Huckster Sienzant - Failed Again...

[Ben Holmes]

"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...

> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> claim.

I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.

Huckster couldn't do it.

Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> lying. ...

Here are some of those witnesses in their OWN words, not hearsay :

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4

[John Corbett]

Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was not made under oath and therefore
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:21:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:05:37?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>>> (WCR 61)
>>>
>>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>>> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
>>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>>> lying. ...
>> Here are some of those witnesses in their OWN words, not hearsay :
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4
>
>Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was not made under oath and therefore
>inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.

However, and this troll knows this, eyewitnesses did indeed point to
the Grassy Knoll, and the WC therefore PROVABLY LIED in their claim
that "no credible evidence" shows shots fired from the GK.

And, of course, the troll can't quite figure out what admissible
evidence is.

[Ben Holmes]

And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
turned and ran.

[Bud]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> a statement such as this.

A lot of weak doesn`t make strong.

"credible" means...

"offering reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted"

Make you case that the information supplied by the witnesses who thought the shots came from the knoll was credible.

Stop standing on second base and pretending you hit a double.

> And since the legal system in America *does*
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> lying. ...

What did these eyewitnesses see?

> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > claim.
>
> I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.

You actually didn`t say anything, did you?

[Bud]

How many times has he addressed this?

[Hank Sienzant]

At least three times.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I can’t establish how many. But given Ben’s penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.

Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ

Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ

And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

Found a response from Bud back in 2006 — 17 years ago!
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AXYsC_iPqjQ/m/sFiRffS1CdkJ

[John Corbett]

AKA a liar and a coward.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore

> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.

There you go lying again.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?

[John Corbett]

You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.

You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:

In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 03:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>
>There you go lying again.
>When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?

This is an easy prediction: the troll will neither produce a quote, or
apologize for his lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 04:16:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>> > inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>> There you go lying again.
>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>
>You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>inconsistent.
>
>You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>
>In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?

Did I predict it or what???

Corbutt's a proven liar...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 22:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

And yet, the fact remains - Huckster has **NEVER** quoted me where I
said what he claimed I'd said.

You cannot "address" a lie without acknowledging it, or retracting it.

So keep right on running Huckster... and I'm going to keep right on
proving you're a liar and a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 22:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Now you're implying that I claimed no "responses" were made. Without
even bothering to click on that link, I can state authoritatively that
it doesn't contain any proof that I ever made that statement.

And since Chickenshit cannot retract a lie, or apologize for one
posted by *YOU*, there's no point in posting this link, is there?

JUST QUOTE WHERE I SAID WHAT YOU CLAIMED I'D SAID!!!

Or admit you're a proven liar.

It's that simple.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 03:18:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Lies will only work for fellow believers, who believe them.

But Huckster is smart enough to know that I've PROVEN him a liar.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.

You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent, but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:50:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>>>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>>> There you go lying again.
>>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>> You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>> inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>> to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>>
>> In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>> information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>> It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
>

>Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested...


Blatant logical fallacy as well as a rather stupid lie... deleted.

>You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day

I've REPEATEDLY asked you this exact question, and you've REPEATEDLY
run away.

Why won't you answer YOUR OWN QUESTION?

Go ahead... ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!

Or run away like the coward you provably are...

[Hank Sienzant]

What part of your claim and my rebuttal didn't you understand

You said: "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying."

And I properly pointed out that "There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim."

I went on to clarify:
---------- quote ----------
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
My point was, which you omit, that it's up to the jury (in a jury
trial) or the judge, or in this case, the Warren Commission to
determine whether the witness(es) is credible or not. They are not automatically assumed to be credible by the judicial systen, which
is your claim.

My claim holds with or without the "all". But since you didn't limit
your claim in any way, I pointed out it doesn't apply to "all" witnesses.

I could have just as easily made the same point with the use of the word
"any":
== QUOTE ==

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system

accepting *any* eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

or without any qualifier whatsoever:
== QUOTE ==

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system

accepting eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

Eyewitness testimony can be presented at the hearing, the trial, the grand jury proceeding, whatever.

It's not deemed credible by the judicial system.

It's still up to the trier of fact to make that determination whether it's credible or not.

The Warren Commission made the determination that the witnessesto shots anywhere but the Depository weren't credible, as is their right. That's what they said. That's what you quoted.

Argue against the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.


>
> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> with my post.
>
> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."

Not true. The judge, the jury, or in this case, the Warren Commissioners get to decide on an individual basis how much credibility to grant to each witness. They are not assumed to be credible, and the judicial system doesn't accept them as credible automatically. That's been my point all along.

Argue against the point I made, not the one you wish to pretend I made.


>
> And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
> forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.

I wasn't forced to lie about anything. I didn't lie. I pointed out you claimed that witnesses were granted credibility by the
U.S. judicial system, and that's simply not so.
---------- unquote ----------

But you want to argue about whether you said "all" or simply implied "all".

Your point has no bearing on the subject unless the "all" is assumed. Because if it's not assumed, then credibility is judged by the trier of fact on an individual witness by basis basis, which is what I've been arguing all along.

