Steve's A Moron...

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum.


>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>silence him.


Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
detrimental to the official version.

Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?


>He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
>with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
>calls.


Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
would instantly 'break,' and tell all.

The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
the grave.


>He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
>advantage of them. Why not?


Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
book.


>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?


His lunch.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Found in the censored forum.
>
>
> >Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
> >to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
> >silence him.
>
>
> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
> detrimental to the official version.

You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.

> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?

Because it was an investigation, not a trial.

> >He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
> >with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
> >calls.
>
>
> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.

You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he had things to divulge.

> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
> the grave.

The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent Oswald to investigate.

> >He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
> >advantage of them. Why not?
>
>
> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
> book.
>
>
> >And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
> >to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
>
>
> His lunch.

<snicker>

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 9:37:43 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Found in the censored forum.
> >
> >
> > >Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
> > >to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
> > >silence him.
> >
> >
> > Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
> > detrimental to the official version.
>
> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
>
> > Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
>
> Because it was an investigation, not a trial.
>
> > >He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
> > >with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
> > >calls.
> >
> >
> > Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
> > would instantly 'break,' and tell all.
>
> You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he had things to divulge.
>
> > The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
> > the grave.
>
> The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent Oswald to investigate.

Thanks for reminding us the 1964 WCR conclusions were a joke. We've been on to that one for a while now!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum.
>>
>>
>> >Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>> >to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>> >silence him.
>>
>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
>> detrimental to the official version.
>
> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.

Yep... you could.

However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
the other.

>> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
>
> Because it was an investigation, not a trial.

Yet you pretend he was found guilty.

There's not a lawyer alive in this country who doesn't completely
understand that the search for truth requires both prosecution AND
defense... yet they refuses any defense counsel to test their theories
against.

Critics now fill that role, and **YOU** fail completely in your role
as the prosecution.

>> >He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
>> >with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
>> >calls.
>>
>> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
>> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.
>
> You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he
> had things to divulge.

Oswald *said* he had things to divulge. You simply label him a liar
without any proof, and move on.

>> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
>> the grave.
>
> The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent
> Oswald to investigate.

You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
premises), so why did you bother posting them?

>> >He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
>> >advantage of them. Why not?
>>
>> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
>> book.
>>
>> >And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>> >to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
>>
>> His lunch.
>
> <snicker>

Not even an *attempt* to refute.

Certainly no explanation of where he carried his lunch, or where he
got it from. That's the problem with believers, they make no attempt
to explain the known evidence. You simply stick your head in the sand.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Found in the censored forum.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
> >> >to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
> >> >silence him.
> >>
> >> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
> >> detrimental to the official version.
> >
> > You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
> Yep... you could.
>
> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
> the other.

What did Oswald say that was detrimental to the official version?

It can’t be that he was innocent, framed, or a patsy. Guilty parties say that almost all the time. Probably even more than innocent ones on a pure numbers basis.

> >> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
> >
> > Because it was an investigation, not a trial.
> Yet you pretend he was found guilty.

Nobody pretends that. That’s a straw man argument. We understand the current state of the evidence points to Oswald, and don’t accept the meritless claims by CTs that it all points to him because the conspiracy faked it all, got people to lie, swapped or planted evidence, forged or altered evidence, ad nauseum.

>
> There's not a lawyer alive in this country who doesn't completely
> understand that the search for truth requires both prosecution AND
> defense...

In a trial. Did Galileo require a prosecution and defense attorney to resolve the truth of whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones? Did Newton require both prosecution AND defense in his search for the truth of the three laws of motion?

There was no trial. Because the defendant was dead. We don’t bother with trials in those cases because the defendant is beyond the reach of justice. It’s a waste of time. If he’s found guilty, do we dig him up and execute him? While awaiting trial, do we put him in a jail cell? If he’s found innocent, do we free him?

This is a historical case, not a criminal case. Oswald wasn’t found guilty. Neither was Stalin or Hitler.

