Whopper Of A Lie By Huckster Sienzant...

[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."

Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.

Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...

When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
your beliefs...

[Bud]

Hank is making a distinction you cannot. Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence) of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.

[donald willis]

Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
>>>
>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>> claim."
>>
>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
>>
>> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
>> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
>
> Hank is making a distinction you cannot.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

The "distinction" isn't the issue at all, and Huckster was forced to
lie about what was stated in order to bring it up.


Remember folks, I predicted it!

Huckster FLAT LIED about what I'd stated, and Chickenshit can neither
admit it, nor quote where I'd stated what Huckster lied about.

Being a believer means you have to defend the lies of others so that
they'll defend YOUR lies.

> Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the
> credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence)
> of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means
> evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your
> strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it
> value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.

Huckster, and you... are simply lying, as did the Warren Commission.
They were labeling as "not credible" witnesses that they could **NOT**
discredit.

You can't either...

As you've just proven.

>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
>> your beliefs...

Of course, if you've spent your life lying, you may not understand
this simple concept.

[Bud]

We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

...

>> Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
>
> We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.

Yep... exactly as I've always stated. You **START** with your
"conclusions" - then twist everything to fit.

Instead of starting with the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

Example: what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?

[Bud]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:15:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
> >>>
> >>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> >>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> >>> claim."
> >>
> >> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
> >>
> >> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
> >> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
> >
> > Hank is making a distinction you cannot.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> The "distinction" isn't the issue at all,

Of course it is. Hank said "credible evidence". "credible" means "able to be believed; convincing". You created your own meaning, which seems to have something to do with being allowed into evidence in a court of law.

> and Huckster was forced to
> lie about what was stated in order to bring it up.

The only think I would fault Hank on is not declaring your response a non sequitur, as it didn`t speak to what he wrote at all.

> Remember folks, I predicted it!
>
> Huckster FLAT LIED about what I'd stated,

What you stated was a non sequitur. Or, at least, a strawman.

> and Chickenshit can neither
> admit it, nor quote where I'd stated what Huckster lied about.

What did Hank say that was different from what you claimed?

> Being a believer means you have to defend the lies of others so that
> they'll defend YOUR lies.

I doubt anyone on our side gives any credence to your claims of "lies".

> > Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the
> > credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence)
> > of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means
> > evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your
> > strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it
> > value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.
>
>
> Huckster, and you... are simply lying, as did the Warren Commission.

Now you are going to attempt to talk over what I wrote instead of addressing the points made. You were acting like just because a court allows information into evidence, that somehow conveys upon that information credibility.

> They were labeling as "not credible" witnesses that they could **NOT**
> discredit.

It isn`t a matter of "discrediting". It is a matter of weighing the available information correctly. The real criminal investigators on the scene seem to have discounted the knoll as a source of shots early on.

> You can't either...
>
> As you've just proven.
>
>
> >> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
> >> your beliefs...
>
>
> Of course, if you've spent your life lying, you may not understand
> this simple concept.

Since hot air is all you have to offer, you blow hot air.

[Bud]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> ...
> >> Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
> >
> > We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.
>
>
> Yep... exactly as I've always stated. You **START** with your
> "conclusions" - then twist everything to fit.

This is exactly as I`ve always stated, information goes into a conspiracy believers brain and comes out distorted.

> Instead of starting with the evidence, and seeing where it leads.

You guys play with the evidence like children play with blocks.

> Example: what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?

Has what to do with what?

[Mark Ulrik]

mandag den 23. marts 2020 kl. 18.44.49 UTC+1 skrev Bud:
> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:15:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
> > >>>
> > >>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > >>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > >>> claim."
> > >>
> > >> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
> > >>
> > >> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
> > >> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
> > >
> > > Hank is making a distinction you cannot.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> >
> > The "distinction" isn't the issue at all,
>
> Of course it is. Hank said "credible evidence". "credible" means "able to be believed; convincing". You created your own meaning, which seems to have something to do with being allowed into evidence in a court of law.

It would nice to see a legal cite for Ben's claim that eyewitness testimony is "credible" in the eye of the law. It's obviously a valid and potentially highly probative FORM of evidence, but even a child understands that it can be unreliable and that credibility has to be considered on a case by case basis.

[donald willis]

You prefer "reasonable" to "honest", Budilletante? In the 70s it was "reasonable" to assume that Nixon had nothing to do with Watergate. Until it was not only not reasonable, but not accurate....

