesswork of ONE of those points of testimony constitutes that the "ISSUES" [plural] have all been addressed.


Squat and flush.

[Bud]

Do you know why autopsies are performed, stupid?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

So that you can quote the conclusions of the autopsy report as often as you can, just before demonstrating to all of us that it was written by people who "never examined" several of the wounds. I'm wondering now, just how stupid are you?

[Bud]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:20:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I did ignore it the first dozen times or so you linked to it.
>
> You should have continued.

Can`t argue with that.

> Now you're making a "Bud" of yourself.
>
> >
> > You were so proud with your "what about this?" list.
>
> It *is* a good list. Care to give it a try?

Not really.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>
> Do you agree with the experts?

Do you understand their expertise?

> > Chuck said the issues were discussed. You called him a liar for saying so. I thought I`d let any readers know who the real liar was.
>
> The first liar would be Chuck, as I don't see his name anywhere in that "discussion" thread.

You think discussion can`t take place unless Chuck is involved?

> The second liar would be you, for thinking DVP's **speculative** guesswork of ONE of those points of testimony constitutes that the "ISSUES" [plural] have all been addressed.

Chuck said they have been discussed. And they have. I suggest you do your own searching and cure your own ignorance. Until then you should refrain from calling people liars for things you are totally clueless about. Which is just about everything.


> Squat and flush.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:06:55 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ
> > >
> > > Look, Ben! Took less than a week.
> > >
> > > Liars are predictable.
> >
> > And that's the response I was expecting.
>
> Naturally. Because you knew you were lying.

Keep telling yourself that.

>
> >
> > It took less than 10 minutes.
>
> Naturally. Because I knew you would lie, so I had the link saved.

And naturally you'd claim you weren't answered when, in fact, you've been answered. You just don't like the answers.

>
> >
> > Here's your answer. Again.
> >
> > You are inferring off of begged questions.
>
> You say "begged questions", I say "expert testimony."
>
> >
> > You are employing a fallacy of composition.
>
> Dunning-Kruger.

That one applies to you too.

>
> >
> > When you can fix the subjectivity of what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
>
> Using big words you don't understand again?

I'm using big words you don't understand again.

>
> >
> > When you can make a positive case on your own for what you are inferring, there is a basis for rational discussion.
>
> No need, because the WC didn't make a positive case,

Boris "Dunning-Kruger" anyone?

>so I have no so-called "positive" case to counter. Because if they did make a positive case, these >discrepancies wouldn't exist:

Bullshit. It is self-evident that there is discrepancies in all human endeavors and activities. Nothing is perfect. Not even you, Boris.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'
>
>
> >
> > For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view.
>
> https://youtu.be/DJsOmYjsy88?t=723
>
> Note the CIA operative conceding, "I know, I know" throughout.
>
> There's always distortion.
>
>
> >
> > How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?
>
> LOL, you're the one who doesn't believe that. Ask yourself.

No, I'm asking you. It goes to the heart of your inferences off of begged questions. If you were really as smart as you think you are, you could re-read the above and get the meaning behind the words. I chose them carefully.

>
> >
> > It's like me arguing that June 21st
>
> Boring.

So boring you snipped what I wrote. If we have no common ground on the basic facts, you have no basis for propping up Finck as an expert in micro-fragments in JBC's wrist.

Do we first agree that CE 399 wasn't planted/swapped? Then we can talk about Finck's opinion he offered.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'
>
> Agree? Or disagree?

We need to establish a few things first. See above.

The ball is in your court.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:20:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I did ignore it the first dozen times or so you linked to it.
> >
> > You should have continued.
>
> Can`t argue with that.
>
> > Now you're making a "Bud" of yourself.
> >
> > >
> > > You were so proud with your "what about this?" list.
> >
> > It *is* a good list. Care to give it a try?
>
> Not really.

Thought not.

You're done.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:26:59 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:22:25 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:12:22 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view. How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?
> > > >
> > > > Thats exactly right. He trots out Humes and Finck and represents them to be experts on wounds they never examined. He trots out other people and represents them as experts in fields they have no expertise in, making examinations they never made. Who`s job is it to correct idiots, or try to get them to think correctly? Not mine!
> > >
> > > LN trolls trot out Humes and Finck as "experts in postmortem medicine", often quote their autopsy report conclusions, and yet entrust completely in those conclusions despite lack of examinations made.
> > >
> > > Hilarious, lurkers.
> >
> > Do you know why autopsies are performed, stupid?
>
> So that you can quote the conclusions of the autopsy report

Why wouldn`t I? It is the purpose of the autopsy to determine the facts about the death.