Citing lawyers for the need for lawyers might not be your best approach here. You understand what a bias is, right? Lawyers will probably say you need a lawyer for everything (hey, they like money as much as the next guy, right. Probably more than most, in fact).

> yet they refuses any defense counsel to test their theories
> against.

Dead people don’t have any right to counsel under the law, because the ‘defense counsel’ cannot consult with the dead, so the dead have no need of counsel or counseling. Maybe the Commission should hire a spirit medium and a defense attorney?

>
> Critics now fill that role, and **YOU** fail completely in your role
> as the prosecution.

Perhaps you might be a bit biased in that assessment? Just a teenie-weenie bit?

> >> >He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
> >> >with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
> >> >calls.
> >>
> >> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
> >> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.

Oswald is whom Steve is talking about. You appear to be claiming those who plotted the murder AND Oswald were both “dedicated to the country” and that’s why Oswald AND the plotters didn’t reveal all.

But it gets worst for you. Oswald had two days to “instantly ‘break’, and tell all”. The plotters have had decades. Neither of them had to “instantly ‘break’, and tell all” as you allow as the only possibility.

> >
> > You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he
> > had things to divulge.
> Oswald *said* he had things to divulge.

Quotes, citations? Can you support this claim?

> You simply label him a liar without any proof, and move on.

No, we look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions.

For example, when a rifle traceable to him is found on the sixth floor after a presidential assassination, we reason he might be a suspect. When we find he told one story to an acquaintance about what was in the bag (“curtain rods“) and another to the police (“my lunch”), we understand that innocent people don’t have reasons to lie about either. Contradictions in statements by a suspect are clear evidence of being untruthful, unless you’re claiming Oswald ate the curtain rods and washed it down with a Coke. Sure, things go better with Coke, but curtain rods?

C’mon, man!

> >> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
> >> the grave.

Begged question. We saw you had nothing when we examined your claim Oswald was CIA.

> >
> > The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent
> > Oswald to investigate.
> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
> >> >He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
> >> >advantage of them. Why not?
> >>
> >> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
> >> book.

Off the top of my head, Marchetti for one.

And a straw man and begged question logical fallacies in any case. You avoided answering his question and just asked one of your own.

> >>
> >> >And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
> >> >to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
> >>
> >> His lunch.
> >
> > <snicker>
> Not even an *attempt* to refute.
>
> Certainly no explanation of where he carried his lunch, or where he
> got it from.

We don’t have to explain Oswald’s lies. That’s a bizarre take. You have that obligation.

Why was there a long sack in the sniper’s nest window corner with Oswald’s print on it? We can explain that — he used that long sack to transport the rifle.

Why did Frazier claim Oswald told him he was making a special trip on Thursday evening to the Paine’s to get curtain rods? We can explain that — it was to get the rifle, and explain the relative width and length of the package Frazier would see Friday morning.

Now your turn to explain the known evidence.

> That's the problem with believers, they make no attempt
> to explain the known evidence. You simply stick your head in the sand.

We can explain the known evidence. I just explained some of it above. What we can’t explain is why CTs reject the known evidence and come up with bizarre excuses to absolve Oswald, claiming anything pointing to Oswald is faked.

Your claim means Oswald lied about the curtain rods or Frazier lied about the curtain rods. Let’s see if you make an attempt to explain the known evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:00:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Found in the censored forum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>>>>>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>>>>>silence him.
>>>>
>>>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
>>>> detrimental to the official version.
>>>
>>> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
>>
>> Yep... you could.
>>
>> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
>> the other.
>
>What did Oswald say that was detrimental to the official version?

That it was a frameup.

If you can't see how that's "detrimental" to the official version, I
can't help you.

> It can’t be that he was innocent, framed, or a patsy. Guilty parties
> say that almost all the time. Probably even more than innocent ones on
> a pure numbers basis.

So in HucksterWorld - the cops are always right, and those who are
charged are always guilty.

Are you sure you live in America?

>>>> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
>>>
>>> