Believers Don't Know The Evidence - PROOF HERE!

[Ben Holmes]

It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
because they can't refute what they themselves state.

For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
is, or cite it.

I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.

The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
orientation was.

Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.

And there are only two possible reasons:

1. They don't know... ignorance.

2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.

Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!

[Scrum Drum]

This site would be vastly improved if a moderator would come in and restrict Ben to maybe one or two posts a day...



And site quality-diminishing self-indulgent trolling taunting posts were not approved in moderator cue...There's an intentional petty level of discussion that is being exploited here that directly harms the site and encourages silly trolling that is probably chasing potential members from the board...

[David Healy]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:31:57 AM UTC-8, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 11:02:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
> > because they can't refute what they themselves state.
> >
> > For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
> > is, or cite it.
> >
> > I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
> > find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
> >
> > The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
> > first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
> > orientation was.
> >
> > Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
> > fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.
> >
> > And there are only two possible reasons:
> >
> > 1. They don't know... ignorance.
> >
> > 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.
> >
> > Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!
> This site would be vastly improved if a moderator would come in and restrict Ben to maybe one or two posts a day...

sit, you dumb fuck... because you use #16 emory cloth paper to wipe your ass is no reason for anyone to follow your lead... and yes, I will take one for the old gipper at the pearly gates...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 11:19:36 -0800 (PST), David Healy
<dhealy9...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 8:31:57 AM UTC-8, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 11:02:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
>>> because they can't refute what they themselves state.
>>>
>>> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
>>> is, or cite it.
>>>
>>> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
>>> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
>>>
>>> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
>>> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
>>> orientation was.
>>>
>>> Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
>>> fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.
>>>
>>> And there are only two possible reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. They don't know... ignorance.
>>>
>>> 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.
>>>
>>> Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!
>>
>> This site would be vastly improved if a moderator would come in
>> and restrict Ben to maybe one or two posts a day...
>
> sit, you dumb fuck... because you use #16 emory cloth paper to wipe
> your ass is no reason for anyone to follow your lead... and yes, I
> will take one for the old gipper at the pearly gates...

I predicted it. These cowards *LOVE* censored forums - where they
aren't shown up as the liars and cowards that they are.

>> And site quality-diminishing self-indulgent trolling taunting
>> posts were not approved in moderator cue...There's an intentional
>> petty level of discussion that is being exploited here that directly
>> harms the site and encourages silly trolling that is probably chasing
>> potential members from the board...

The question remains... unanswered. What orientation was F8 as given
by the prosectors when they first viewed it?

Cowards will continue to run from this simple question.

[Bud]

Does this mean you will never back up your claim about the orientation?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 11:29:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

And Chickenshit proves he can't read as well as proving me right, yet
again.

[Bud]

It *does* mean you will never back up your claim about the orientation.

Since you refuse to support your empty claim I`ll just assume it is just another lie from you. Just another addition to the pile.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:02:13 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
> because they can't refute what they themselves state.

Word salad.

>
> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
> is, or cite it.

More word salad.

>
> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.

Cryptic games with Ben's hints and innuendos.

>
> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
> orientation was.

Chaff and misdirection. Games. Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. This is the essence of the conclusions of the autopsy report and will never change. Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same conclusion.

>
> Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
> fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.

...to your satisfaction.

Don't you ever self-reflect and ask yourself why you ask others to answer the questions that have you so flummoxed? Why don't you get off your lazy rump and PROVIDE YOUR OWN ANSWERS????? What's wrong with you? Let's hear YOUR explanations for these things that have you so puzzled.

>
> And there are only two possible reasons:

Prepare for the either/or logical fallacy. Here it comes!

>
> 1. They don't know... ignorance.
>
> 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.

Ben doesn't disappoint.

>
> Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!

And he adds in some ad hominem at the end, too.

As Trump would say, "Sad!"

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:50:39 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:02:13 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
>> because they can't refute what they themselves state.
>
>Word salad.

The simple truth. But in your case, it's ignorance, not cowardice.

>> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
>> is, or cite it.
>
>More word salad.

Still the truth. PROVEN by you, in this very post. Don't you just
ENJOY proving me right???

>> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
>> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
>
>Cryptic games with Ben's hints and innuendos.

Nothing "cryptic" at all. Are you too stupid to be able to find out
when the prosectors first looked at the autopsy photos?

Are you too stupid to see how they labeled F8?

And what that orientation proves?

>> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
>> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
>> orientation was.
>
> Chaff and misdirection. Games.

This is indeed what you just claimed for it... Chaff and misdirection.

You can't answer the question... nor will you EVER be able to.

> Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. This is the essence
> of the conclusions of the autopsy report and will never change.

Begging the question.

> Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same
> conclusion.

A conclusion you disagree with.

>> Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
>> fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.
>
>...to your satisfaction.

To *anyone's* satisfaction... shall we put it to a poll?

Pretending that an answer has been given is simply a lie on your part.

> Don't you ever self-reflect and ask yourself why you ask others to
> answer the questions that have you so flummoxed?

You see? There you go lying again. The answer doesn't have me
"flummoxed" at all... I know the answer.

It's *YOU* that doesn't.

> Why don't you get off your lazy rump and PROVIDE YOUR OWN
> ANSWERS?????

I see you didn't bother reading this post. I already explained this.
Shall I put it in smaller words?

> What's wrong with you?

I'm laughing at your cowardice too much!


> Let's hear YOUR explanations for these things...


No.

> that have you so puzzled.

You're lying again, moron!

>> And there are only two possible reasons:
>
>Prepare for the either/or logical fallacy. Here it comes!

Prepare for Chuckles to refuse to offer *ANY* other credible reason.

>> 1. They don't know... ignorance.
>>
>> 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.
>
>Ben doesn't disappoint.

Chuckles doesn't disappoint. But in his case, ignorance is the
explanation.

And Chuckles can't prove otherwise.

>> Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!

All that remains is Von Penis, who doesn't know the answer, and
Huckster, who does, but won't say...

[Scrum Drum]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 2:26:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 11:19:36 -0800 (PST), David Healy

> I predicted it. These cowards *LOVE* censored forums - where they
> aren't shown up as the liars and cowards that they are.

No - It's just that you are ruining this board with your obnoxious thread-flooding...

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> This site would be vastly improved if a moderator would come in and restrict Ben to maybe one or two posts a day...
>
>
>
> And site quality-diminishing self-indulgent trolling taunting posts were not approved in moderator cue...There's an intentional petty level of discussion that is being exploited here that directly harms the site and encourages silly trolling that is probably chasing potential members from the board...

This isn't a site. This is a Usenet newsgroup you dumb shit. There is no moderator.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:50:39 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:02:13 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
> >> because they can't refute what they themselves state.
> >
> >Word salad.
> The simple truth. But in your case, it's ignorance, not cowardice.
> >> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
> >> is, or cite it.
> >
> >More word salad.
> Still the truth. PROVEN by you, in this very post. Don't you just
> ENJOY proving me right???
> >> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
> >> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
> >
> >Cryptic games with Ben's hints and innuendos.
> Nothing "cryptic" at all. Are you too stupid to be able to find out
> when the prosectors first looked at the autopsy photos?
>
> Are you too stupid to see how they labeled F8?
>
> And what that orientation proves?

Nobody here can make you man enough to support your claims about the orientation.

> >> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
> >> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
> >> orientation was.
> >
> > Chaff and misdirection. Games.
> This is indeed what you just claimed for it... Chaff and misdirection.
>
> You can't answer the question... nor will you EVER be able to.
> > Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. This is the essence
> > of the conclusions of the autopsy report and will never change.
> Begging the question.

The findings of experts aren`t a fallacy.

> > Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same
> > conclusion.
> A conclusion you disagree with.

You are simply lying, Chuck believes Kennedy was shot twice from above and behind.

[Ben Holmes]

I find it amusing that the very thing that drives people away is
morons like this anonymous troll "Scrum Drum"

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 10:45:41 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 02:40:16 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>



> >
> >This isn't a site. This is a Usenet newsgroup you dumb shit. There is no moderator.

Gil isn't very bright so he doesn't fathom how that only proves my point...

