Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Answering Gil's Questions
194 views
Skip to first unread message
Chuck Schuyler
Nov 8, 2023, 1:47:03 AM11/8/23
to
It looks like your questions have been answered, but none of them have been answered TO YOUR SATISFACTION, correct? Some of the answers are snarky, some of the answers are detailed, with links to WC testimony, but no doubt the answers are not to your satisfaction.
Let's start with the basic understanding that there are no answers to your hobby point gotchas which will ever satisfy you.
I can answer all of your hobby point gotchas quite easily, but they won't be answered to your satisfaction because YOU are the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. for your very own JFK conspiracy drama production, and to answer the questions to your satisfaction puts the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. of business, and let's face it: you're not going to put yourself out of business.
Anyways, here are the answers to your hobby points that you're going to get from me. I'm not going to answer you as you demand, but that's tough luck for you.
ALL of your questions revolve around a few things, repeated ad nauseam by you and your fellow JFK conspiracy hobbyists over the decades.
1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.
2.) Your questions are based on trivia. Concerning Oswald's jacket, what would it matter about where he purchased it or if he got it used or found it somewhere?
3.) Your questions revolve around what conspiracy-smasher Jay Utah at the International Skeptics Forum calls a "Fringe Reset," which refers to the constant repetition by JFK conspiracy hobbyists of questions and charges that have been addressed ENDLESSLY (although as I noted, not addressed to your satisfaction) and re-presented over and over, decade after decade, as if the questions are fresh or new. They're not. You RESET the argument from the FRINGE.
4.) Your questions are straw man arguments.
5.) Your questions shift the burden. Research your own questions and present your findings and your critics will weigh in. Have you ever reached out to any 1960s era retired Dallas cops to ask about those evidence forms? No? Ask yourself why you are this lazy if this is a question so important to you. Work. Pick up a phone. Write an email.
There are more logical fallacies you use when constructing your hobby points, but those are the main ones I see. If you want better answers, ask better questions. To ask better questions, remove the fallacies I noted above.
I have now answered all of your question in one fell swoop and with just a few paragraphs. Did I answer them individually as you wished? No. Did you learn anything? No. Did I answer any of them TO YOUR SATISFACTION? No. That's because no answers will ever satisfy you. Ever.
You asked, I answered. But not to your satisfaction.
Now what? Shelve the questions and haul them out a few days/weeks/months later?
Let's start with the basic understanding that there are no answers to your hobby point gotchas which will ever satisfy you.
I can answer all of your hobby point gotchas quite easily, but they won't be answered to your satisfaction because YOU are the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. for your very own JFK conspiracy drama production, and to answer the questions to your satisfaction puts the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. of business, and let's face it: you're not going to put yourself out of business.
Anyways, here are the answers to your hobby points that you're going to get from me. I'm not going to answer you as you demand, but that's tough luck for you.
ALL of your questions revolve around a few things, repeated ad nauseam by you and your fellow JFK conspiracy hobbyists over the decades.
1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.
2.) Your questions are based on trivia. Concerning Oswald's jacket, what would it matter about where he purchased it or if he got it used or found it somewhere?
3.) Your questions revolve around what conspiracy-smasher Jay Utah at the International Skeptics Forum calls a "Fringe Reset," which refers to the constant repetition by JFK conspiracy hobbyists of questions and charges that have been addressed ENDLESSLY (although as I noted, not addressed to your satisfaction) and re-presented over and over, decade after decade, as if the questions are fresh or new. They're not. You RESET the argument from the FRINGE.
4.) Your questions are straw man arguments.
5.) Your questions shift the burden. Research your own questions and present your findings and your critics will weigh in. Have you ever reached out to any 1960s era retired Dallas cops to ask about those evidence forms? No? Ask yourself why you are this lazy if this is a question so important to you. Work. Pick up a phone. Write an email.
There are more logical fallacies you use when constructing your hobby points, but those are the main ones I see. If you want better answers, ask better questions. To ask better questions, remove the fallacies I noted above.
I have now answered all of your question in one fell swoop and with just a few paragraphs. Did I answer them individually as you wished? No. Did you learn anything? No. Did I answer any of them TO YOUR SATISFACTION? No. That's because no answers will ever satisfy you. Ever.
You asked, I answered. But not to your satisfaction.
Now what? Shelve the questions and haul them out a few days/weeks/months later?
NoTrueFlags Here
Nov 8, 2023, 1:51:52 AM11/8/23
to
Gil Jesus
Nov 8, 2023, 5:30:16 AM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:51:52 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass Nutter Hypocrite.
Bud responded to only 33 of the 40 questions.
> Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass Nutter Hypocrite.
Corbett responded to only 32 of the 40 questions.
Hank responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Recip responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Chuckles responded to only 1 of the 40 questions.
No one even responded to question 39,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/lwxPWxvZNKQ
but Chuckles says, 'it looks like your questions have been answered."