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 12:42:53 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 10:22:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:40:41 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > > > > > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > > > > > claim."
> > > > >
> > > > > Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
> > > > > where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
> > > >
> > > > Hank is making a distinction you cannot. Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence) of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.
> > > >
> > > Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
> >
> > We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.
>
> You prefer "reasonable" to "honest", Budilletante?

Are they mutually exclusive?

> In the 70s it was "reasonable" to assume that Nixon had nothing to do with Watergate.

At one point is time it wasn`t reasonable to believe Nixon had anything to do with Watergate because there was no evidence to support the idea.

> Until it was not only not reasonable, but not accurate....

When do you think you will have the necessary evidence to support your fantastic and unreasonable ideas? The answer to that is "never".

[donald willis]

And certainly it was "reasonable" to believe Condoleeza & Powell re the "smoking gun" in Iraq, until we found out it was all lies. So your "reasonable" must come with some caveats, Mortimer....

[Bud]

How was it lies?

"Iraq actively researched and later employed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from 1962 to 1991"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

In what way was it unreasonable to assume they still did?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
>>>
>>> We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.
>>
>>
>> Yep... exactly as I've always stated. You **START** with your
>> "conclusions" - then twist everything to fit.
>
> This is exactly as I`ve always stated, information goes into a
> conspiracy believers brain and comes out distorted.

Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to refute it?

>> Instead of starting with the evidence, and seeing where it leads.
>
> You guys play with the evidence like children play with blocks.

Once again, Chickenshit can't refute the facts.

>> Example: what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
>
> Has what to do with what?

Proof that you're a liar and a coward, of course.

And that you can't deal with any evidence that doesn't support your
faith.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:15:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>>>> claim."
>>>>
>>>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
>>>> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
>>>
>>> Hank is making a distinction you cannot.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>
>> The "distinction" isn't the issue at all,
>
> Of course it is.

Then simply quote me saying it.


But you've already proven yourself incapable of doing so - just has
Huckster was unable to.

You're simply lying...

> Hank said "credible evidence". "credible" means "able to be believed;
> convincing". You created your own meaning, which seems to have
> something to do with being allowed into evidence in a court of law.

Prove that eyewitness testimony cannot be "credible."

If you cannot, then the Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are
liars.

>> and Huckster was forced to
>> lie about what was stated in order to bring it up.
>
> The only think I would fault Hank on is not declaring your
> response a non sequitur, as it didn`t speak to what he wrote at all.

Pointing out when someone is lying cannot be a "non sequitur."

It's ALWAYS relevant.

>> Remember folks, I predicted it!
>>
>> Huckster FLAT LIED about what I'd stated,
>
> What you stated was a non sequitur. Or, at least, a strawman.

Neither you nor Huckster has been able to refute what I stated.

>> and Chickenshit can neither
>> admit it, nor quote where I'd stated what Huckster lied about.
>
> What did Hank say that was different from what you claimed?

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

>> Being a believer means you have to defend the lies of others so that
>> they'll defend YOUR lies.
>
> I doubt anyone on our side gives any credence to your claims of "lies".

The feelings of proven liars doesn't mean much to ordinary folk.

>>> Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the
>>> credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence)
>>> of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means
>>> evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your
>>> strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it
>>> value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.
>>
>>
>> Huckster, and you... are simply lying, as did the Warren Commission.
>
> Now you are going to attempt to talk over what I wrote instead of
> addressing the points made. You were acting like just because a court
> allows information into evidence, that somehow conveys upon that
> information credibility.

There you go again, molesting the neighborhood children.

What a COWARDLY molester you are!

>> They were labeling as "not credible" witnesses that they could **NOT**
>> discredit.
>
> It isn`t a matter of "discrediting". It is a matter of weighing
> the available information correctly. The real criminal investigators
> on the scene seem to have discounted the knoll as a source of shots
> early on.

The Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are lying.

>> You can't either...
>>
>> As you've just proven.
>>
>>
>>>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
>>>> your beliefs...
>>
>>
>> Of course, if you've spent your life lying, you may not understand
>> this simple concept.
>
> Since hot air is all you have to offer, you blow hot air.

Since all you have are lies, you tell 'em.

[donald willis]

The current "evidence" (U-238 from Africa etc., photos) was all lies, which made it "unreasonable".

dcw

[Bud]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 11:06:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
> >>>
> >>> We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yep... exactly as I've always stated. You **START** with your
> >> "conclusions" - then twist everything to fit.
> >
> > This is exactly as I`ve always stated, information goes into a
> > conspiracy believers brain and comes out distorted.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to refute it?

It was hot air. How things seem to you is dubious at best.

> >> Instead of starting with the evidence, and seeing where it leads.
> >
> > You guys play with the evidence like children play with blocks.
>
>
> Once again, Chickenshit can't refute the facts.

