Are the Lone Nutters now Proxies for the WC ?

Gil Jesus

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 12:08:27 PM9/20/23

to

Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 12:54:02 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 09:08:26 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

They refuse to carry their burden.

Bud

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 3:31:28 PM9/20/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

Wrong.

Bud

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 3:31:52 PM9/20/23

to

It is a lie to say we have one.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 3:36:11 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 3:36:23 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:31:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 4:22:04 PM9/20/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

What missing evidence and what contradictions?

Be specific.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 4:27:50 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:22:03 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Bud

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 4:46:42 PM9/20/23

to

Ben the Troll is sick of being slapped around so he has taken to hiding behind rote responses.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 4:55:34 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 13:46:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

John Corbett

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 5:47:56 PM9/20/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

We have no burden. We don't give a shit if you accept the conclusions of the WC or not. The
WC provided ample evidence of Oswald's guilt. If you want to argue that someone other than
Oswald was involved in the crime, that burden is yours. Unless someone can do that, history
will rightly record that Oswald was the assassin because he is the only one implicated by the
evidence.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 6:02:10 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:47:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
>
>We have no burden.

Believers never do..

>We don't give a shit if you accept the conclusions of the WC or not. The
>WC provided ample evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Why can't you cite the evidence?

It's your cowardice that's the reason most of America doesn't believe
the WCR.

Bud

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 6:15:49 PM9/20/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:02:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:47:54 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
> >
> >We have no burden.
> Believers never do..

Ben is right for once.

This is a conspiracy forum, these guys are supposed to be explaining how Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Seems they only have innuendo and nothing specific, something along the lines of "some people did stuff".

> >We don't give a shit if you accept the conclusions of the WC or not. The
> >WC provided ample evidence of Oswald's guilt.
> Why can't you cite the evidence?

Why can`t you find it yourself, it is available online.

> It's your cowardice that's the reason most of America doesn't believe
> the WCR.

Free country. A lot of people believe in angels.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 20, 2023, 6:37:26 PM9/20/23

to

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

John Corbett

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 5:14:24 AM9/21/23

to

Most of the people who believe in a JFK conspiracy simply aren't well informed about the
evidence of Oswald's guilt and the lack of evidence of the involvement of others. That makes
it easy for scammers like Oliver Stone to fill their heads with mush.

There is as much evidence for JFK conspirators as there is for angels. Belief in either is a
matter of blind faith.

NoTrueFlags Here

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 5:34:57 AM9/21/23

to

It never ceases to amaze me that Moron Corbett is so fucking stupid.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:19:55 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:14:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Most of the people who believe in a JFK conspiracy simply aren't well informed about the
>evidence of Oswald's guilt and the lack of evidence of the involvement of others.

Yet even HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE people will still refuse to accept the
WCR.

It's simply a lie to claim that a lack of being "well informed" has
anything at all to do with what one accepts about this case.

John Corbett

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:26:46 AM9/21/23

to

Has Toilet Seat changed his screen name or are there now two assholes as dumb as him on
this board?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:31:35 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:26:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Has Toilet Seat changed his screen name or are there now two assholes as dumb as him on
>this board?

Now you can't remember posts from just 3 days ago... ROTFLMAO!!!

Gil Jesus

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:41:22 AM9/21/23

to

The only dumb asshole here is Corbett. Or maybe the Momo didn't get the memo.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/S3yJsOofjhs/m/fNdfWVgBAgAJ

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:53:07 AM9/21/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.

Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.

By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

Na.

The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.

Claiming that on 11/22/63 some people did something is too vague. Asking us to endlessly answer your logically fallacious hobby points is fruitless; you don't accept the answers you've received, and you never will.

So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X" happened, and so on.

In other words, grow up.

John Corbett

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 10:55:26 AM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
> So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X" happened, and so on.
>
> In other words, grow up.

And grow a pair.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 11:13:34 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.
>
>Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.

None of whom agreed with each other.

