Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem.

[Ben Holmes]

Title says it all.

We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
believers refuse to address them.

Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.

This tells the tale.

Watch - as not a SINGLE response will reference the clothing
descriptions...

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Title says it all.
>
> We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
> recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
> believers refuse to address them.
>
> Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
>
> This tells the tale.

It sure does. The serious researchers post facts and cite their sources while the clowns do no such thing.
You would think that even though they don't have to research anything and can just agree with the Warren Commission, that they'd at least cite the evidence in the Report to support their arguments.
But they won't even do that.
I don't know which they're more of: stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
Probably all three.
At any rate, they come in here every day with the intent of trying to make fools out of other people and end up making fools out of themselves.
Because they're L-O-S-E-R-S. They have been caught in lies time and time again. They have ZERO credibility.

They claim they come in here for entertainment, but they're the ones who are doing the entertaining.
It's a laugh and a half to watch them dodge answering questions by using comments, insults and questions.
Their use of terms like "common sense" and "reasoning" are buzz words that reveal they're speculating.
And they think those speculations outweigh evidence. Very funny.

Having a battle of wits with them is like going to war against an unarmed enemy.
They're THAT impotent as debaters.

Yes, I'll miss the "know nothings" after Feb. 22nd, but I'm sure there will be other idiots, outside of Google, to entertain us on the Usenet.

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Title says it all.
>
> We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
> recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
> believers refuse to address them.

You are totally delusional.

> Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
>
> This tells the tale.
>
> Watch - as not a SINGLE response will reference the clothing
> descriptions...

Check the archives, you`ll see it addressed hundreds of times.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:57:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
>

> You are totally delusional.

Chickenshit again proves my post correct, even as he continues to run
away from this:

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.

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Title says it all.
> >
> > We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
> > recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
> > believers refuse to address them.
> >
> > Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > This tells the tale.
> It sure does. The serious researchers post facts and cite their sources while the clowns do no such thing.

You guys have your own little world going on.

> You would think that even though they don't have to research anything and can just agree with the Warren Commission, that they'd at least cite the evidence in the Report to support their arguments.

Hank does that just about every time he posts. You guys either remove it or ignore it.

But this is a conspiracy forum, you guys are supposed to be explaining how a conspiracy was responsible for this event. Are you ever going to start?

> But they won't even do that.
> I don't know which they're more of: stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
> Probably all three.

You ignore every point made, why do we need to make more?

You have a reasoning problem, we can`t fix that.

> At any rate, they come in here every day with the intent of trying to make fools out of other people and end up making fools out of themselves.

You and Ben will always spin things into a form you are comfortable. That form has no bearing in the real world.

> Because they're L-O-S-E-R-S. They have been caught in lies time and time again. They have ZERO credibility.

I have credibility with the right people. Not you delusional types.

> They claim they come in here for entertainment, but they're the ones who are doing the entertaining.

You are playing your part right now.

> It's a laugh and a half to watch them dodge answering questions by using comments, insults and questions.
> Their use of terms like "common sense" and "reasoning" are buzz words that reveal they're speculating.

Just because you can`t tell the difference doesn`t mean other people can`t.

> And they think those speculations outweigh evidence. Very funny.

You are so out of touch you don`t realize that all you do is speculate.

And at what point do you say, "Well, I`ve spent decades accumulating information about the assassination, let me put together something explaining this event as I feel it happened"?

The answer is never. Whataboutism, "I find this suspicious", empty claims, loaded questions, begged arguments, shifting of the burden, ect is all you will ever have to offer.

> Having a battle of wits with them is like going to war against an unarmed enemy.

I thought that was clever when I first heard that decades ago.

> They're THAT impotent as debaters.

You run off as soon as your ideas are challenged.

> Yes, I'll miss the "know nothings" after Feb. 22nd, but I'm sure there will be other idiots, outside of Google, to entertain us on the Usenet.

You are going nowhere whether we are here or not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:12:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>

>>> Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
>

> You guys have your own little world going on.

Chickenshit just can't help himself - he proves me right again.

Yet runs from this:

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:53:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 10:12:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > You guys have your own little world going on.
> Chickenshit just can't help himself - he proves me right again.

You just supported what I wrote, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 13:54:13 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

And the coward runs again!

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> And the coward runs again!

Chickenshit should be on the TV show, "Pawn Stars".

"The best I can do is an off-topic post about Ashli Babbitt."
ROFLMAO

[Bud]

On Friday, January 19, 2024 at 7:39:13 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:50:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > And the coward runs again!
> Chickenshit should be on the TV show, "Pawn Stars".