> as often as you can, just before demonstrating to all of us that it was written by people who "never examined" several of the wounds.

Idiots have contrived reasons to disregard the findings of the autopsy, what could matter less?

> I'm wondering now, just how stupid are you?

I know why autopsies are performed.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

If you only knew what an ass you're making of yourself...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

[chuck's stupid shit snipped]

>
>
> >so I have no so-called "positive" case to counter. Because if they did make a positive case, these >discrepancies wouldn't exist:
>
> Bullshit. It is self-evident that there is discrepancies in all human endeavors and activities.

That's a no. Chuck DOESN'T believe the experts. Chuck is clearly afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Chuck has determined on his own that there are discrepancies even with what experts have to say. AND he has determined on his own what those discrepancies are, and where in their official testimony those discrepancies are located. Chuck knows better than them.

>
> Nothing is perfect.

Except the Warren Commission and the autopsy report conclusions. Those are "perfect." Aren't they?

> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For example, you don't even believe CE 399 was a bullet fired at JFK or JBC. This was planted/swapped, in your view.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/DJsOmYjsy88?t=723
> >
> > Note the CIA operative conceding, "I know, I know" throughout.
> >
> > There's always distortion.

And there's always crickets from the LN brigade!

> >
> >
> > >
> > > How do you then infer Finck is correct with the opinion he offered to the WC questioners about the fragments left in JBC exceeding the bullet's actual pristine weight? How is it established that Finck--who didn't work on JBC at Parkland--is an expert in the matter involving micro fragments left in JBC's wrist? Where did he get his information from?
> >
> > LOL, you're the one who doesn't believe that. Ask yourself.
>
> No, I'm asking you. It goes to the heart of your inferences off of begged questions. If you were really as smart as you think you are, you could re-read the above and get the meaning behind the words. I chose them carefully.

And if you were as smart as you think you are, you'd be able to show us just why it is you trust Finck's conclusions when you've basically just admitted he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about.

You believe the conclusions of the autopsy report.

And you absolutely DON'T believe any of the findings which lead to those conclusions.

You chose your words "so carefully" that you just cut off your nose to spite your face. You are a cognitive-dissonant Dunning-Kruger clown car of a troll.

> >
> > >
> > > It's like me arguing that June 21st
> >
> > Boring.
>
> So boring you snipped what I wrote.

And will do again. No need to embarrass you twice.

> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ'
> >
> > Agree? Or disagree?

NOW it's been answered. Chuck says "no," he does not agree with the experts. He just doesn't realize he said it yet.

[Bud]

I doubt I`m done explaining things to idiots. But your ignorance is yours to remedy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:00:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:56:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:04:29 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We all find something new to discuss.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try this:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/_KuzJtCGbp4/XCZqubSGBwAJ
>>>>>
>>>>> Hasn't been discussed yet.
>>>>
>>>> Endlessly discussed.
>>>
>>>There we go. That's the answer I was waiting for.
>>>
>>>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/BEAfWKEQiDI/vR9fXpdWAAAJ
>>>
>>>Look, Ben! Took less than a week.
>>>
>>>Liars are predictable.
>>
>> You nailed it, Boris!
>>
>> Lyin' Chuckles will never cite nor quote where that topic has been
>> "discussed" by him, or any other believer in this forum.
>>
>> He can't... he's lying.
>
>You are inferring off of begged questions.

You still didn't.

>You are using a fallacy of composition and assuming what is true of a part applies to the whole.

You still didn't.

>You need to make a positive case for what you allege.

Just did. You've been proven a liar.

>You need to fix the subjective to the objective before you stand on third base and pretend you hit a triple.

Just did.

>Until you up your game, you have no basis for claiming your questions haven't been answered.

No need to "up my game."

You've been proven a liar.

>They have been answered, just not in the way you'd like. I'm not playing Fetch the Stick.

There you go lying again...

