Even Henry Is Perverted!

[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.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9


Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
Mark Lane's point?

Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
did.

Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...

You're doing the lying. There were no eyewitnesses to a shooter on the GK.

>
> > Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > claim.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>

Holmes posts another bogus link.

>
> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> Mark Lane's point?

You're lying when you claim he lied.

>
> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
> did.
>
> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.

Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...
>
>You're doing the lying. There were no eyewitnesses to a shooter on the GK.

And you're clearly molesting Huckster's Grandmother.

Can you QUOTE me saying what you claimed I just said?

>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>> claim.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>
>Holmes posts another bogus link.

Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
this...

>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>> Mark Lane's point?
>
>You're lying when you claim he lied.

If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
implied I said.

But you can't.

And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.

>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>> did.
>>
>> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.
>
>Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.

Says who?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Does Ben believe there was a shooter behind the fence on the grassy knoll?

Does Ben believe the "eyewitness" accounts as put forward by Lane were a "witness" to a shooter at that location?

Care to answer, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

Logical fallacy deleted.

[BT George]

To match bebs brain.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Running noted.

Wherever men discuss the JFK assassination, Ben will run. Every. Single. Time.

[Mark Ulrik]

onsdag den 2. juni 2021 kl. 17.05.24 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...
> >
> >You're doing the lying. There were no eyewitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
> And you're clearly molesting Huckster's Grandmother.
>
> Can you QUOTE me saying what you claimed I just said?

What did your "overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses" actually see?

> >>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> >>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> >>> claim.
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
> >>
> >Holmes posts another bogus link.
> Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
> this...

Your link doesn't work, dummy.

> >> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> >> Mark Lane's point?
> >
> >You're lying when you claim he lied.
> If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
> implied I said.
>
> But you can't.
>
> And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.

You're, of course, objecting to the quantifier "all". I think Hank's point was that credibility needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's not automatically assumed. But whether viewed as a group or individually, your eyewitnesses (or rather earwitnesses) to shots from the knoll become a lot less compelling when you consider that virtually all of them missed the shots from the TSBD.

[Mark Ulrik]

onsdag den 2. juni 2021 kl. 16.15.15 UTC+2 skrev 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.

Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

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

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:08:19 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:05:24 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...
>>>>>
>>>>>You're doing the lying. There were no eyewitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>>>>
>>>> And you're clearly molesting Huckster's Grandmother.
>>>>
>>>> Can you QUOTE me saying what you claimed I just said?

Neither Monkey Boy nor Chuckles could...

>>>>>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>>>>>
>>>>>Holmes posts another bogus link.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
>>>> this...

And Huckster remains silent.

>>>>>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>>>>>> Mark Lane's point?
>>>>>
>>>>>You're lying when you claim he lied.
>>>>
>>>> If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
>>>> implied I said.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't.
>>>>
>>>> And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.
>>>>>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.
>>>>
>>>> Says who?
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.

Has anyone noticed that not a single responder has acknowledged the
truth in this post?

Or refuted it?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:31:41 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> onsdag den 2. juni 2021 kl. 16.15.15 UTC+2 skrev 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.
> Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).

are the .WC staff attorneys here?

Wow, nutter logic strikes again: ".... is objecting to your use of the qualifier 'credible' ". (must think you're at Princeton fer Christsakes. "qualifier" --you make no rules here puddin'!

I personally like the one inferred years ago: *1964 WCR resulting in credible truth* Sounds like Chuckles or Dave Reitzes can't remember...
[...]

[BT George]

Is your brain really that addled? Let me *assure* you (not that you will remember) that there is *no* connection between David who is on the Left of the Political Spectrum and Chuck who is on the Right. Well there is actually a couple of connections. They're called logical thinking and decency. Concepts you cannot relate to for sure. BUUUUUUUURRRRRRPPPP!!!

[Ben Holmes]

This is an excellent example of why the troll, Mark Ulrik, is in my
killfilter.

He tries to shift the argument to some basis of "credibility" - when
in fact not even the troll can quote me saying what the Huckster tried
implying I said... and Huckster wasn't complaining about the
credibility.

These blatant lies are tiring to answer all the time...

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 11:05:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...
> >
> >You're doing the lying. There were no eyewitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
> And you're clearly molesting Huckster's Grandmother.
>
> Can you QUOTE me saying what you claimed I just said?

This is a perfect example of Healy pretending to say one thing and then when called on it,
denies he said it. First he provides this quote from the WC:

"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)

In the next paragraph he states the following:

"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. ..."

So if you weren't trying to claim the "overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses" were pointing to the
GK as the source of the shots, just what the hell were you saying the WC was ignoring?

How long are you going to hide behind your sock puppet which you have named Ben Holmes.
Why don't you man up and speak on your own for a change?

> >>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> >>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> >>> claim.
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
> >>
> >Holmes posts another bogus link.
> Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
> this...

Why did you post a link to a non-existent page, Healy?

> >> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> >> Mark Lane's point?
> >
> >You're lying when you claim he lied.

> If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
> implied I said.
>
> But you can't.

You are the one who is claiming someone lied about what Mark Lane said. The burden is on you
to cite that lie, a burden you clearly have not met.

>
> And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.

It's you Healy, whether you are lying under your own name or Ben Holmes.

> >> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
> >> did.
> >>
> >> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.
> >
> >Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.
> Says who?

Anybody who is familiar with your posting history.

[BT George]

Then *stop* telling them.

[John Corbett]

Healy is Foster Brooks without the humor or the likeability.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...

"Weasel word is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation."

Clearly, if a witness testified they saw an elephant in Dealey Plaza that wouldn`t necessarily be credible evidence there was an elephant there.

Clearly if a witness committed perjury the perjured statement would not be considered credible.

Clearly there is no credibility bestowed on witness supplied information just because it is allowed into evidence.

Clearly allowing witness testimony into evidence does not mean any weight whatsoever has to be given to that information when it comes to findings or conclusions.