>By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
>
>Na.

Yes stupid... this is commonly accepted by people everywhere.

>The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.

Been there, done that.

You ran.

As you always do.

>Claiming that on 11/22/63 some people did something is too vague.

This is *YOUR* claim. No critic has ever said that.

> Asking us to endlessly answer your logically fallacious hobby points
> is fruitless; you don't accept the answers you've received, and you
> never will.

You're lying again, Chuckles... you're pretending that you GIVE
answers.

> So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of
> your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X"
> happened, and so on.

No. This is about YOU, not the critics...

You lose.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 11:14:21 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:55:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And grow a pair.

Anytime, Corbutt. You can find me at the Judo club.

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 11:49:00 AM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:13:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.
> >
> >Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.

> None of whom agreed with each other.

Sez you, a troll.

> >By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
> >
> >Na.

> Yes stupid... this is commonly accepted by people everywhere.

We're bouncing the rubble. You claim your hobby points remain unexplained, but they seemingly remain unexplained only TO YOU, a troll.

> >The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.

> Been there, done that.

You've never explained what happened or how, or offered up research or recreations or tests for your insane screeds, such as the JFK coffin/body switch/pre-autopsy operation, etc. theory you've promoted via Doug Horne. It's not in your multi-segment Magnum Opus, and you'll NEVER explain how this happened, when, the mechanics of how it happened, and so on.
>
> You ran.

Na.

>
> As you always do.

> >Claiming that on 11/22/63 some people did something is too vague.

> This is *YOUR* claim. No critic has ever said that.

Then specifically tell us what happened. My summary of your position is accurate; some people did something. Something else happened somehow. WHAT HAPPENED??????

> > Asking us to endlessly answer your logically fallacious hobby points
> > is fruitless; you don't accept the answers you've received, and you
> > never will.

> You're lying again, Chuckles... you're pretending that you GIVE
> answers.

Answered endlessly.

> > So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of
> > your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X"
> > happened, and so on.

> No. This is about YOU, not the critics...
>
> You lose.

Ben is undefeated. Do your Snoopy Dance, shorty.

Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 11:52:13 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:49:52 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chuckles is a coward too.

Run Chuckles... RUN!!!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 11:59:10 AM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:13:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.
>>>
>>>Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.
>
>> None of whom agreed with each other.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chuckles got spanked.

>>>By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
>>>
>>>Na.
>
>> Yes stupid... this is commonly accepted by people everywhere.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.
>
>> Been there, done that.
>
>You've never explained what happened or how

>> As you always do.
>
>>>Claiming that on 11/22/63 some people did something is too vague.
>
>> This is *YOUR* claim. No critic has ever said that.
>

>Then...

So you admit it.

You lose!

>>> Asking us to endlessly answer your logically fallacious hobby points
>>> is fruitless; you don't accept the answers you've received, and you
>>> never will.
>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles... you're pretending that you GIVE
>> answers.
>
>Answered endlessly.

**NEVER** answered. Take, for example, the questions that Chickenshit
and Huckster are currently running from ... **CITE** where an answer
has EVER been given.

You can't.

You're lying.

>>> So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of
>>> your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X"
>>> happened, and so on.
>
>> No. This is about YOU, not the critics...
>>
>> You lose.
>

>Ben...

Taint about me, we're discusssing the failures of believers to support
the WCR.

Bud

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:24:44 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:19:55 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:14:22 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Most of the people who believe in a JFK conspiracy simply aren't well informed about the
> >evidence of Oswald's guilt and the lack of evidence of the involvement of others.
> Yet even HIGHLY KNOWLEDGEABLE people will still refuse to accept the
> WCR.

We call such folks "retards".

> It's simply a lie to claim that a lack of being "well informed" has
> anything at all to do with what one accepts about this case.

It is simply a lie to claim that uninformed opinions are worth anything.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:30:24 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Bud

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:30:41 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:13:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.
> >
> >Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.
> None of whom agreed with each other.

