A challenge for the Lone Nut Cases

[Gil Jesus]

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:34:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.

[Gil Jesus]

There's no reasoning being done. It's evidence vs. evidence.
Either explain it or run bitch, run.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 11:50:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 11:09:50 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:34:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
> >
> > Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.
> There's no reasoning being done.

No argument here.

> It's evidence vs. evidence.
> Either explain it or run bitch, run.

Explain it to an idiot`s satisfaction?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >

Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.

Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.

But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.

And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.

Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.

Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 01:53:13 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's an easy one... Chickenshit will continue to run from it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 08:09:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:34:25?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>

> Folks can hit the link...

Logical fallacy that Huckster isn't honest enough to point out...
deleted.

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.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> That's an easy one... Chickenshit will continue to run from it.

He's not the only one. None of the Nutters at the EF want to touch it either.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:37:31 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> That's an easy one... Chickenshit will continue to run from it.
>
>He's not the only one. None of the Nutters at the EF want to touch it either.

You can't force a believer to admit that the Autopsy Report
contradicts the photos & X-rays...

For if they ever admitted it - they'd lose their only medico-legal
foundation for their faith.

[Bud]

I`ve already addressed it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:12:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I`ve already addressed it.

You've NEVER addressed this:

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
>
> Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.

Done.

> You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.

There is no discussion possible with delusional people. You will cling to your delusions no matter what I say.

> So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
>
> Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.

I said all that was needed to be said when I wrote this...

"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."

> While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
> Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.

You`ve established your reputation as a childish thinker who is play games with the deaths of these men.

> But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.

Of course you are going to spin things into some form you are personally comfortable with, it is all you ever do. Why should anyone argue with a delusional person over what he has decided to believe?

> Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.

Tell yourself anything you like.

> IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
>
> And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.

Again with your faulty assumptions, that I was looking to have something to show for the time I spent here.

What did Tom Rossley gain?

> Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.

Accomplished men already looked into the case. You have nothing to put against their findings, you have no case. You`ll be spinning your wheels until the day you die, never being able to figure out these simple crimes.

> Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.

"Explain this or that to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit" is just one of your idiotic approaches. Tie all these anomalies into a cohesive package and put them on the table for consideration. You can`t, if you tried it would be like putting up a billboard saying "I`m An Idiot."

> Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.

You say things you can`t begin to show. Are all resolved cases free from conflict?

> Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?

I`ve already addressed it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 2:38:31 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
> I`ve already addressed it.

You're one of the biggest Goddamned liars in this newsgroup.
You haven't addressed the subject of the link.
Tell us, what is it about ?

[Bud]

Yes, I have.

"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> < his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
>>
>> Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
>
> Done.

Never done:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:27:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
> >
> > Done.
> Never done:

No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.

I asked him what the link was in reference to and he ran.
He's too "chickenshit" to look at the link because he's afraid of the truth.

It shows you how closed-minded these Lone Nutters really are.
These are not reasonable people.
These are not people who think for themselves.
They're phonies.

https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you

Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Not these people. They see a conflict and run for the hills.
They have "their truth" and they're secure in it.
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".

Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )

https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI

They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.

They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.

They completely ignore how the prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt, how the authorities handled Oswald, how they handled the evidence, and how they handled the witnesses.
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/

These people really are the "kooky" ones.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
> > >
> > > Done.
> > Never done:
> No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
> All his first did was to insult me.

I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.

> I asked him what the link was in reference to and he ran.

I addressed it.

> He's too "chickenshit" to look at the link because he's afraid of the truth.

I told the truth.

> It shows you how closed-minded these Lone Nutters really are.

There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.

> These are not reasonable people.

We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.

> These are not people who think for themselves.

I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.

> They're phonies.
>
> https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
>
> Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.

Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.

The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.

You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.

You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.

> Not these people. They see a conflict and run for the hills.

Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.

> They have "their truth" and they're secure in it.

Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?

Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.

> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".

If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.

And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.

You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.

> Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )

That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.