>Now lie again and say you haven't been answered.

It's not a "lie"... and the PROOF of that fact is that you were
completely and totally unable to quote and cite the prior answer you
claim exists.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:39:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

The only asses are the ones who keep claiming that an answer has been
provided... yet you can't give it or cite it.

Since it would consist of a single word, any time you reply with more
than that - you've proven yourself a liar.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You said I didn't answer, but I did. You infer off of what you beg.

When I actually made the mistake of specifically pointing out one instance of how you infer from begged questions, you ran. I used Finck as quoted from your "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction" link. You claim CE 399 is not the bullet the WC surmised passed through JFK and ended up working itself free from JBC's body at Parkland, yet you want me to honor Finck's opinion that there were more fragments in JBC's wrist than what CE 399 could've shed.

If we don't both accept CE 399 is a bullet from the shooting, your crying about Finck's opinion on wrist fragments is moot.

So why are you bringing it up if CE 399 was planted or swapped? If we don't have the CORRECT evidence in the chain, why is Finck's position on wrist fragments useful?

You hold contradictory positions and trot out both as correct when it suits you. When it's pointed out, you run.

If it's established that CE 399 is an evidentiary accurate bullet from the shooting, the argument can shift to determining if Finck's opinion on the JBC wrist fragments being greater than what was extruded from CE 399 has merit.

Fix your arguments on CE 399 before you stand on 3rd base like you just hit a triple regarding Finck's claim on the wrist fragments.

[David Healy]

Top Post: Dance Sweet Gloria DANCE!

You're a liar and disinfo artist, you're worse than a POS! Smooches...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> You said I didn't answer, but I did. You infer off of what you beg.

No you don't. And you never do. Until today, when you indirectly answered "no." But of course, that comment post-dated your lie that you answered anything. You don't answer anything. Ever.

>
> When I actually made the mistake of specifically pointing out one instance of how you infer from begged questions, you ran. I used Finck as quoted from your "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction" link. You claim CE 399 is not the bullet the WC surmised passed through JFK and ended up working itself free from JBC's body at Parkland, yet you want me to honor Finck's opinion that there were more fragments in JBC's wrist than what CE 399 could've shed.
>
> If we don't both accept CE 399 is a bullet from the shooting, your crying about Finck's opinion on wrist fragments is moot.
>
> So why are you bringing it up if CE 399 was planted or swapped? If we don't have the CORRECT evidence in the chain, why is Finck's position on wrist fragments useful?

LOL!! Cutting off your nose to spite your face again, moron? It's a catch-22 for you no matter how you twist it. Are you so dumb that you don't realize what you've just said?

>
> You hold contradictory positions and trot out both as correct when it suits you. When it's pointed out, you run.

Uh-huh, now let's see you do exactly NOT that. Right?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 10:20:57 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > You said I didn't answer, but I did. You infer off of what you beg.
>
> No you don't. And you never do. Until today, when you indirectly answered "no." But of course, that comment post-dated your lie that you answered anything. You don't answer anything. Ever.

I don't answer the way you want me to answer. You want me to Fetch the Stick. I'm not playing.

>
> >
> > When I actually made the mistake of specifically pointing out one instance of how you infer from begged questions, you ran. I used Finck as quoted from your "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction" link. You claim CE 399 is not the bullet the WC surmised passed through JFK and ended up working itself free from JBC's body at Parkland, yet you want me to honor Finck's opinion that there were more fragments in JBC's wrist than what CE 399 could've shed.
> >
> > If we don't both accept CE 399 is a bullet from the shooting, your crying about Finck's opinion on wrist fragments is moot.
> >
> > So why are you bringing it up if CE 399 was planted or swapped? If we don't have the CORRECT evidence in the chain, why is Finck's position on wrist fragments useful?
>
> LOL!! Cutting off your nose to spite your face again, moron? It's a catch-22 for you no matter how you twist it. Are you so dumb that you don't realize what you've just said?

I'll write more slowly so you can understand it.

YOU claim CE 399 is planted/swapped. Using Finck's opinion as gospel on micro fragments from an examination he didn't perform to bolster your premise is begging the question. You're saying, "CE 399 was planted because a doctor who did JFK's autopsy offered an opinion on a patient he didn't examine, on the provenance of a bullet he didn't collect, on a ballistic test he didn't perform."