So what is Ben talking about, really?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT), "healyd...@gmail.com"
> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:31:41 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> >> onsdag den 2. juni 2021 kl. 16.15.15 UTC+2 skrev 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.
> >> Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).
> >
> >are the .WC staff attorneys here?
> >
> >Wow, nutter logic strikes again: ".... is objecting to your use of the qualifier 'credible' ". (must think you're at Princeton fer Christsakes. "qualifier" --you make no rules here puddin'!
> >
> >I personally like the one inferred years ago: *1964 WCR resulting in credible truth* Sounds like Chuckles or Dave Reitzes can't remember...
> >[...]
> This is an excellent example of why the troll, Mark Ulrik, is in my
> killfilter.

He exposes your dishonesty. So do I, how come I don`t get this honor?

> He tries to shift the argument to some basis of "credibility" -

You didn`t just make an argument about credibility?

> when
> in fact not even the troll can quote me saying what the Huckster tried
> implying I said... and Huckster wasn't complaining about the
> credibility.

You are simply lying, Hank argued against the credibility argument you made.

[Airline Seat 19efppp]

What do you mean, "even?"

[healyd...@gmail.com]

your period restart Dudster? Or is it, you're just on the ropes and haven't a clue, eh Bunky?

[Bud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otiiQFQ69ZM

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:02:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

You've quoted me correctly, even if you don't know my name... but you
made the claim that I'd stated that there ARE eyewitnesses to a
gunman. That would be what you argued *against*.

You can't quote me saying that... I never did.

You're simply a pervert molesting Chickenshit's grandmother.

And a coward who can't quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

>>>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
>>>>> claim.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>>>
>>>
>>>Holmes posts another bogus link.
>>
>> Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
>> this...
>
>Why did you post a link to a non-existent page, Healy?

Tell you what, Monkey Boy... if you can't figure out who you're
talking to, perhaps it's time to reveal to the world your emails to me
where you describe molesting your sister.

As I already explained the link, there's no need to go into it
further...

>>>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>>>> Mark Lane's point?
>>>
>>>You're lying when you claim he lied.
>
>> If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
>> implied I said.
>>
>> But you can't.
>

>You are the one...


Tut tut tut, Monkey Boy... this is a simple logical fallacy.

Just admit that I never said what you claimed... or what Huckster
claimed.


Stop trying to change the topic.

>> And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.
>
>It's you Healy, whether you are lying under your own name or Ben Holmes.

Was that your younger sister you described molesting?

>>>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.
>>>
>>>Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.
>>
>> Says who?
>

>Anybody....

Nope.

[Bud]

What do you call the hair between Ben`s grandmother`s tits?

Her pussy!

[John Corbett]

Of course not. You never take a stand on anything. That would require you to defend your
stance and that would require you to grow a pair.

> You're simply a pervert molesting Chickenshit's grandmother.
>

You seem to have a lot of perverse fantasies, Healy.

> And a coward who can't quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

I just did.

> >>>>> Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
> >>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> >>>>> claim.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Holmes posts another bogus link.
> >>
> >> Nothing "bogus" about it. Let Huckster lie and claim he never said
> >> this...
> >
> >Why did you post a link to a non-existent page, Healy?

> Tell you what, Monkey Boy... if you can't figure out who you're
> talking to, perhaps it's time to reveal to the world your emails to me
> where you describe molesting your sister.

Did I touch a nerve, Healy?

>
> As I already explained the link, there's no need to go into it
> further...
> >>>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> >>>> Mark Lane's point?
> >>>
> >>>You're lying when you claim he lied.
> >
> >> If this were true, then you'd be able to quote me saying what Huckster
> >> implied I said.
> >>
> >> But you can't.
> >
> >You are the one...
>
>
> Tut tut tut, Monkey Boy... this is a simple logical fallacy.
>

Chickenshit.

> Just admit that I never said what you claimed... or what Huckster
> claimed.
>

I just quoted what I claimed you said. I used a copy and paste so it's word for word.

>
> Stop trying to change the topic.
> >> And the fact that you can't shows who's lying.
> >
> >It's you Healy, whether you are lying under your own name or Ben Holmes.
> Was that your younger sister you described molesting?
> >>>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
> >>>> did.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.
> >>>
> >>>Because you are incapable of making intelligent arguments.
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> >Anybody....
>
> Nope.

You reveal your cowardice when you delete things for which you have no rebuttal.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:11:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Obscenity deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Then why claim I did?

> You never take a stand on anything.

You mean, of course, that I never say things you WISH I'd say.

[BT George]

Nope. Holmes is still posting.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 07:15:11 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> 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.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>
>

>Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>Mark Lane's point?
>

>Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>did.
>
>Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.

Huckster read this, but couldn't respond... he knows he's been caught
telling a lie.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>

> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> Mark Lane's point?
>

> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
> did.
>

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:05:25 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> You're, of course, objecting to the quantifier "all". I think Hank's point was that credibility needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's not automatically assumed. But whether viewed as a group or individually, your eyewitnesses (or rather earwitnesses) to shots from the knoll become a lot less compelling when you consider that virtually all of them missed the shots from the TSBD.

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:31:41 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).

Yes, you understand my point even if Ben cannot (or pretends not to).

As I explained to Ben at the time (but he ignored then and fails to quote now), there is no universal acceptance of eyewitness testimony in the U.S. judicial system. It is up to each individual juror in each individual trial to determine for themselves whether they find the witness credible or not. One juror may find a witness credible while another juror may not. The judge doesn't determine which witnesses are credible, and the U.S. legal system does NOT grant blanket acceptance to any witness (let alone all of them) as "credible evidence" as Ben asserts.

His claim is false.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

Odds are Ben will ignore all this and simply repost his initial claim and argument a few months down the road. That's what Ben does. I know I won't bet against it.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

For example, I address this back in September of 2019 here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Of course Ben simply ignores the fact that his argument is false and repeats it again.
I wrote at that time:
==== QUOTE ====
My point was, which you omit, that it's up to the jury (in a jury trial) or the judge, or in this case, the Warren Commission to
determine whether the witness(es) is credible or not. They are not automatically assumed to be credible by the judicial systen, which
is your claim.