> I find it amusing that the very thing that drives people away is
> morons like this anonymous troll "Scrum Drum"

People who bore by assuming an entitled presence and then use it to thread-flood, which is really obnoxious trolling that you'll never see any serious researcher do, are people who ignore the fact their entries are petty name-calling and that they are only proving my point by making it personal and ignoring the substance of what is being discussed...These weak-minded researchers tend to form packs or gangs...You can see that on the Education Forum, Deep Politics, and especially ROKC...Ben and Gil indulge themselves with these off-putting circle jerks because they are lacking as researchers and seek to compensate by reducing Kennedy research to a World Wrestling Federation level...Inferior intellects like Ben do disservice to and demean serious Kennedy research but they don't care because they are here for the juvenile game playing...These types dominate and control the JFK internet simply because their dumb-down profile is the majority and they self-approve...They are using serious Kennedy research to enable trolling and there's no excuse for that...Like Gil, Ben can't back up his stuff and if asked to back-up that "troll" accusation against my material he's moronically silent...

[Charles Schuyler]

Nah. Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. It's the autopsy conclusion and the HSCA panel verified it too, so I'm not assuming something to be truthful. It is the scientific null and the historical null. Please look up the definition for terms you do not understand.

> > Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same
> > conclusion.

> A conclusion you disagree with.

I agree with their conclusion that two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. You are arguing to argue. Eristic argumentation. Ben argues for conflict and never for clarity.

> >> Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
> >> fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.
> >
> >...to your satisfaction.

> To *anyone's* satisfaction...

No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

>shall we put it to a poll?

Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Bandwagon fallacy.

>
> Pretending that an answer has been given is simply a lie on your part.

Your questions have been answered, but never to your satisfaction. Provide your own answers, little fella.

> > Don't you ever self-reflect and ask yourself why you ask others to
> > answer the questions that have you so flummoxed?

> You see? There you go lying again. The answer doesn't have me
> "flummoxed" at all... I know the answer.

Then state it.

>
> It's *YOU* that doesn't.
> > Why don't you get off your lazy rump and PROVIDE YOUR OWN
> > ANSWERS?????
> I see you didn't bother reading this post. I already explained this.
> Shall I put it in smaller words?
> > What's wrong with you?
> I'm laughing at your cowardice too much!
>
>
> > Let's hear YOUR explanations for these things...
>
>
> No.

Ben finally breaks down. "No," writes Ben, when asked to provide answers to the many things that flummox him.

> > that have you so puzzled.
> You're lying again, moron!

Ad hominem attack.

> >> And there are only two possible reasons:
> >
> >Prepare for the either/or logical fallacy. Here it comes!
> Prepare for Chuckles to refuse to offer *ANY* other credible reason.

...that meets your satisfaction. Always add that in.

> >> 1. They don't know... ignorance.
> >>
> >> 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.
> >
> >Ben doesn't disappoint.

> Chuckles doesn't disappoint. But in his case, ignorance is the
> explanation.

Ben is a one-trick pony.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 10:58:06 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler

<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 6:07:15 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:50:39 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:02:13 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
>>>> because they can't refute what they themselves state.
>>>
>>>Word salad.
>>
>> The simple truth. But in your case, it's ignorance, not cowardice.
>>
>>>> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
>>>> is, or cite it.
>>>
>>>More word salad.
>>
>> Still the truth. PROVEN by you, in this very post. Don't you just
>> ENJOY proving me right???

Chuckles ran... The answer must be "yes."

>>>> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
>>>> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
>>>
>>>Cryptic games with Ben's hints and innuendos.
>>
>> Nothing "cryptic" at all. Are you too stupid to be able to find out
>> when the prosectors first looked at the autopsy photos?
>>
>> Are you too stupid to see how they labeled F8?

Chuckles turned yellow and ran again...

>> And what that orientation proves?

Chuckles doesn't know...

>>>> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
>>>> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
>>>> orientation was.
>>>
>>> Chaff and misdirection. Games.
>>
>> This is indeed what you just claimed for it... Chaff and misdirection.
>>
>> You can't answer the question... nor will you EVER be able to.