> https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
>
> They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.

We look at the available information correctly.

> They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.

We look at the available information correctly.

> They completely ignore how the prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt,

Oswald never made it to trial.

> how the authorities handled Oswald,

You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.

> how they handled the evidence,

You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.

Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.

Dunning Kruger much?

>and how they handled the witnesses.

And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.

What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.

> https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
>
> These people really are the "kooky" ones.

You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:08:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies,
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?

Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
>
>Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.

He's a keyboard warrior. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that
he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.

But he can't post a scenario...

[Bud]

Who decides these things? You?

[Bud]

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/FslI4ZmyAAAJ

[Bud]

You just displayed yours.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".

Just a thought — Some on your side of the fence even object to “conspiracy theorist”, without even considering why that phrase is considered perjorative. It’s certainly not a compliment to do what you do on a daily basis — theorize about a conspiracy. What are you accomplishing posting here — to what, ten people at most on a daily basis?

Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.

Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:49:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?

No one wants to explain the info in the link.
They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 02:58:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

If we both followed this... the believers would get no responses...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
>

>Just a thought...

Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
post.

Such as:

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 Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:30:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:44:04?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
>> Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/FslI4ZmyAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/ucnIpba2AAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:48:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:49:13?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
>>>
>>>Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
>>
>> He's a keyboard warrior. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that
>> he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
>> life.

Let's not forget Chickenshit's cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:28:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Any intelligent reader. Moron, aren't you?

[Bud]

You ignore the ones that do.

[Bud]

Then I`ve won a long time ago. What now?

> Moron, aren't you?

[Bud]

Just have to realize that no meaningful dialog is possible with these guys.

They make a claim or present an idea.

We point out the problems with the claim or idea.

They address none of the counter arguments, they merely repeat the claim.

Rinse, wash and repeat.

In a robust exchange of ideas the truth can be determined. They know this, which is why they avoid a robust exchange of ideas.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:17:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
> >

> > Just a thought — Some on your side of the fence even object to “conspiracy theorist”, without even considering why that phrase is considered perjorative. It’s certainly not a compliment to do what you do on a daily basis — theorize about a conspiracy. What are you accomplishing posting here — to what, ten people at most on a daily basis?

Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.

Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?


>

> Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
> post.

I did — I responded to one of Gil’s points in Gil’s post.

You did what you accused me of, deleting and ignoring my point.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:24:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
>

>Just a thought...

Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
post.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 2:48:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:24:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
> >
> >Just a thought...
> Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
> post.

Stop framing things dishonestly.

Oh, that`s right, you can`t, it kills the hobby.

Long live the hobby!

[BT George]

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 10:09:50 AM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:34:25 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

>
> Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.

Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 4:53:12 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH

[Bud]

"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."

> SMH

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 6:14:12 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> "Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
> > SMH

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.

SMH

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:34:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:30:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:12:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Logical fallacies deleted.

Here's the only post you need to worry about:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:05:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 4:53:12?PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>> Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
>
>Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
>SMH

Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he
wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical
fallacies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:39:24 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 6:14:12?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> "Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
>> > SMH
>
>Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
>SMH

Indeed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:37:52 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Just have to realize that no meaningful dialog is possible with these guys.

Yep... you run ... EVERY SINGLE TIME:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 03:14:09 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 5:06:01?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 4:53:12?PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>> Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
>> Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.

>> SMH

Logical fallacy deleted.

When all you have are logical fallacies - you're simply telling the
world that you lost. (Of course, polling data already shows this.)

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...

I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.
They're all killfiled.

I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.

When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ben and Gil's conclusions?

On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:32:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

Such slander coming from someone who absolutely REFUSES to say what
happened on 11/22/63 is quite smelly indeed.

[Bud]

Addressed above.

You should do what Ben does and remove the truth people write.

> SMH

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

I was telling the world what to expect if they hit Gil`s link.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 11:54:06 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
> I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.
> They're all killfiled.

Fucking hilarious.