What is in evidence is what is in evidence, that is a fact. That what is in evidence is what you guys represent it to be is often not a fact, it is unsupported hot air.

> >> Example: what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
> >
> > Has what to do with what?
>
>
> Proof that you're a liar and a coward, of course.

Proof that you`ve deluded yourself into thinking the issues you raise that you can go nowhere with have something to do with me.

> And that you can't deal with any evidence that doesn't support your
> faith.

You haven`t show that this question impacts any idea I`ve expressed in any way.

[Bud]

Fringe restart. Just because you talked over the argument doesn`t mean the argument wasn`t made.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/5j1CpnJsfoY/Wi-p5D_DBQAJ

Until you are willing to address the point he actually made, using the actual definition of "credible" and not your invented meaning, this is nothing but a strawman.

> But you've already proven yourself incapable of doing so - just has
> Huckster was unable to.
>
> You're simply lying...
>
>
> > Hank said "credible evidence". "credible" means "able to be believed;
> > convincing". You created your own meaning, which seems to have
> > something to do with being allowed into evidence in a court of law.
>
>
> Prove that eyewitness testimony cannot be "credible."

What does that strawman have to do with anything? There is nothing inherently credible about witness testimony. It might contain facts, it might contain impressions, it might contain opinions, ect. It is what someone said, and what people say is not necessarily true or accurate.

> If you cannot, then the Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are
> liars.
>
>
> >> and Huckster was forced to
> >> lie about what was stated in order to bring it up.
> >
> > The only think I would fault Hank on is not declaring your
> > response a non sequitur, as it didn`t speak to what he wrote at all.
>
>
> Pointing out when someone is lying cannot be a "non sequitur."

You replied with a non sequitur in a attempt to talk over the point Hank made because you had no answer to the point Hank made.

> It's ALWAYS relevant.
>
>
> >> Remember folks, I predicted it!
> >>
> >> Huckster FLAT LIED about what I'd stated,
> >
> > What you stated was a non sequitur. Or, at least, a strawman.
>
>
> Neither you nor Huckster has been able to refute what I stated.

You don`t refute non sequiturs or stramwman arguments, you point out the fallacious nature of them.

> >> and Chickenshit can neither
> >> admit it, nor quote where I'd stated what Huckster lied about.
> >
> > What did Hank say that was different from what you claimed?
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

You blow hot air, but whenever you are called out on your hot air you have nothing.

> >> Being a believer means you have to defend the lies of others so that
> >> they'll defend YOUR lies.
> >
> > I doubt anyone on our side gives any credence to your claims of "lies".
>
>
> The feelings of proven liars doesn't mean much to ordinary folk.

That is the reason that I doubt anyone on our side gives much credence to your claims of "lies".

> >>> Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the
> >>> credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence)
> >>> of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means
> >>> evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your
> >>> strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it
> >>> value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.
> >>
> >>
> >> Huckster, and you... are simply lying, as did the Warren Commission.
> >
> > Now you are going to attempt to talk over what I wrote instead of
> > addressing the points made. You were acting like just because a court
> > allows information into evidence, that somehow conveys upon that
> > information credibility.
>
>
> There you go again, molesting the neighborhood children.
>
> What a COWARDLY molester you are!

Then why did you bring up the acceptance of eyewitness testimony in a court of law, PedoBen?

You`ll refuse time and time again when you are challenged to spell out your arguments, but then cry like a girl with a skinned knee that you are being misrepresented.

> >> They were labeling as "not credible" witnesses that they could **NOT**
> >> discredit.
> >
> > It isn`t a matter of "discrediting". It is a matter of weighing
> > the available information correctly. The real criminal investigators
> > on the scene seem to have discounted the knoll as a source of shots
> > early on.
>
>
> The Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are lying.

Hot air.

> >> You can't either...
> >>
> >> As you've just proven.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
> >>>> your beliefs...
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, if you've spent your life lying, you may not understand
> >> this simple concept.
> >
> > Since hot air is all you have to offer, you blow hot air.
>
>
> Since all you have are lies, you tell 'em.

Quote a lie I told.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Henry still comes here? Weird, I thought he was "too busy" or some shit. Good thing I saved all the posts he's been running from. I wonder where I got the foresight to do something like that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 09:25:51 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Nah... Huckster ran away and refuses to debate against knowledgeable
critics.

This is merely one of the many lies told by Huckster that I repost
from time to time.