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

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

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

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

or without any qualifier whatsoever:
== QUOTE ==

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

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

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

It's not deemed credible by the judicial system.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

[John Corbett]

No, I mean you never take stand on anything because you are a gutless wonder.

[John Corbett]

I would bet on it but nobody would be dumb enough to bet against it.

[Hank Sienzant]

> Of course Ben simply ignores the fact that his argument is false and repeats it again. ...

And of course it was Ben who brought this up again in March of 2020 (after I explained it in September of 2019) and it was explained by Bud what Ben is failing to understand.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/Wi-p5D_DBQAJ

Note that Ben, six months after I explained it, reposts the same argument and claims in March of 2020 that I was running away.
Apparently I have to respond every time Ben misunderstands my point (or claims to) and brings up a point, otherwise I am "running away".

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:14:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

You're TERRIFIED of asking the questions you *KNOW* I'd answer. So
you're simply lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>>
>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>> Mark Lane's point?
>>
>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>> did.
>

> As I explained to Ben at the time (but he ignored then and fails to
> quote now), there is no universal acceptance of eyewitness testimony
> in the U.S. judicial system.

That statement implies that I'd EVER stated otherwise.

You're lying again, Huckster YOU CANNOT QUOTE ME SAYING ANYTHING OF
THE SORT.

[Ben Holmes]

Odds are ABSOLUTE that Huckster will never admit that I didn't say
what he implied, and will **NEVER** quote me.

[Ben Holmes]

And once again, Huckster is COMPLETELY unable to quote me saying what
he argued against.

Huckster lied, it's really just that simple

[Bud]

"Weasel word is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation."

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

[Ben Holmes]

Note that no matter HOW many times I bring it up, Huckster STILL can't
quote me, or admit that he simply made up what my argument was.

Huckster is going to KEEP seeing these posts - because it's important
for everyone to see when he blatantly lies.

[Ben Holmes]

There's two blatant lies in a row. Huckster knows full well that I
*NEVER* "ignore all this" - and Monkey Boy agrees with that falsehood.

[Bud]

Your argument seems to support the idea that Brennan saw Oswald firing from the TSBD.

> Huckster is going to KEEP seeing these posts - because it's important
> for everyone to see when he blatantly lies.

You are playing weasel words games. You won`t explain your idea further, yet will cry that it is being misrepresented. This is how dishonest people discuss ideas.

[Chuck Schuyler]

You're so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole and consumed with your sixteen-hour a day online addiction to tar baby arguments that you don't recognize what a blithering idiot you come across as.
Why don't you get off your ass and research all of these things that have you lathered up? What's your explanation for the "plotters" later planting the 6.5mm x-ray object when the cause of death was determined already? How was JFK's body/coffin swiped, and why not just wait until JFK arrived at Bethesda and do the wound alteration work, etc. there? What type of ammo was fired through the front of JFK's limo windshield from the so-called south knoll and why do the photos show just a crack? How did LBJ know he wouldn't be arrested for treason when he "ordered" the hit on JFK and RFK?

You're an incredibly lazy "researcher" if, in fact, you consider yourself a researcher on this topic. You're here only to sow conflict. You have zero interest in clarifying any issues or offering any contribution, and you have ZERO interest in admitting you are wrong on any aspect on this case, with the exception of the Lady in Yellow Pants fiasco from some years ago.

You finally shut up about that, right Yellow Pants? One down, hundreds to go.

[Ben Holmes]

End post whining by Chuckles deleted. He can't quote me anymore than
Huckster could.

[Hank Sienzant]

Or better yet, why do any body alteration work at all?

It's alleged by some CTs that the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 found in the Depository was not Oswald's, that all the evidence (paperwork from Kleins, back yard photos, prints on the rifle) was planted to frame Oswald. They further allege Oswald was an inadequate shot and the C2766 rifle was inadequate to the task - if they even admit Oswald owned that C2766 rifle. Many don't.

If they are going to that length to frame a crappy shooter with a crappy weapon, why not have a decent shooter shoot the President with a good rifle, and then frame Oswald (or some other guy who was proveably a better shooter) for shooting the President with a good rifle? If they can frame Oswald with fake paperwork and fake photos for buying a crappy rifle, why not frame Oswald with fake paperwork and fake photos for buying a good rifle?

If they have one good shooter shoot the President from behind with a good weapon, that removes entirely the need to alter the President's wounds whatsoever. All the shells, bullet fragments, and nearly whole bullets recovered would all point to the one weapon that the patsy is being framed for owning and possessing, and there's no need for body alteration, or a killing squad removing inconvenient witnesses, or altering of testimony, or intimidation of witnesses, or triangulation of fire...

They further allege some witnesses (like David Ferrie) were given a drug to kill them that wouldn't show up at autopsy, so it would look like a natural death by heart attack. If that's the case, why not give that drug to the President?

There's then no need for a shooting at all. That saves on the assassination team and their spotters, the kill squad, the photo-alteration team, the fake-paperwork team, the hard evidence planters or swappers, the testimony altering team, the body alteration team, etc...

Their idea of the conspiracy makes no sense on its face. The fact they have to invent body-alteration, faked paperwork, faked photos, faked Zapruder film, faked witness testimony, and a killing squad to eliminate witnesses tells you how desperate CTs are... all the evidence points to Oswald, so of course it must all be faked otherwise they are all wrong. And they can't have that. So of course it's all faked.

[Hank Sienzant]

Your argument was that there's credible evidence for a shooter on the knoll, and that the U.S. judicial system accepts eyewitness testimony as credible evidence.

This statement of yours is untrue: ...the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"

I pointed out that the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony as credible evidence as you alleged.

I pointed out that "credible" is in the eye of the individual(s) judging the case (in the case of a jury trial, it's the 12 individual jurors, in this case, it's the seven Commissioners). I pointed out that the judicial system allows for witness testimony, but it does not automatically accept as credible evidence eyewitness testimony as you asserted above.