He is going to stop reading what people write after they stop writing things for him to read.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:25:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:26:43 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:28:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

SMH

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
> lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
> about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
> this case that isn't the evidence itself.
>
> When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
> investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
> the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
> told by the WCR or HSCA.

Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head
with the absence of SCALP and bone, but the BOH autopsy photograph shows the scalp intact.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Over 40 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda who saw the back of the head corroborate the autopsy report.
No 6.5mm ammunition known to man makes a 5" entrance hole. That hole was an exit wound and was described as such.
Other witnesses saw a 1/4" entrance wound in the right front near the temple.
The head shot came from the front and it wasn't fired by Oswald.
And the evidence to support that is overhwhelming.

Chuckles and the rest of the mental deficients can cry all they want but I'm putting together a video on the head wounds at the present time.
I'll be posting it on the website with a link here for anyone who wants to see the evidence.
Part 1 will be on the entrance wound in the front
and Part 2 will be on the exit wound at the rear.

Stay tuned.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:47:36 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
>> lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
>> about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
>> this case that isn't the evidence itself.
>>
>> When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
>> investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
>> the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
>> told by the WCR or HSCA.
>
>Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head
>with the absence of SCALP and bone, but the BOH autopsy photograph shows the scalp intact.
>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>
>Over 40 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda who saw the back of the head corroborate the autopsy report.
>No 6.5mm ammunition known to man makes a 5" entrance hole. That hole was an exit wound and was described as such.
>Other witnesses saw a 1/4" entrance wound in the right front near the temple.
>The head shot came from the front and it wasn't fired by Oswald.
>And the evidence to support that is overhwhelming.

Indeed, even believers understand this... this is why not a *SINGLE*
one of them was willing to state for the record where the largest of
the fragments seen in the side X-ray are located...

Because it's SCIENTIFIC PROOF of a shot from the front.

>Chuckles and the rest of the mental deficients can cry all they want but I'm putting together a video on the head wounds at the present time.
>I'll be posting it on the website with a link here for anyone who wants to see the evidence.
>Part 1 will be on the entrance wound in the front
>and Part 2 will be on the exit wound at the rear.
>
>Stay tuned.

Be sure to explain why the fragment trail in the X-ray proves
scientifically that one shot came from the front.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
>
>Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>
>SMH

Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...

[Chuck Schuyler]

Not only do I know what city and state Dealey Plaza is located in, I even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and Commission Document.

Ouch.

Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:51:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:45:09?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
>>>
>>>Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
>>>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>>>
>>>SMH
>
>> Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...
>

>Not only do I know what city and state Dealey Plaza is located in...


(Notice folks, that he didn't say. He'll no doubt look it up now so
he won't feel so stupid.)

> I even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and Commission Document.
>
>Ouch.

Nah... you imply what you can't cite for. You're implying, of course,
that I made such a mistake... but that simply never happened.

> Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to
> point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the
> years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?

Meaningless empty claims of logical fallacies don't move the needle.


Run coward... RUN!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
> > lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
> > about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
> > this case that isn't the evidence itself.
> >
> > When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
> > investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
> > the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
> > told by the WCR or HSCA.
> Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head

Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in the parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal) but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone, the scalp, or both.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
>> > lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
>> > about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
>> > this case that isn't the evidence itself.
>> >
>> > When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
>> > investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
>> > the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
>> > told by the WCR or HSCA.
>> Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head
>
> Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in the
> parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
> the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
> but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
> the scalp, or both.

You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.

"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."


The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.


Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
REGION* just described in the previous sentence:

"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."


You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.

You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.

So you simply lie about it.

>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
>
>Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.

YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!

The statement you refer to is this:

"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"

From where???

FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.

The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)

Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?

Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
answering this post:


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?

[Bud]

Of course it is.

Once you understand that all your invented problems disappear.

Of course they are going to give a detailed, specific location to the missing skull, it is the most import aspect of the head injuries.

If it isn`t the "A,B,C,D" location carefully mapped out, where is it?