And Chuckles ran AGAIN!

>>> Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. This is the essence
>>> of the conclusions of the autopsy report and will never change.
>
>> Begging the question.
>
>Nah.

Sorry stupid, you're evading the question.

>>> Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same
>>> conclusion.
>
>> A conclusion you disagree with.
>

>I agree ...


As Chickenshit pointed out, you agree with a probable conspiracy.

WHAT A MORON!!!

>>>> Watch folks, as believers will run... believers will post logical
>>>> fallacies, but *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.
>>>
>>>...to your satisfaction.
>
>> To *anyone's* satisfaction...
>>

>>shall we put it to a poll?

Chuckles won't...

>> Pretending that an answer has been given is simply a lie on your part.
>

>Your questions have been answered...


Quote the answer to the question raised in this thread...

But you won't.

You're lying again...

>>> Don't you ever self-reflect and ask yourself why you ask others to
>>> answer the questions that have you so flummoxed?
>
>> You see? There you go lying again. The answer doesn't have me
>> "flummoxed" at all... I know the answer.
>
>Then state it.

Tut tut tut, stupid!

The topic is the inability of believers such as YOU to publicly state
facts & evidence that CONTRADICT your faith.

Thus showing your cowardice & dishonesty.

No-one doubts that *I* know the answer.

>> It's *YOU* that doesn't.
>>
>>> Why don't you get off your lazy rump and PROVIDE YOUR OWN
>>> ANSWERS?????
>>
>> I see you didn't bother reading this post. I already explained this.
>> Shall I put it in smaller words?

Chuckles turned a deeper shade of yellow and ran again...

>>> What's wrong with you?
>>
>> I'm laughing at your cowardice too much!
>>
>>> Let's hear YOUR explanations for these things...
>>
>> No.
>
> Ben finally breaks down. "No," writes Ben, when asked to provide

> anwers to the many things that flummox him.


You're merely showing your stupidity if you really believe that.

>>> that have you so puzzled.
>>
>> You're lying again, moron!
>
>Ad hominem attack.

Cite the evidence for your claim... otherwise, it's a lie.

Where's Chickenshit when you need him?

>>>> And there are only two possible reasons:
>>>
>>>Prepare for the either/or logical fallacy. Here it comes!
>>
>> Prepare for Chuckles to refuse to offer *ANY* other credible reason.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!

Chuckles ran again...

As predicted.

>>>> 1. They don't know... ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> 2. They know, but they're cowards, and refuse to say.
>>>
>>>Ben doesn't disappoint.
>
>> Chuckles doesn't disappoint. But in his case, ignorance is the
>> explanation.
>
>Ben is a one-trick pony.

Yep... evidence.

Scares you to death!

>> And Chuckles can't prove otherwise.

And indeed, he refused to do so...

>>>> Watch the ignorance and cowardice begin!
>>
>> All that remains is Von Penis, who doesn't know the answer, and
>> Huckster, who does, but won't say...

And still no answers from them...

[David Von Pein]

"The F-8 photo is, in my opinion, essentially worthless and useless. At least
from the standpoint of trying to PROVE anything definitive regarding the location of the wounds in JFK's head. Others disagree, of course. But, in my view, F-8 is
just a big mess. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Maybe other people can,
but I can't. .... In a way, that F-8 photo is TOO GOOD. It evidently is a picture taken DEEP inside Kennedy's cranium, which doesn't leave very much stuff visible OUTSIDE the cranium for proper orientation. And therein lies the big problem with it, IMO. What's UP and what's DOWN? It's hard to tell."
-- DVP; September 8, 2014


"Don't ask me anything about that mess known as F8, because it's an ink blot test as far as I'm concerned. Totally useless. In a way, that picture is TOO GOOD. If we only had some more "orientation" features within F8, it would sure be more useful. It's an incredible picture, though, I must say. I've often wondered just exactly how (and where) the camera was situated and maneuvered in order to snap that picture?" -- DVP; April 1, 2009