You ignored it when I pointed this out on Amazon. You ignored it when I pointed this out again in September of 2019. You ignored it when Bud pointed it out again in March of 2020. You ignore it in your fringe reset of June, 2021 here.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 08:07:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Both are true statements.

> This statement of yours is untrue: ...the legal system in America
> *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"

And you're a liar who will **NEVER** cite for that empty claim.

Why do you lie, Huckster???

> I pointed out that the legal system does not accept eyewitness
> testimony as credible evidence as you alleged.

Now you're simply lying again.

QUOTE your original statement, and let's compare it to what you're NOW
claiming you said.

You can't win with lies, Huckster.

And you *STILL* can't quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Eristic argumentation.

More tar babies to fight, more round-and-round-and-round we go knots to untangle, etc.

Why don't you cite the law or provision within our legal code or a court finding or ruling, etc. that says in a courtroom, eyewitness testimony is to be considered "credible" and you could then shut down Hank's rebuttal?

Running to commence.

[Ben Holmes]

End of post eristics deleted.

[John Corbett]

Having served on two juries in criminal cases, I can tell you that jurors are instructed to treat
witness testimony as evidence but not to make assumptions as to their credibility. Jurors are
expected to make judgements about a witness's testimony based on the plausibility of their
account and their demeanor on the stand. Witnesses sometimes are accurate and sometimes
they are not and jurors are expected to make reasonable judgments regarding their credibility.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

dufus, there was NO trial of LHO, your interpretations and fondest wetdreams regarding what a judge told you is irrelevant to: did a conspiracy murder JFK? Get on point!

[Hank Sienzant]

Uh, it was your hero Ben Holmes who brought up the credibility of witnesses in the American legal system.
I for one thank you for your contribution here.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:56:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Having served on two juries in criminal cases, I can tell you that jurors are instructed to treat
>witness testimony as evidence but not to make assumptions as to their credibility. Jurors are
>expected to make judgements about a witness's testimony based on the plausibility of their
>account and their demeanor on the stand. Witnesses sometimes are accurate and sometimes
>they are not and jurors are expected to make reasonable judgments regarding their credibility.

You can't.

Huckster just schooled you: "the legal system does not accept
eyewitness testimony as credible evidence..."

Why are you calling Huckster a liar? Why are you asserting that you
can make a judgement about eyewitness credibility???

[Ben Holmes]

Why didn't you correct Monkey Boy?

He just disputed you.

As you stated, "the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony
as credible evidence..."

And surprising no-one, you've yet to cite for that lie.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.

I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ

Healy wrote: "dufus, there was NO trial of LHO. ... did a conspiracy murder JFK? Get on point!"

[Hank Sienzant]

We said the same thing.
You're either playing stupid or ...

[John Corbett]

You quoted Hank out of context. Had you quoted the full context it would have been apparent
to all that Hank and I have said virtually the same thing. This was Hank's FULL comment on the
subject of witness credibility:

"I pointed out that the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony as credible evidence as you alleged.

I pointed out that "credible" is in the eye of the individual(s) judging the case (in the case of a jury trial, it's the 12 individual jurors, in this case, it's the seven Commissioners). I pointed out that the judicial system allows for witness testimony, but it does not automatically accept as credible evidence eyewitness testimony as you asserted above."

Both Hank and I pointed out that jurors are expected to make judgments about the credibility of
witnesses. Eyewitness and expert witness testimony are both accepted forms of evidence in
the American legal system but jurors are not supposed to automatically give their testimony
credibility. They are supposed to weigh what a witness says against the body of evidence and
also judge the demeanor of a witness in determining his/her credibility.

Being the deceptive little worm of a man that you are, you attempted to twist what Hank said by
quoting a single sentence and leaving out the rest which clarified his position on the matter. This
is why I have often said the most despicable liars are the ones the tell half truths. You told a half
truth.

[Jason Burke]

"man"!??! Bennie-boy is lower than a worm that's been run over 23 times.

[John Corbett]

Running Yellow Pants over 23 times would be a damn good start.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 6:44:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, it was your hero Ben Holmes who brought up the credibility of witnesses in the American legal system.
>> >I for one thank you for your contribution here.
>> Why didn't you correct Monkey Boy?
>>
>> He just disputed you.
>>
>> As you stated, "the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony
>> as credible evidence..."
>>
>> And surprising no-one, you've yet to cite for that lie.
>
>We said the same thing.
>You're either playing stupid or ...

Looks like you're pretending not to recognize the difference in what
we stated... I'll keep this little trick in mind to use on believers,
since no-one can spot what it is.

But tell us Huckster - would you be willing to put your assertion that
we said the same thing to a third party poll?

I'll post my statement, then your statement - I'll add one sentence of
explanation, and you'll add whatever you want.

Loser to not post for 6 months.

Whatta ya say?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:10:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

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

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 6:42:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:56:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having served on two juries in criminal cases, I can tell you that jurors are instructed to treat
>> >witness testimony as evidence but not to make assumptions as to their credibility. Jurors are
>> >expected to make judgements about a witness's testimony based on the plausibility of their
>> >account and their demeanor on the stand. Witnesses sometimes are accurate and sometimes
>> >they are not and jurors are expected to make reasonable judgments regarding their credibility.
>> You can't.
>>
>> Huckster just schooled you: "the legal system does not accept
>> eyewitness testimony as credible evidence..."
>>
>> Why are you calling Huckster a liar? Why are you asserting that you
>> can make a judgement about eyewitness credibility???
>
>You quoted Hank out of context. Had you quoted the full context it would have been apparent
>to all that Hank and I have said virtually the same thing. This was Hank's FULL comment on the
>subject of witness credibility:
>
>"I pointed out that the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony as credible evidence as you alleged.

There you go. End of story. What "context" will change this
statement into the "truth?"

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.

You do this frequently, and you ALWAYS get spanked...

>I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ

When the WCR utlized legal languate of "credible evidence" - what did
it mean?