You are simply lying, they all agreed that Kennedy dies from bullets fire from the TSBD by Lee Harvey Oswald.

> >By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
> >
> >Na.
> Yes stupid... this is commonly accepted by people everywhere.

Wrong, as usual.

> >The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.
> Been there, done that.

Liar.

> You ran.

From what, all you do is blow hot air.

> As you always do.
> >Claiming that on 11/22/63 some people did something is too vague.
> This is *YOUR* claim. No critic has ever said that.

They never get that specific.

> > Asking us to endlessly answer your logically fallacious hobby points
> > is fruitless; you don't accept the answers you've received, and you
> > never will.
> You're lying again, Chuckles... you're pretending that you GIVE
> answers.

You pretend we don`t.

> > So DO SOMETHING positive. PRODUCE A CASE, and INVITE criticism of
> > your methodology, interpretation of the data you feel shows "X"
> > happened, and so on.
> No. This is about YOU, not the critics...

You have nothing and have gone nowhere, so you play "look over there at them" games.

> You lose.

Is it winning to be dead in the water, going nowhere?

Bud

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:31:28 PM9/21/23

to

Ben proves Chuck correct and himself a liar once more.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:41:11 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:41:17 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:57:59 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>
> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question.

You've never asked an honest question.

>He knows
> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>
> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>
> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Lol.

Bud: "Jump Ben!"

Ben: "How high?"

Chuck Schuyler

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 1:59:18 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:59:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:13:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 07:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 11:08:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence.
> >>>
> >>>Done by the DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA and various sub investigations.
> >
> >> None of whom agreed with each other.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> Chuckles got spanked.
> >>>By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.
> >>>
> >>>Na.
> >
> >> Yes stupid... this is commonly accepted by people everywhere.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >>>The burden falls upon Team Oswald to produce something we can compare the historically accepted case--Oswald alone, no known help--to.
> >
> >> Been there, done that.
> >
> >You've never explained what happened or how
> Multiple shooters shot at JFK. They used their index finger to pull
> the trigger.
>
>
> >> You ran.
> >
> >Na.
>
> Anyone can see that you're a liar...
>
>

> The Challenge - Part 1...

...hobby points deleted.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:11:29 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:59:16 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can run, coward... but you can't hide your cowardice...

Of course, cowards like you run...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:12:58 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:41:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>>
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chuckles can't answer this either... of course, in his case, it's
because he's not sure who Buglioisi is.

Bud

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:24:27 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:57:59 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
> > "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
> >
> > Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question.
> You've never asked an honest question.

Or gave an honest answer to a question.

> >He knows
> > that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> > get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
> >
> > It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> > where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
> >
> > So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
> Lol.
>
> Bud: "Jump Ben!"
>
> Ben: "How high?"

I own him. I even have the receipt.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:26:46 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows

John Corbett

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:29:55 PM9/21/23

to

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 2:24:27 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> > Bud: "Jump Ben!"
> >
> > Ben: "How high?"
> I own him. I even have the receipt.

That's good. If I were you, I'd take him back to the store and get your money back. Tell them the
product is defective.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 21, 2023, 2:34:32 PM9/21/23

to

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:29:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacies deleted.

You can't convince America with logical fallacies...

All you can do is make us laugh at you...

Bud

unread,

Sep 22, 2023, 2:22:58 PM9/22/23

to

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> Yes. it's their burden to deal with the evidence. By accpeting the Commission's conclusions, the burden falls on them to explain the missing evidence and contradictions in the case.

"In something like 20 years of listening to JFK conspiracy theories, I
have yet to see a single conspiracy theorist who has the slightest
interest in solving the crime. Instead they're obsessed with recruiting
some palookah to accept the burden to affirm the conventional narrative,
so that all their irrelevant, speculative nit-pickings have something to
bounce off of."

-Jay Utah.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 22, 2023, 7:47:02 PM9/22/23

to

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 11:22:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>