Is that what you watch? No wonder you are stupid.

> "The best I can do is an off-topic post about Ashli Babbitt."

Yes, that pales in comparison to your submittals.

> ROFLMAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 04:39:11 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 7:50:02?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>> And the coward runs again!
>
>Chickenshit should be on the TV show, "Pawn Stars".
>
>"The best I can do is an off-topic post about Ashli Babbitt."
>ROFLMAO

Yep... he's simply terrified of what we post. He knows he can't
answer other than with logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 06:38:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

And again, Chickenshit runs...

[Bud]

I posted a fact. You guys are delusional, that`s a fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:31:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


> I posted a fact.

Is it a fact that according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Title says it all.
> >
> > We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
> > recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
> > believers refuse to address them.
> >
> > Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
> >
> > This tells the tale.
> It sure does. The serious researchers post facts and cite their sources while the clowns do no such thing.

“Clowns” is ad hominem, not a fact. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. Thank you.

> You would think that even though they don't have to research anything and can just agree with the Warren Commission, that they'd at least cite the evidence in the Report to support their arguments.
> But they won't even do that.
> I don't know which they're more of: stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
> Probably all three.

“stupidity, ignorance or laziness” is ad hominem. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. No facts, just ad hominem. Thanks again!

> At any rate, they come in here every day with the intent of trying to make fools out of other people and end up making fools out of themselves.
> Because they're L-O-S-E-R-S. They have been caught in lies time and time again. They have ZERO credibility.

“L-O-S-E-R-S” is ad hominem. Still proving Ben wrong. I can't thank you enough.

>
> They claim they come in here for entertainment, but they're the ones who are doing the entertaining.
> It's a laugh and a half to watch them dodge answering questions by using comments, insults and questions.
> Their use of terms like "common sense" and "reasoning" are buzz words that reveal they're speculating.
> And they think those speculations outweigh evidence. Very funny.
>
> Having a battle of wits with them is like going to war against an unarmed enemy.
> They're THAT impotent as debaters.
>
> Yes, I'll miss the "know nothings" after Feb. 22nd, but I'm sure there will be other idiots, outside of Google, to entertain us on the Usenet.

“Other idiots” is ad hominem. You proved Ben wrong in his claim almost immediately after his post. Great job, keep up the good work!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:55:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 11:51:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:55:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Title says it all.
>> >
>> > We critics keep posting facts that underlie a conspiracy - such as the
>> > recent posts showing the clothing description of the assassins... and
>> > believers refuse to address them.
>> >
>> > Instead, they post ad hominem attacks.
>> >
>> > This tells the tale.
>> It sure does. The serious researchers post facts and cite their sources while the clowns do no such thing.
>
>“Clowns” is ad hominem, not a fact. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. Thank you.

Notice folks, that all Huckster posted was ad hominem...

>> You would think that even though they don't have to research anything and can just agree with the Warren Commission, that they'd at least cite the evidence in the Report to support their arguments.
>> But they won't even do that.
>> I don't know which they're more of: stupidity, ignorance or laziness.
>> Probably all three.
>
>“stupidity, ignorance or laziness” is ad hominem. Ben’s post that starts this thread is entitled “Critics Post Facts, Believers Post Ad Hominem”. You proved Ben wrong with the above. No facts, just ad hominem. Thanks again!

Not a JFK case fact in sight...

Huckster is TERRIFIED of discussing the evidence in this case.

>> At any rate, they come in here every day with the intent of trying to make fools out of other people and end up making fools out of themselves.
>> Because they're L-O-S-E-R-S. They have been caught in lies time and time again. They have ZERO credibility.
>
>“L-O-S-E-R-S” is ad hominem. Still proving Ben wrong. I can't thank you enough.

More ad hominem.

>> They claim they come in here for entertainment, but they're the ones who are doing the entertaining.
>> It's a laugh and a half to watch them dodge answering questions by using comments, insults and questions.
>> Their use of terms like "common sense" and "reasoning" are buzz words that reveal they're speculating.
>> And they think those speculations outweigh evidence. Very funny.
>>
>> Having a battle of wits with them is like going to war against an unarmed enemy.
>> They're THAT impotent as debaters.
>>
>> Yes, I'll miss the "know nothings" after Feb. 22nd, but I'm sure there will be other idiots, outside of Google, to entertain us on the Usenet.
>
>“Other idiots” is ad hominem. You proved Ben wrong in his claim almost immediately after his post. Great job, keep up the good work!

More ad hominem. Don't you read your posts before posting them,
Huckster?

Can you find enough courage to answer this:

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?