Are you saying that lawyers, OUTSIDE of a courtroom, suddenly speak
another language?

Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...

[Bud]

<snicker> Why not just say what you meant?

> Loser to not post for 6 months.
>
> Whatta ya say?

I`d say you are much too fond of playing childish games.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 3:42:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...

> "Weasel word is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation."
>

> Clearly, if a witness testified they saw an elephant in Dealey Plaza that wouldn`t necessarily be credible evidence there was an elephant there.
>
> Clearly if a witness committed perjury the perjured statement would not be considered credible.
>
> Clearly there is no credibility bestowed on witness supplied information just because it is allowed into evidence.
>
> Clearly allowing witness testimony into evidence does not mean any weight whatsoever has to be given to that information when it comes to findings or conclusions.
>
> So what is Ben talking about, really?

Bump.

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

> > > accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
> > > claim.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9

> >
> >
> > Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
> > Mark Lane's point?
> >
> > Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
> > did.
> >

> > Nowadays, I just label him a pervert and move on.

[Bud]

Bump.

[BT George]

Trust me. It's the "or"!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:35:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 6:44:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Uh, it was your hero Ben Holmes who brought up the credibility of witnesses in the American legal system.
> >> >I for one thank you for your contribution here.
> >> Why didn't you correct Monkey Boy?
> >>
> >> He just disputed you.
> >>
> >> As you stated, "the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony
> >> as credible evidence..."
> >>
> >> And surprising no-one, you've yet to cite for that lie.
> >
> >We said the same thing.
> >You're either playing stupid or ...
> Looks like you're pretending not to recognize the difference in what
> we stated... I'll keep this little trick in mind to use on believers,
> since no-one can spot what it is.

This little trick is all yours. You’re using it now.

>
> But tell us Huckster - would you be willing to put your assertion that
> we said the same thing to a third party poll?

This is idiotic. I said “We said the same thing” in response to your claim that John Corbett disputed me. I said “We said the same thing” about John and I agreeing, not about you and I agreeing. We clearly disagree on almost everything.

Your attempt to twist my words to mean something else is idiotic.

As I also said, “You’re either playing dumb or...”

>
> I'll post my statement, then your statement - I'll add one sentence of
> explanation, and you'll add whatever you want.
>
> Loser to not post for 6 months.
>
> Whatta ya say?

I say you’ve learned well from Mark Lane, who also took claims out of context to make them appear to say something other than what was meant.

[Hank Sienzant]

No. I’m pointing out that Healy’s objection “dufus, there was NO trial of LHO, your interpretations and fondest wetdreams regarding what a judge told you is irrelevant to: did a conspiracy murder JFK? Get on point!” Is off the mark. That whether there was a trial or not, the same standards apply.

Your attempt to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I intended establishes you’ve learned well from your hero, Mark Lane, who employed the same tactics in his book “Rush to Judgment”.

>
> Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...

I’ll leave the untruths to you and Lane, you are both so good at it.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<apci...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:39:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>>
>> You do this frequently, and you ALWAYS get spanked...

And notice folks, that Huckster is about to get spanked again... he
can't refute what Mark Lane actually said - so he begins committing
logical fallacies to evade the truth.

>>>I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ
>>

>> When the WCR utlized legal language of "credible evidence" - what did

>> it mean?
>>
>> Are you saying that lawyers, OUTSIDE of a courtroom, suddenly speak
>> another language?
>
>No.

Then you have no point. EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Warren Commission
was either a lawyer, or one about to pass his bar exams.


So you're right back to the original statement:

"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. ...

So... you want to try again without trying to drag in what someone
else somewhere else said?

> I’m pointing out that Healy’s objection

Sorry moron, but Healy hasn't made a comment in THIS thread - so you
are simply changing the goalposts.

You can't answer what **I** said, so you have to drag someone else in,
in a different thread, and respond to them.

I've deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.

> Your attempt to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I
> intended

Thats certainly a claim you're making, but you've admitted that you
aren't even addressing what *I* said, but what someone in another
thread said.

Now, do lawyers outside of a courtroom use a different definition of
"credible evidence" than they do in the courtroom?

If you cannot say yes, then your point was sheer nonsense and an
attempt to refute what I stated with garbage.

You're going to get spanked every time you try this, Huckster.

I've deleted the rest of that logical fallacy.

>> Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...

Notice folks, that Huckster admitted that he wasn't even addressing
what I stated in this thread, but what someone else said somewhere
else.

That fact establishes Huckster as the liar...


>Hank


And *STILL* can't address the topic... as I requoted above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 02:12:08 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<apci...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:35:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:47:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 6:44:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Uh, it was your hero Ben Holmes who brought up the credibility of witnesses in the American legal system.
>>>>>I for one thank you for your contribution here.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't you correct Monkey Boy?
>>>>
>>>> He just disputed you.
>>>>
>>>> As you stated, "the legal system does not accept eyewitness testimony
>>>> as credible evidence..."
>>>>
>>>> And surprising no-one, you've yet to cite for that lie.
>>>
>>>We said the same thing.
>>>You're either playing stupid or ...
>>
>> Looks like you're pretending not to recognize the difference in what
>> we stated... I'll keep this little trick in mind to use on believers,
>> since no-one can spot what it is.
>
>This little trick is all yours. You’re using it now.

You're lying again, Huckster. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to actually
state what the "trick" consists of.

Thus proving yourself a liar.

Watch folks! I've predicted it!

>> But tell us Huckster - would you be willing to put your assertion that
>> we said the same thing to a third party poll?
>
> This is idiotic. I said “We said the same thing” in response to your
> claim that John Corbett disputed me. I said “We said the same thing”
> about John and I agreeing, not about you and I agreeing. We clearly
> disagree on almost everything.
>
>Your attempt to twist my words to mean something else is idiotic.

There you go again...

Define the *trick* I referenced, and prove that I used it.

Or admit you're a liar.

>> I'll post my statement, then your statement - I'll add one sentence of
>> explanation, and you'll add whatever you want.
>>
>> Loser to not post for 6 months.
>>
>> Whatta ya say?