It's not granted to all witnesses by the U.S. Judicial system. It's weighed on an individual basis.

So let's get to the point, does your claim make any sense on its face, and can you claim that the Warren Commission lied because, as you claimed: "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying."?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

The part where you quoted me saying what you claimed I'd said.


(dead silence...)

>> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
>> with my post.
>>
>> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
>
>Not true.

Cite for your lie.

>> And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
>> forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.
>

>I wasn't forced to lie about anything...


And yet, you still can't quote me saying what you claimed I'd argued.

Why is that, liar?

[John Corbett]

Gil's greatest sin is he has double standards. He insists Oswald can't be declared the assassin
because he was never convicted in court. Then he turns around and accuses all sorts of people
of being complicit in the assassination, even though they have never had their day in court either.
Gil falsely claims that much of the evidence of Oswald's guilt would have been inadmissible in
court simply because he doesn't want to have to deal with it. Then he turns around and accepts
unsworn statements made in videos made by Mark Lane as if those are empirical evidence, even
though none of it would be admissible in court.

Gil doesn't like having his hypocrisy exposed and usually when this happens, he bails out of the
thread. It won't surprise me one bit if he does the same in this thread. He'll move on and start
another thread in which he exhibits his double standards for evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

>On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:51:00?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>>>>>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>>>>> There you go lying again.
>>>>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>>>> You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>>>> inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>>>> to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>>>>
>>>> In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>>>> information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>>>> It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
>>> Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
>>>
>>> You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent, but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
>>

>>Gil's greatest sin...
>
>Is that he tells the truth you can't face.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:51:00?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>>>>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>>>> There you go lying again.
>>>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>>> You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>>> inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>>> to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>>> inconsistent.
>>>
>>> You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>>>
>>> In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>>> information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>>> It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
>> Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
>>
>> You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent, but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
>

[Bud]

Just saw this quote, that make me think of the conspiracy folk...

“Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”

— Miyamoto Musashi

[Chuck Schuyler]

Silly. You know my position.

>
> Why won't you answer YOUR OWN QUESTION?
>
> Go ahead... ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!


>
> Or run away like the coward you provably are...

Cowardice is why you joined the Marines.

[John Corbett]

I guess the answer is Gil can't pick one. Gil doesn't want to be held to the same rules of
evidence he imposes on the LNs. I'm not surprised Gil seems to have bailed out of this
thread. It's what he does when faced with questions he doesn't want to answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 18:39:41 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:08:18?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:50:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>>>>>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>>>>> There you go lying again.
>>>>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>>>> You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>>>> inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>>>> to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>>>>
>>>> In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>>>> information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>>>> It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
>>>
>>>Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested...
>>
>>
>> Blatant logical fallacy as well as a rather stupid lie... deleted.
>
>>>You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day
>
>> I've REPEATEDLY asked you this exact question, and you've REPEATEDLY
>> run away.
>
>Silly. You know my position.

And you know ours... yet *WE* are happy to state it, in detail, with
citations... all the time.

You refuse to.

That tells the tale.

>> Why won't you answer YOUR OWN QUESTION?
>>
>> Go ahead... ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!

Notice folks, Chuckles refused.

>> Or run away like the coward you provably are...

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 03:38:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:16:03?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
>>>> inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
>>> There you go lying again.
>>> When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
>> You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
>> inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
>> to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
>>
>> In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
>> information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
>> It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
>
>I guess the answer is Gil can't pick one. Gil doesn't want to be held to the same rules of
>evidence he imposes on the LNs. I'm not surprised Gil seems to have bailed out of this
>thread. It's what he does when faced with questions he doesn't want to answer.

Coming from the coward who refuses to debate - this response of yours
is DRIPPING with irony.

**YOU** want to use "evidence" that no intelligent person would use,
other than rabid believers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:27:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Just saw this quote, that make me think of the conspiracy folk...
>
> “Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.”
>
> — Miyamoto Musashi

I find it amusing that dishonest liars try so hard to pretend to an
honest character they don't understand and will never have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:11:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Never. Nor have you. You've seen what I posted, you saw his
response, you *KNOW* it to be at the very least, a mistake on his
part, and more likely an outright lie... yet you say nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this.
>

> A lot of weak doesn`t make strong.

You mean like leaving a jacket at work means you killed someone? That
sort of thing?

No, clearly not. There were *MORE* eyewitnesses pointing to the GK
than to the TSBD in the first few days... that's not "weak" at all.

So you're simply lying again.


> "credible" means...
>
> "offering reasonable grounds for being believed or trusted"
>
> Make you case that the information supplied by the witnesses who thought the shots came from the knoll was credible.
>
> Stop standing on second base and pretending you hit a double.


No amount of whining can change the facts I posted.

Nor excuse you and Huckster's outright lying.

>> And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying. ...

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>> > claim.
>>
>> I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.

Logical fallacy deleted.

I invited everyone to help out and defend Huckster's lie, and
Chickenshit couldn't do it.