Saying the wound is extended somewhat in the occipital, it like saying someone is shot in the leg, it gives no specific location.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 16:45:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.

So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.

Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...

[Bud]

You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:21:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
> >> > lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
> >> > about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
> >> > this case that isn't the evidence itself.
> >> >
> >> > When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
> >> > investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
> >> > the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
> >> > told by the WCR or HSCA.

> >> Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

> >
> > Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in the
> > parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
> > the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
> > but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
> > the scalp, or both.
> You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
>
> "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>
>
> The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
> involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions.

Chiefly in the parietal… which is what the photo shows.

>
>
> Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
> REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
>
> "In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
> a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

In the region chiefly of the parietal, extending *somewhat* in other areas.
And that’s what the photo shows.
And much is *somewhat*, Ben? Define it for us.

Gil lied and pretended the wound was exclusively in the occipital:

“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.”

The autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal— the top and side of the head.

>
>
> You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.

What part of “chiefly in the parietal” don’t you and Gil understand?

>
> You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
> CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.

No, it’s not. The photo shows a head wound chiefly in the parietal, and the autopsy report says exactly that.

>
> So you simply lie about it.
> >https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
> >
> >Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!
>
> The statement you refer to is this:
>
> "From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
> stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
>
> From where???
>
> FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
>
> The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
> HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)

And the hole is visible. And the “more or less” intact scalp is visible outside of the hole. Exactly as the autopsy report said.

>
> Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
> believe your lies?

What lies? The one Gil told about the large defect being in the back of the head here:
“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head”.
That lie?

The evidence of the photo and the autopsy report agree with each other, and with me. The wound was chiefly in the parietal.

In rebuttal, you call me a liar, and below, change the subject. Those are logical fallacies of ad hominem and a red herring.

When you have no evidence, you must resort to that kind of argument to make your case.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, you’re still making claims but not supporting them with evidence. Please show that my claims and Bud’s are opposed to each other, don’t just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong. That’s called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you must prove.

And stop putting words in Bud’s mouth. Bud never called me ignorant. Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. You’ve simply proclaimed it so.

And true to form, you attempt to change the subject once more below:

[Bud]

Ben can`t discuss ideas honestly, or even at all. He has no interest in a discussion of the head wound, he has his "gotcha", "this is all I need to know" talking points he is going to retreat to every time.

If he had to discuss the head wound honestly, he might be forced to acknowledge that the head wound seen in the z-film is right where the "A,B,C,D" landmarks put it.

Or he might have to explain why the prosectors thought it was important to give landmarks for missing scalp, but not the infinitely more important missing skull.

But Ben has no interest in the truth, he has made a hobby out of the deaths of this men. Further, he had disgraced the Marine Corps every day he has posted here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:02:34 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your

>> wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
>> talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
>>
>> So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
>
> You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.

Not a refutation.

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 18:05:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Ben can`t discuss ideas honestly, or even at all.

Neither you nor Huckster will answer. Your logical fallacy can't hide
that fact...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:17:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

The photo is irrelevant... you can't even admit that it CONTRADICTS
the Autopsy Report... which you are currently lying about.

You are DESPERATE to retain both the photo and the AR, as they are
both critical to your faith.

But you can't show a 13cm wound, devoid of bone and scalp, that is in
the Parietal, and extends to the Occipital.

I suspect that you're even too much a coward to admit that a good
portion of the Parietal IS IN THE *BACK* OF THE HEAD.

>> Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
>> REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
>>
>> "In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
>> a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>
>In the region chiefly of the parietal, extending *somewhat* in other areas.

So what was "unclear?" Lied, didn't you? You made a claim about
something being "unclear" ... and can't support it.

Of course, supporting lies is always difficult, isn't it?

And what part of the occipital CANNOT be seen in the BOH photo? You'll
run from that question like the provably coward you are.

I'VE PREDICTED IT!!

>And that’s what the photo shows.

No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.

>And much is *somewhat*, Ben? Define it for us.