Looks like Huckster is just as provable a coward as other believers.

But in *THIS* post, Huckster has laid claim to knowing the "trick" he
pulled on me, and that I also use it.

Watch folks, as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support what he said, thus
PROVING BEYOND ALL DOUBT that he's a liar.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Arguing to argue. Eristic argumentation. Arguing to sow conflict instead of finding clarity. More knots to untangle. More tar babies to fight.

I think Bud was really on to something many years ago when he said you don't put your ideas out there for examination because deep down inside, you're ashamed.

[Ben Holmes]

End of post eristics deleted...

Chuckles refuses to help out Huckster...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:39:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
> >>
> >> You do this frequently, and you ALWAYS get spanked...
> And notice folks, that Huckster is about to get spanked again... he
> can't refute what Mark Lane actually said - so he begins committing
> logical fallacies to evade the truth.

Refuted it above. Not my problem if you choose to ignore the responses, delete them from your responses, and pretend they don’t exist.

> >>>I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
> >>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ
> >>
> >> When the WCR utlized legal language of "credible evidence" - what did
> >> it mean?
> >>
> >> Are you saying that lawyers, OUTSIDE of a courtroom, suddenly speak
> >> another language?
> >
> >No.
> Then you have no point. EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Warren Commission
> was either a lawyer, or one about to pass his bar exams.

And they found no credible evidence of a shooter on the knoll because there is none. There’s a lot of witnesses who thought all the shots came from the knoll, but even you believe they were wrong about that. Don’t you?

>
>
> So you're right back to the original statement:
> "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. ...

Asked and answered numerous times, including back on Amazon where I first responded to this point. The legal system does NOT accept eyewitness testimony as credible evidence carte blanche. It is up to the individuals charged with rendering a verdict or decision (such as a jury in a jury trial, a judge where a jury is waived, or the seven Warren Commissioners appointed by President Johnson to make those decisions about what is credible evidence and what is not.

Since neither you nor Mark Lane have any standing here, neither you nor Lane get to decide what is credible evidence and override the Commissioners.

> So... you want to try again without trying to drag in what someone
> else somewhere else said?
> > I’m pointing out that Healy’s objection
> Sorry moron, but Healy hasn't made a comment in THIS thread - so you
> are simply changing the goalposts.

Name calling and avoiding my point. Pretty much all you have in your arsenal, since both the law and the facts are against you.

And even Healy’s comment, which I quoted and you deleted, shows he thinks you have no point in bringing this up.

>
> You can't answer what **I** said, so you have to drag someone else in,
> in a different thread, and respond to them.

Already answered what you said, numerous times. You were wrong when you brought it up initially, you are wrong now, and you’ll be wrong in the future on this topic.

>
> I've deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.

You’ve deleted my points because you can’t refute them.

> > Your attempt to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I
> > intended
> Thats certainly a claim you're making, but you've admitted that you
> aren't even addressing what *I* said, but what someone in another
> thread said.

I responded directly to your words and pointed out how you were attempting to twist the clear meaning of my words. Deleting my point doesn’t change that any.

>
> Now, do lawyers outside of a courtroom use a different definition of
> "credible evidence" than they do in the courtroom?

Lawyers don’t make that determination about what is credible evidence. The judge, the jury, or the Commissioners do. Not you nor Mark Lane.

>
> If you cannot say yes, then your point was sheer nonsense and an
> attempt to refute what I stated with garbage.

I disagree with your assessment here, because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

>
> You're going to get spanked every time you try this, Huckster.
>
> I've deleted the rest of that logical fallacy.

You’ve deleted my points because you can’t refute them.

> >> Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...

Begging the question logical fallacy.
Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> Notice folks, that Huckster admitted that he wasn't even addressing
> what I stated in this thread, but what someone else said somewhere
> else.

Please stop with the patent untruths. I’ve pointed out your falsehoods and contrasted your argument with what Healy said.

>
> That fact establishes Huckster as the liar...

The fact that you make this statement shows the depths of your dishonesty.

What do you hope to accomplish with such nonsense as you spew here?

You cannot honestly think you’re drawing converts to the conspiracy side with such patent untruths.

>
>
> >Hank
>
>
> And *STILL* can't address the topic... as I requoted above.

Asked and answered. Plenty of times.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 17:33:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 9:44:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:39:25 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>>>>
>>>> You do this frequently, and you ALWAYS get spanked...
>>
>> And notice folks, that Huckster is about to get spanked again... he
>> can't refute what Mark Lane actually said - so he begins committing
>> logical fallacies to evade the truth.
>
>Refuted it above.

No, you didn't. You simply LIED about what I'd stated, and you
*STILL* can't produce a statement of mine that you implied I'd said.

You can't refute anything with logical fallacies.

>>>>>I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
>>>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ
>>>>
>>>> When the WCR utlized legal language of "credible evidence" - what did
>>>> it mean?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that lawyers, OUTSIDE of a courtroom, suddenly speak
>>>> another language?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Then you have no point. EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Warren Commission
>> was either a lawyer, or one about to pass his bar exams.
>

>And they found...


Tut tut tut, Huckster, there you go again with another logical
fallacy. As lawyers, they ALL knew what "credible evidence" was.

You cannot refute what I post with logical fallacies.

>> So you're right back to the original statement:
>> "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. ...
>
>Asked and answered numerous times

Taking your clue from Tony Marsh... and Chuckles...

Won't work.

>> So... you want to try again without trying to drag in what someone
>> else somewhere else said?'
>>
>>> I’m pointing out that Healy’s objection
>>
>> Sorry moron, but Healy hasn't made a comment in THIS thread - so you
>> are simply changing the goalposts.
>
>Name calling and avoiding my point.

Nope... you aren't allowed to use logical fallacies. I'll merely
point it out, and delete 'em as I go.

>> You can't answer what **I** said, so you have to drag someone else in,
>> in a different thread, and respond to them.
>
>Already answered what you said, numerous times.