Chuckles is a liar. And a coward.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 9:38:54 AM11/8/23
to
And of course, you won't respond to it, and try to justify your imbedded assumption. You will just score this as a zero response by me.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 10:30:51 AM11/8/23
to
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 22:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It looks like your questions have been answered...
When you start with a lie, it's not going to get any better...
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It looks like your questions have been answered...
When you start with a lie, it's not going to get any better...
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 10:32:04 AM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 06:38:52 -0800 (PST), 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?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
<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?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Chuck Schuyler
Nov 8, 2023, 10:58:49 AM11/8/23
to
>
> Chuckles is a liar. And a coward.
What's next?
Gil Jesus
Nov 8, 2023, 11:11:20 AM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
Gil Jesus
Nov 8, 2023, 11:15:06 AM11/8/23
to
Who would buy real estate from a proven liar ?
A real internet piece-of-shit.
Bud
Nov 8, 2023, 2:10:09 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
> When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
Is that the first time you ever raised that issue, stupid?
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
> When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 2:24:32 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 07:58:48 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hank answered it...
If you're simply going to lie, then why post?
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hank answered it...
If you're simply going to lie, then why post?
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 2:25:05 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:11:18 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
I predict that Chuckles will never admit lying.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 2:25:35 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:10:07 -0800 (PST), 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.
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
Nov 8, 2023, 2:26:27 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:15:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
What can believers do when the evidence doesn't support their faith?
They are forced to lie...
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
They are forced to lie...
BT George
Nov 8, 2023, 2:47:38 PM11/8/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 3:40:25 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
Do you accept my response as accurate, or are you going to give me a zero on my
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
“Test”, Mr. Gil?
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 4:03:16 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 12:40:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Chuck Schuyler
Nov 8, 2023, 4:17:57 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:11:20 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning,
So I was correct. Thank you.
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning,
>8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
> When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
>
> That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
Nah.
> That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 4:31:19 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
He answered it before I did. Here it is again:
> > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
“1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.”
I responded later with essentially the same answer:
“Absurd begged Question logical fallacy. … Your imbedded assumption is he built that bag using only his left index finger and right palm. Why do you assume he used only his left index finger and right palm?”
> When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
> When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
>
> That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 4:41:51 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:17:55 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:11:20?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
When are you going to learn that you can't convince the American
public with lies?
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:11:20?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>>> Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
>
>> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning,
>
>So I was correct. Thank you.
So you're lying again... no thanks needed.
>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>>> Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
>
>> Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning,
>
>So I was correct. Thank you.
When are you going to learn that you can't convince the American
public with lies?
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 4:42:27 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:31:17 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Bud
Nov 8, 2023, 5:00:21 PM11/8/23
to
It seems a good portion of American believe as you do that "something else happened somehow". They can`t seem to articulate exactly what that something else is any more than you can.
Bud
Nov 8, 2023, 5:09:08 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:31:19 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> > Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> He answered it before I did. Here it is again:
> “1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.”
>
> I responded later with essentially the same answer:
> “Absurd begged Question logical fallacy. … Your imbedded assumption is he built that bag using only his left index finger and right palm. Why do you assume he used only his left index finger and right palm?”
And this is really the correct way to answer when someone poses a fallacious question, you point out the fallacious nature of the question.
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
> > Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
> He answered it before I did. Here it is again:
> “1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.”
>
> I responded later with essentially the same answer:
> “Absurd begged Question logical fallacy. … Your imbedded assumption is he built that bag using only his left index finger and right palm. Why do you assume he used only his left index finger and right palm?”
Corbett addressed the implications inherent in the questions, which he quickly saw was a mistake, because Gil merely denied the implications. I gave simple answers that ignored the implications imbedded in the questions, which upset Gil, as it avoids the crooked game he had set up. But the correct way is to point out that the questions are flawed, and need to be fixed before they can be answered.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 5:11:22 PM11/8/23
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 6:19:36 PM11/8/23
to
Hank Sienzant
Nov 12, 2023, 9:00:08 PM11/12/23
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 13, 2023, 6:56:38 PM11/13/23
to
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 13, 2023, 8:57:47 PM11/13/23
to
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
That’s untrue. I pointed out the flaws in the issues Gil raised here.
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/xbCrJ4_8zBg/m/FwQvghfrCAAJ
To date, no one has addressed my points. Ben hasn’t. Don hasn't. NTF hasn't. And most certainly Gil hasn't.
What is there for me to add until I get a substantive response?
Ben Holmes
Nov 14, 2023, 2:18:58 PM11/14/23
to
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:57:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Hank Sienzant
Nov 14, 2023, 8:27:04 PM11/14/23
to
Ben Holmes
Nov 15, 2023, 10:26:39 AM11/15/23
to
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:27:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:58?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:57:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
>> 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?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
>Ben cannot ...
It's amusing to see a coward tell someone else what they "can't" do...
The above proves *YOUR* cowardice.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:58?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:57:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
>> 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?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?
>
It's amusing to see a coward tell someone else what they "can't" do...
The above proves *YOUR* cowardice.
0 new messages