No. This is *YOUR* problem, not mine. I ACCEPT the Autopsy Report's
description of the wound as it existed at 8pm.

You don't.

>Gil lied and pretended the wound was exclusively in the occipital:

You're lying again, moron.

YOU'RE SO BUSY MOLESTING YOUR OWN MOTHER THAT YOU CAN'T BE HONEST
ENOUGH TO STATE WHAT GIL ACTUALLY SAID!


The wound could be ENTIRELY in the Parietal - AND STILL BE ON THE BACK
OF THE HEAD. You're a gutless slime molesting your own mother by
putting words in Gil's statement that YOU CANNOT QUOTE HIM SAYING.


Where did Gil say that the wound was "exclusively in the occipital?"

QUOTE HIM, OR BE KNOWN AS A MOTHER MOLESTING SLIMEBAG!!

>“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.”
>
>The autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal— the top and side of the head.

No Huckster - you're lying again. A good portion of the Parietal is
in the BACK of the head.

And it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for a wound that extended into the
occipital to **NOT** be in the back of the head.

Precisely contradicting your BOH photo.


I DARE you to publicly admit that a part of the Parietal is in the
BACK of the head. You won't, of course.

>> You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
>
>What part of “chiefly in the parietal” don’t you and Gil understand?

The fact that you can't understand the rest of the sentence proves you
to either be a moron or a liar.

If the wound only *TOUCHED* the occipital, but didn't go into it, IT
WOULD PROVABLY BE A WOUND IN THE ***BACK*** OF THE HEAD.

There's nothing that Gil or I said that would lead any HONEST person
to believe we don't understand the statement found in the AR, and that
you referenced.

>> You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
>> CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
>

>No, it’s not. The photo shows a head wound chiefly in the parietal...


No it doesn't. You're lying again.

> and the autopsy report says exactly that.

Where's the described defect? 13cm, devoid of scalp and bone?

And answer the question that **NO** believer has ever answered: What
part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?

>> So you simply lie about it.
>>>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
>>>
>>>Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
>> YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!
>>
>> The statement you refer to is this:
>>
>> "From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
>> stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
>>
>> From where???

Huckster won't say...

>> FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
>>
>> The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
>> HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
>
>And the hole is visible.

WHAT A JACKASS!!! YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT A 13cm HOLE, DEVOID OF
SCALP AND BONE IS VISIBLE IN THE BOH PHOTO!???

Can you show a 5+ inch hole in the Occipital/Parietal in the BOH
photo?

No, you can't.

You're simply lying.

> And the “more or less” intact scalp is visible outside of the hole. Exactly as the autopsy report said.

You clearly live in an alternative universe. Or perhaps you simply
don't understand what 13cm... devoid of scalp and bone means...

>> Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
>> believe your lies?
>
>What lies?

Detailed above. I've labeled them lies, and shown why....

> The one Gil told about the large defect being in the back of the head here:
>“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head”.
>That lie?

Where's the word "occipital?"

If you can't quote Gil saying what you CLAIMED he said, then you're a
liar, aren't you?

And can you CITE where any Lone Nutter has answered Gil's question?

>The evidence of the photo and the autopsy report agree with each other, and with me. The wound was chiefly in the parietal.

No, the BOH photo is CONTRADICTED by the Autopsy Report's clear
language. (that you pretend is "unclear.")

You can't point to any 13cm hole, devoid of bone & scalp, located in
the BOH photo.

>In rebuttal, you call me a liar, and below, change the subject. Those are logical fallacies of ad hominem and a red herring.

You **ARE** provably a liar...

And a gutless coward as demonstrated by the topics you run from...
time and time again...

>When you have no evidence, you must resort to that kind of argument to make your case.

You're lying again, asshole! I've been quoting evidence. I can cite
it as well.

>> Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
>> answering this post:
>>
>>
>> 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?

You can't answer the above, because it would put you in DIRECT
conflict with a fellow believer. I know it, you know it, Chickenshit
knows it...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:28:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Notice folks, that Huckster RAN AWAY from my demonstration of his
lies...