Are you so dumb that you don't understand this?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:27:02 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'll write more slowly so you can understand it.

Clearly *YOU* don't understand that you're provably guilty of the very
Dunning-Kruger effect you've been trying to pin on critics.

You REJECT any expert opinion in this case that doesn't support your faith.

Critics, on the other hand, only reject expert opinion IF IT IS NOT BASED ON
THE EVIDENCE, OR IS CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

> YOU claim CE 399 is planted/swapped.

I don't know about Boris, but the EVIDENCE is for a swapped bullet, not a
planted one.

There's a clear and distinct difference between planting and swapping.

You quite desperately want no differentiation between the two, because of
the reasonable arguments against planting...

But you have ZERO arguments against the swapping of the bullet, and
testimony that favors this possibility.

So you simply lie about the topic.


I've challenged you before to give your best argument against the bullet
being swapped, and you refused to do so.

Your cowardice proves the case.

> Using Finck's opinion as gospel on micro fragments from an examination
> he didn't perform to bolster your premise is begging the question.

He's a trained medical expert.

You are PRECISELY exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger... you are holding your
opinion as higher than an expert - BASED ON NOTHING AT ALL.

**ANY** medical doctor can examine a bullet, and read the medical
information from another trained doctor, and present his expert opinion.

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission's
Exhibit 399?
Colonel FINCK - For the first time this afternoon, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And based upon your examination of that bullet, do you have
an opinion as to whether in its current condition it could have passed
through President Kennedy at point C-D in 385 and then inflicted the wound
in the back and chest of Governor Connally?

Colonel FINCK - Yes; I do. This is a bullet showing marks indicating the
bullet was fired. The second point is that there was practically no loss
of this bullet. It kept its original caliber and dimensions. There was no
evidence that any major portion of the jacket was lost, and I consider this
as one bullet which possibly could have gone through the wounds you described.
Mr. SPECTER - And could that bullet possibly have gone through President
Kennedy in 388?
Colonel FINCK - Through President Kennedy's head? 388?
Mr. SPECTER - And remained intact in the way you see it now?
Colonel FINCK - Definitely not.
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments
described in that wrist.

It's clear that he *KNEW* the evidence, was basing his expert opinion *ON*
that evidence, and you disregard it because you believe *YOUR* opinion is
better than Dr. Finck.

That's classic Dunning-Kruger...

***************************************************************************
Dunning and Kruger suggest that this phenomenon stems from what they refer
to as a "dual burden." People are not only incompetent; their incompetence
robs them of the mental ability to realize just how inept they are.

Incompetent people tend to:

* Overestimate their own skill levels
* Fail to recognize the genuine skill and expertise of other people
* Fail to recognize their own mistakes and lack of skill
***************************************************************************

That's your burden, Chuckles... you're incompetent, and hold your lack of
expertise higher than medically trained doctors stating an opinion in their
field.

> You're saying, "CE 399 was planted because a doctor who did JFK's autopsy
> offered an opinion on a patient he didn't examine, on the provenance of a
> bullet he didn't collect, on a ballistic test he didn't perform."
>
> Are you so dumb that you don't understand this?

You clearly are. Because this is a medical opinion BASED ON THE FACTS that
you've not disputed.0

Yet you hold your medical opinion higher than Dr. Finck. (and, of course,
EVERY OTHER medical doctor who testified on this issue.

Classic Dunning-Kruger.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 19:29:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> NOW it's been answered. Chuck says "no," he does not agree with
>> the experts. He just doesn't realize he said it yet.
>
>You said I didn't answer, but I did. You infer off of what you beg.

You've **NEVER** answered the question. But Boris rightfully points
out that even though you refuse to say "yes" or "no" ... you clearly
admit to disagreeing with medical experts.

You're a classic case of the "Dunning-Kruger" effect.

You hold your wacky opinion higher than trained medical experts who
are testifying in their field, on evidence they know.

You *KNOW* that your answer, were you to ever actually give it, is
"no"... that's why you're afraid to answer, and why you can't actually
QUOTE OR CITE your previous answer you claim to have given.

Quite the liar and coward, aren't you Chuckles?

You're well named.

You're a joke.