"John Canal thinks F8 is a "simple photo". That must be why [according to some people anyway] Dr. Baden testified with F8 upside-side in 1978, huh? For Pete sake, John, just take a look at all of the major disagreements concerning F8 over the years among the people who post on just the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. And there are some very smart people posting there too. And yet many people say F8 shows one thing, while a different batch of people say that F8 is depicting something else entirely. A "simple" photo? I think not. F8 is essentially a worthless and useless mess. But if you want to rely on that "simple" F8 photograph, more power to ya (I guess)." -- DVP; May 17, 2009


"The autopsy photo known as F8 is a complete mess. And if you took the time to explain it to me 101 different times, I doubt it would still make much sense (from a "Which Way Is Up On This Damn Picture?" point-of-view). It would still be a total freaking mess. IMO, autopsy photograph #F8 is not aiding anyone at all who is attempting to locate certain wounds (entry vs. exit points, etc.) on John F. Kennedy's head. Because everybody's got a different "official" opinion on the picture, it seems. In other words, how can mud possibly bring about clarity? IMO, it can't. So I'll choose to dismiss it entirely and utilize better and clearer-to-interpret evidence." -- DVP; August 17, 2008

[Ben Holmes]

Davy Von Penis deleted ALL of the above, so it would be obvious that,
liike all other cowards, he refused to answer the question.

It's good to see that Von Penis joins the list of believers who've
taken the time to prove my above statement correct - that ALL
believers will run, and *NO* believer will cite or state the answer.

This is word salad... to hide the fact that Von Penis is simply
IGNORANT of what the prosectors first stated.

Von Penis *COULD* have been honest, and answered this entire thread
with "I don't know." But instead, he vomited all of his non-relevant
garbage to evade the fact that he's too dishonest to answer.

WHAT A COWARD!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 12:40:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. And your cowardice on full
display.

> Since you refuse to support your empty claim I`ll just assume it is
> just another lie from you. Just another addition to the pile.

Assume anything you want - you've just proven this post correct.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:50:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:50:39 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:02:13 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's always amusing to force believers to state what the evidence is,
>>>> because they can't refute what they themselves state.
>>>
>>>Word salad.
>> The simple truth. But in your case, it's ignorance, not cowardice.
>>>> For this reason, believers simply refuse to state what the evidence
>>>> is, or cite it.
>>>
>>>More word salad.
>> Still the truth. PROVEN by you, in this very post. Don't you just
>> ENJOY proving me right???
>>>> I referenced recently a *FACT* that believers know (or can quickly
>>>> find for themselves), but you cannot get any of them to say it.
>>>
>>>Cryptic games with Ben's hints and innuendos.
>> Nothing "cryptic" at all. Are you too stupid to be able to find out
>> when the prosectors first looked at the autopsy photos?
>>
>> Are you too stupid to see how they labeled F8?
>>
>> And what that orientation proves?
>
> Nobody here can make you man enough to support your claims about the orientation.

Certainly I can. You're whining because you're too much a coward to
say it yourself.

>>>> The prosectors were quite clear about the orientation of F8 when they
>>>> first saw it... and not a *SINGLE* believer will state what that
>>>> orientation was.
>>>
>>> Chaff and misdirection. Games.
>>
>> This is indeed what you just claimed for it... Chaff and misdirection.
>>
>> You can't answer the question... nor will you EVER be able to.
>>
>>> Two shots hit JFK, fired from behind and above. This is the essence
>>> of the conclusions of the autopsy report and will never change.
>>
>> Begging the question.
>
> The findings of experts aren`t a fallacy.

In this case it is. Because those SAME experts stated what the
orientation of F8 is... and you're TERRIFIED of saying what it was.

>>> Ever. The HSCA looked at it again in the late 70s and had the same
>>> conclusion.
>>
>> A conclusion you disagree with.
>

> You are simply lying...


Good. I "lied." Chuckles believes in a probable conspiracy, with a
minimum of four shots fired... one from the Grassy Knoll. And that the
WC investigation was flawed.

Let's see Chuckles publicly state that.

But, of course, it's far more likely that *YOU* just lied.


Notice folks, that Chickenshit *STILL* can't tell us what the
orientation of F8 is, according to the prosectors when they first saw
it. This proves me correct, of course.