He literally had **NOTHING** to say!!!

Then you whine that no-one debates anymore...

>>>> Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
>>>> answering this post:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>>>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>> The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
>> wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
>> talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
>>
>> So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
>
> No, you’re still making claims but not supporting them with
> evidence. Please show that my claims and Bud’s are opposed to each
> other, don’t just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong.
> That’s called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you
> must prove.

HEY GUTLESS COWARD!!! It's not possible to show that Chickenshit's
claims and your NON-EXISTENT claims are "opposed to each other."

YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER!!!

You're clearly a coward.

> And stop putting words in Bud’s mouth. Bud never called me ignorant.
> Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. You’ve simply proclaimed it
> so.

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to jpublicly agree with Chickenshit.

Quite the provable coward, aren't you?

>And true to form, you attempt to change the subject once more below:

You can run, coward, but you can't hide that fact in an open forum.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:28:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 18:05:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > Ben can`t discuss ideas honestly, or even at all.
> Neither you nor Huckster will answer. Your logical fallacy can't hide
> that fact...

Ben proves me right.

[Bud]

More noise. Still no engagement on the points made.

Ben couldn`t discuss ideas honestly if his life depended on it.

> Run coward... RUN!

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:28:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
> there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
> scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.

They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg

And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:13:30 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

He can't. He's simply chosen to lie about this - claiming that the
BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!

I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.

Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
autopsy photos.

He's sunk to simply lying about it.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 12:13:32 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:28:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
> > there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
> > scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
> They're faced with a conundrum.

Wrong.

> Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.

False Dilemma Fallacy.

> The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.

Wrong.

> There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.

What did Boswell say he was doing when the BOH photo was taken?

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
>
> And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.

Quote them saying this.

> Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.

And idiots play silly games with the evidence.

> Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.

Shifting the burden.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 12:27:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:13:30 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:28:53?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
> >> there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
> >> scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
> >
> >They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.
> >The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
> >There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
> >
> >https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
> >
> >And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
> >Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
> >Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
> He can't. He's simply chosen to lie about this - claiming that the
> BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!
>
> I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
> the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.

Conspiracy hobbyists have to call the witnesses liars, what they related doesn`t support their faith.

> Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
> autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
> eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
> autopsy photos.

You refuse to show that the chain of possession is a legitimate issue.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

> Ben and Gil's conclusions?

>
> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.

You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:51:58 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years

Another asshole who's only here to insult people.

[Bud]

It`s Sunday, get to church, repent a sin.

[Chuck Schuyler]

What's childish?

How about a grown man who spends his entire day fantasizing about being Oswald's attorney and getting him "off" at some mythical trial which we all know was never going to happen after Oswald was murdered?

How about a man who thinks Tom Rossley was an "important voice" in the so-called JFK "research" community?

How about a grown man who can't accept the FACT that history recognizes Oswald as JFK's killer and that your own little online hobby posts amount to generic digital noise, soon to be swept away--at least here--after 02/22/24?

How about a grown man who feels that Oswald was ENTIRELY innocent of everything that happened on 11/22/63?

How about a grown man who has spent decades reading everything there is to read about this murder who incapable or unwilling to put forward a counter-version of what happened on 11/22/63?

Sound pretty childish to me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:21:51 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

> Ben can`t discuss ideas honestly, or even at all.

Neither you nor Huckster will answer. Your logical fallacy can't hide
that fact...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:55:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>> The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
>> wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
>> talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
>>
>> So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
>
> You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.

Not a refutation.

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:20:22 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:10:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:39:54?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> Ben and Gil's conclusions?
>>>
>>> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
>
>> You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.
>
>What's childish?

You. What part of that didn't you understand?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 03:46:12 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:51:58?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
>
>Another asshole who's only here to insult people.

Well, he's not sure where Dealey Plaza is, he doesn't have much else
to post but logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:18:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>