Logical fallacies galore...

>> I've deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
>>

>>> Your attempt to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I
>>> intended
>>
>> Thats certainly a claim you're making, but you've admitted that you
>> aren't even addressing what *I* said, but what someone in another
>> thread said.
>

>I responded directly to your words ...


You BLATANTLY LIED about what I said.

Amusingly, you still refuse to admit it.

And although you've claimed I do the same thing, YOU STILL HAVEN'T
NAMED WHAT YOU DID!

>> Now, do lawyers outside of a courtroom use a different definition of
>> "credible evidence" than they do in the courtroom?
>
>Lawyers don’t make that determination about what is credible evidence.

So you're asserting that the WCR simply lied when they claimed that
there was no "credible evidence" for a GK shooter.

Why are you terrified of saying it EXPLICITLY?

>> If you cannot say yes, then your point was sheer nonsense and an
>> attempt to refute what I stated with garbage.
>

>I disagree with your assessment here...


Who cares?

>> You're going to get spanked every time you try this, Huckster.
>>
>> I've deleted the rest of that logical fallacy.
>

>You’ve deleted my points because ...


They are logical fallacies... yes, I already told you that. No need
to repeat it.

>>>> Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...
>
>Begging the question logical fallacy.
>Ad hominem logical fallacy.

My statement is back up by fact.

You *STILL* refuse to quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

>> Notice folks, that Huckster admitted that he wasn't even addressing
>> what I stated in this thread, but what someone else said somewhere
>> else.
>
>Please stop with the patent untruths.

Please stop with the blatant lies.

>> That fact establishes Huckster as the liar...
>>

>>>Hank
>>
>>
>> And *STILL* can't address the topic... as I requoted above.
>
>Asked and answered. Plenty of times.

Hi Tony!

[Bud]

Who cares about your opinon?

>You simply LIED about what I'd stated, and you
> *STILL* can't produce a statement of mine that you implied I'd said.
>
> You can't refute anything with logical fallacies.
> >>>>>I have it on good authority that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't tried, so where does the legal system come into play?
> >>>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/D5kuwVWVAAAJ
> >>>>
> >>>> When the WCR utlized legal language of "credible evidence" - what did
> >>>> it mean?
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you saying that lawyers, OUTSIDE of a courtroom, suddenly speak
> >>>> another language?
> >>>
> >>>No.
> >>
> >> Then you have no point. EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Warren Commission
> >> was either a lawyer, or one about to pass his bar exams.
> >
> >And they found...
>
>
> Tut tut tut, Huckster, there you go again with another logical
> fallacy. As lawyers, they ALL knew what "credible evidence" was.

So who are you to question them?

> You cannot refute what I post with logical fallacies.
> >> So you're right back to the original statement:
> >> "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. ...
> >
> >Asked and answered numerous times
> Taking your clue from Tony Marsh... and Chuckles...

You pretend that the default is that it hasn`t been answered.

> Won't work.

You saying it hasn`t been answered doesn`t work.

> >> So... you want to try again without trying to drag in what someone
> >> else somewhere else said?'
> >>
> >>> I’m pointing out that Healy’s objection
> >>
> >> Sorry moron, but Healy hasn't made a comment in THIS thread - so you
> >> are simply changing the goalposts.
> >
> >Name calling and avoiding my point.
> Nope... you aren't allowed to use logical fallacies. I'll merely
> point it out, and delete 'em as I go.

Your crooked games, your crooked rules.

> >> You can't answer what **I** said, so you have to drag someone else in,
> >> in a different thread, and respond to them.
> >
> >Already answered what you said, numerous times.
> Logical fallacies galore...

Non sequitur.

> >> I've deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
> >>
> >>> Your attempt to twist my words to mean the opposite of what I
> >>> intended
> >>
> >> Thats certainly a claim you're making, but you've admitted that you
> >> aren't even addressing what *I* said, but what someone in another
> >> thread said.
> >
> >I responded directly to your words ...
>
>
> You BLATANTLY LIED about what I said.

Since you are removing what Hank wrote it is clear that it must be you doing the lying.

> Amusingly, you still refuse to admit it.
>
> And although you've claimed I do the same thing, YOU STILL HAVEN'T
> NAMED WHAT YOU DID!

You probably removed it. You`re a coward that way.

> >> Now, do lawyers outside of a courtroom use a different definition of
> >> "credible evidence" than they do in the courtroom?
> >
> >Lawyers don’t make that determination about what is credible evidence.
> So you're asserting that the WCR simply lied when they claimed that
> there was no "credible evidence" for a GK shooter.
>
> Why are you terrified of saying it EXPLICITLY?

Why are you afraid to admit that "credibility" is subjective?

> >> If you cannot say yes, then your point was sheer nonsense and an
> >> attempt to refute what I stated with garbage.
> >
> >I disagree with your assessment here...
>
>
> Who cares?

Why should anyone care about your opinion?

> >> You're going to get spanked every time you try this, Huckster.
> >>
> >> I've deleted the rest of that logical fallacy.
> >
> >You’ve deleted my points because ...

... you are a dirty yellow coward.

> They are logical fallacies... yes, I already told you that. No need
> to repeat it.
> >>>> Speak up, Huckster, tell us some more lies...
> >
> >Begging the question logical fallacy.
> >Ad hominem logical fallacy.
> My statement is back up by fact.

Merely your opinion that it is a fact.

> You *STILL* refuse to quote me saying what you claimed I'd said.

Addressed numerous times.

> >> Notice folks, that Huckster admitted that he wasn't even addressing
> >> what I stated in this thread, but what someone else said somewhere
> >> else.
> >
> >Please stop with the patent untruths.
> Please stop with the blatant lies.

Whenever you characterize what someone else has done you are lying.

> >> That fact establishes Huckster as the liar...
> >>
> >>>Hank
> >>
> >>
> >> And *STILL* can't address the topic... as I requoted above.
> >
> >Asked and answered. Plenty of times.
> Hi Tony!