Chickenshit can't defend it either...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 11:06:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:56:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> Let's amend that, BudSnerd: LNs categorically reject evidence which points away from the official line....
>>>>>
>>>>> We accept evidence that points to reasonable conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep... exactly as I've always stated. You **START** with your
>>>> "conclusions" - then twist everything to fit.
>>>
>>> This is exactly as I`ve always stated, information goes into a
>>> conspiracy believers brain and comes out distorted.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Chickenshit was unable to refute it?
>
> It was hot air. How things seem to you is dubious at best.

Chickenshit can't refute what is clearly true, and has been
substantiated any number of times.

>>>> Instead of starting with the evidence, and seeing where it leads.
>>>
>>> You guys play with the evidence like children play with blocks.
>>
>> Once again, Chickenshit can't refute the facts.
>
> What is in evidence is what is in evidence, that is a fact. That
> what is in evidence is what you guys represent it to be is often not a
> fact, it is unsupported hot air.

"What is in evidence is what is in evidence, that is a fact." - let's
examine one of these facts... what part of the occipital is not in the

back of the head?


>>>> Example: what part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
>>>
>>> Has what to do with what?
>>
>> Proof that you're a liar and a coward, of course.
>
> Proof that you`ve deluded yourself into thinking the issues you
> raise that you can go nowhere with have something to do with me.

You've already labeled it a fact that the large wound was partly in
the occipital - where is the occipital located?

>> And that you can't deal with any evidence that doesn't support your
>> faith.
>
> You haven`t show that this question impacts any idea I`ve
> expressed in any way.

The fact that you're ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of publicly admitting that
the large wound on JFK's head was in the BACK of the head says it all.

Coward, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You were completely unable to quote me saying what you claimed.

And you've been completely unable to publicly admit the lie that
Huckster told.

>> But you've already proven yourself incapable of doing so - just has
>> Huckster was unable to.
>>
>> You're simply lying...
>>
>>
>>> Hank said "credible evidence". "credible" means "able to be believed;
>>> convincing". You created your own meaning, which seems to have
>>> something to do with being allowed into evidence in a court of law.
>>
>> Prove that eyewitness testimony cannot be "credible."
>
> What does that strawman have to do with anything?

That's not a "strawman" - it's the very central part of the argument.

>> If you cannot, then the Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are
>> liars.
>>
>>
>>>> and Huckster was forced to
>>>> lie about what was stated in order to bring it up.
>>>
>>> The only think I would fault Hank on is not declaring your
>>> response a non sequitur, as it didn`t speak to what he wrote at all.
>>
>>
>> Pointing out when someone is lying cannot be a "non sequitur."
>
> You replied with a non sequitur in a attempt to talk over the
> point Hank made because you had no answer to the point Hank made.

Neither Huckster nor you have explained away the lie told by the WC.

>> It's ALWAYS relevant.
>>
>>
>>>> Remember folks, I predicted it!
>>>>
>>>> Huckster FLAT LIED about what I'd stated,
>>>
>>> What you stated was a non sequitur. Or, at least, a strawman.
>>
>> Neither you nor Huckster has been able to refute what I stated.
>
> You don`t refute non sequiturs or stramwman arguments, you point
> out the fallacious nature of them.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

>>>> and Chickenshit can neither
>>>> admit it, nor quote where I'd stated what Huckster lied about.
>>>
>>> What did Hank say that was different from what you claimed?
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> You blow hot air, but whenever you are called out on your hot air you have nothing.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

>>>> Being a believer means you have to defend the lies of others so that
>>>> they'll defend YOUR lies.
>>>
>>> I doubt anyone on our side gives any credence to your claims of "lies".
>>
>> The feelings of proven liars doesn't mean much to ordinary folk.
>
> That is the reason that I doubt anyone on our side gives much
> credence to your claims of "lies".

Your complete inablity to defend the proven lies of the WC show that
you know you're wrong.

>>>>> Just allowing something into evidence does not speak to the
>>>>> credibility (that is, the amount of weight given to that evidence)
>>>>> of that evidence. When Hank is saying "credible evidence" he means
>>>>> evidence that has value in determining what occurred, and your
>>>>> strawman assumes that just allowing it into evidence conveys upon it
>>>>> value. Things allowed into evidence can point away from the truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huckster, and you... are simply lying, as did the Warren Commission.
>>>
>>> Now you are going to attempt to talk over what I wrote instead of
>>> addressing the points made. You were acting like just because a court
>>> allows information into evidence, that somehow conveys upon that
>>> information credibility.
>>
>> There you go again, molesting the neighborhood children.
>>
>> What a COWARDLY molester you are!