The criteria you use as to whether something has been answered is that you have to accept the answer. Your dishonesty prevents you for consideration for such a role.

[John Corbett]

MARSH LIVES!!!

[Ben Holmes]

I live rent free in Monkey Boy's tiny brain too!

[John Corbett]

Other then the 10-15 minutes a day I spend laughing at Benny Yellow Pants, I never give him a
thought. He seems to have a very exaggerated view of his own relevance.

It's a question of mind over matter. I don't mind and Benny sure as hell doesn't matter.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 03:05:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

>Other then the 10-15 minutes a day...

Other than your inability to spell, I STILL live rent free in your
Monkey brain...

(Yes, that's a satire of how believers post!)

[BT George]

Hilarious. bebsy found a typo. JFK assassination case solved!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 06:30:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 9:26:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:55:22 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>> >> Mark Lane's point?
>> >>
>> >> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>> >> did.
>> >

>> > As I explained to Ben at the time (but he ignored then and fails to
>> > quote now), there is no universal acceptance of eyewitness testimony
>> > in the U.S. judicial system.

>> That statement implies that I'd EVER stated otherwise.
>>
>> You're lying again, Huckster YOU CANNOT QUOTE ME SAYING ANYTHING OF
>> THE SORT.
>
> "Weasel word is ...

Not a quote.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 08:59:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Don't you just HATE the fact that you're not the judge of what I

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Desperate for me to answer you, aren't you?

You know the rules.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:42:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...

None of this addresses the lie that Huckster told.

Logical fallacies deleted.

> So what is Ben talking about, really?

The lie that Huckster told.

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

>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9

>>
>>
>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>> Mark Lane's point?
>>
>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>> did.
>>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 06:43:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 9:31:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 9:02:18 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 8:55:23 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Anyone notice the outright lie that Huckster told in order to answer
>>>>>>> Mark Lane's point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huckster can't quote me or Mark Lane saying what he just asserted we
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:05:25 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>>>> You're, of course, objecting to the quantifier "all". I think Hank's point was that credibility needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's not automatically assumed. But whether viewed as a group or individually, your eyewitnesses (or rather earwitnesses) to shots from the knoll become a lot less compelling when you consider that virtually all of them missed the shots from the TSBD.
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 1:31:41 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>>>> Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).
>>>>>> Yes, you understand my point even if Ben cannot (or pretends not to).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I explained to Ben at the time (but he ignored then and fails to quote now), there is no universal acceptance of eyewitness testimony in the U.S. judicial system. It is up to each individual juror in each individual trial to determine for themselves whether they find the witness credible or not. One juror may find a witness credible while another juror may not. The judge doesn't determine which witnesses are credible, and the U.S. legal system does NOT grant blanket acceptance to any witness (let alone all of them) as "credible evidence" as Ben asserts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His claim is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hank
>>>>> Odds are Ben will ignore all this and simply repost his initial claim and argument a few months down the road. That's what Ben does. I know I won't bet against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hank
>>>> For example, I address this back in September of 2019 here:
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
>>>> Of course Ben simply ignores the fact that his argument is false and repeats it again. ...
>>>
>>>And of course it was Ben who brought this up again in March of 2020 (after I explained it in September of 2019) and it was explained by Bud what Ben is failing to understand.
>>>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/Wi-p5D_DBQAJ
>>>
>>>Note that Ben, six months after I explained it, reposts the same argument and claims in March of 2020 that I was running away.
>>>Apparently I have to respond every time Ben misunderstands my point (or claims to) and brings up a point, otherwise I am "running away".
>>>
>>>Hank
>>
>> Note that no matter HOW many times I bring it up, Huckster STILL can't
>> quote me, or admit that he simply made up what my argument was.
>

> Your argument seems ...


No need. Here it is again:

Note that no matter HOW many times I bring it up, Huckster STILL can't
quote me, or admit that he simply made up what my argument was.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 07:59:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You do. You reply to anything I post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:01:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 3:42:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:15:15 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. ...
>> "Weasel word is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation."
>>
>> Clearly, if a witness testified they saw an elephant in Dealey Plaza that wouldn`t necessarily be credible evidence there was an elephant there.
>>
>> Clearly if a witness committed perjury the perjured statement would not be considered credible.
>>
>> Clearly there is no credibility bestowed on witness supplied information just because it is allowed into evidence.
>>
>> Clearly allowing witness testimony into evidence does not mean any weight whatsoever has to be given to that information when it comes to findings or conclusions.
>>
>> So what is Ben talking about, really?
>
> Bump.

Chickenshit's getting nervous... he's afraid I won't respond...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT), "healyd...@gmail.com"
>> <healyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:31:41 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:

>>>> onsdag den 2. juni 2021 kl. 16.15.15 UTC+2 skrev 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.
>>>>

>>>> Hank is objecting to your use of the qualifier "credible". Without it, your statement would obviously have been true (the legal system in the US does accept eyewitness testimony as evidence).
>>>

>>>are the .WC staff attorneys here?
>>>
>>>Wow, nutter logic strikes again: ".... is objecting to your use of the qualifier 'credible' ". (must think you're at Princeton fer Christsakes. "qualifier" --you make no rules here puddin'!
>>>
>>>I personally like the one inferred years ago: *1964 WCR resulting in credible truth* Sounds like Chuckles or Dave Reitzes can't remember...
>>>[...]
>> This is an excellent example of why the troll, Mark Ulrik, is in my
>> killfilter.
>
> He exposes your dishonesty. So do I, how come I don`t get this honor?


Your lies aren't always stupid ones.


>> He tries to shift the argument to some basis of "credibility" -
>
> You didn`t just make an argument about credibility?

If you cannot quote me saying what Huckster argued against, then you
lose.

You lose.


>> when
>> in fact not even the troll can quote me saying what the Huckster tried
>> implying I said... and Huckster wasn't complaining about the
>> credibility.
>
> You are simply lying, Hank argued against the credibility argument you made.


You're lying again, Chickenshit.


>> These blatant lies are tiring to answer all the time...