[Ad hominem deleted]

Chickenshit shows again that he can't debate without sinking to ad
hominems - thus showing that he has no evidence, citations, or logical
argument.

>>>> They were labeling as "not credible" witnesses that they could **NOT**
>>>> discredit.
>>>
>>> It isn`t a matter of "discrediting". It is a matter of weighing
>>> the available information correctly. The real criminal investigators
>>> on the scene seem to have discounted the knoll as a source of shots
>>> early on.
>>
>> The Warren Commission, Huckster, and you are lying.
>
> Hot air.

Not a single cite in view...

>>>> You can't either...
>>>>
>>>> As you've just proven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
>>>>>> your beliefs...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if you've spent your life lying, you may not understand
>>>> this simple concept.
>>>
>>> Since hot air is all you have to offer, you blow hot air.
>>
>> Since all you have are lies, you tell 'em.
>
> Quote a lie I told.

That there was no credible evidence to suggest shots being fired from
the Grassy Knoll.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

A fringe reset. Six months after this was explained to Ben in this forum (after being explained to Ben on the now-defunct Amazon forums) he pretends it was never answered, raises it anew, and ignores the previously provided explanation. He even accuses me of running away when my supposed lie was pointed out!

Here's the prior thread where he raised the same issue back in September of 2019 and where it was patiently explained what was said and meant:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ

He raised it again above in March of 2020, pretending it wasn't already answered, and then raised it again in June of 2021 here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ

He will no doubt raise it again at some point in the future. Ben can only ignore the rebuttals and repost the same arguments repeatedly. He has no valid arguments.

When lies are all you have... - it's time to change your beliefs...

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
>>>
>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>> claim."
>>
>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
>>
>> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
>> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
>>
>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
>> your beliefs...
>
>A fringe reset.

You made the statement that I had "claimed" something.

QUOTE THAT STATEMENT - then lets compare it to what you *SAID* that
I'd said.

If you can't do it, just admit it.

But otherwise, you're going to see the same post year after year,
decade after decade...

Because the best way to prove your dishonesty is to quote your lies.

Now, commence to running, Huckster...

RUN!!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

When you have to delete all but the first three words of my post, you have no argument. Here's my points again:

A fringe reset. Six months after this was explained to Ben in this forum (after being explained to Ben on the now-defunct Amazon forums) he pretends it was never answered, raises it anew, and ignores the previously provided explanation. He even accuses me of running away when my supposed lie was pointed out!

Here's the prior thread where he raised the same issue back in September of 2019 and where it was patiently explained what was said and meant:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ

He raised it again above in March of 2020, pretending it wasn't already answered, and then raised it again in June of 2021 here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ

He will no doubt raise it again at some point in the future. Ben can only ignore the rebuttals and repost the same arguments repeatedly. He has no valid arguments.

When lies are all you have... - it's time to change your beliefs...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Hankster: you appear to be wearing Chuckles daShoe Schuyler's jockstrap these days. Is that healthy?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 5:49:33 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:

c'mon Chuckles, er Hankster... you can do better than that! Believer's lies are reaching max tolerance even for .johnites...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

And... rather than quote me, Huckster chose to run...

Huckster got caught in a lie, and he's dancing to evade that fact.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 10:03:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
> >>>
> >>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> >>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> >>> claim."
> >>
> >> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
> >>
> >> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
> >> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
> >>
> >> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
> >> your beliefs...
> >
> >A fringe reset.
> You made the statement that I had "claimed" something.
>
> QUOTE THAT STATEMENT - then lets compare it to what you *SAID* that
> I'd said.

You: "And since the legal system in America *does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"..."

Hank: "There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim."

How did Hank misrepresent you?

[John Corbett]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
> >
> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > claim."
>
> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.
>

No, he didn't, Yellow Pants. He responded and pointed out your lie. You are the one who ran
from that conversation to start a new thread.

> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
>
> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
> your beliefs...

When lies are all you are able to tell, it's time to fuck off.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

nope, you're simply not worth it

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:36:51 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 11:22:23 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. ...
>>>
>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>> claim."
>>
>> Amusingly, Huckster simply ran away when his lie was pointed out.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Prediction: Chickenshit will try to defend Huckster - but won't quote
>> where I made the claim that Huckster said I'd claimed...
>>
>> When lies are all you have to defend the WCR - it's time to change
>> your beliefs...

Obscenity deleted.

Oops... nothing to respond to.

[Bud]

Bump.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Oh, don't worry coward... lurkers can spot the difference if they
read.

But, I *will* keep this trick of Huckster's in mind, since you don't
recognize what it is, I'll simply start using it on you, and you
won't even notice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ditto.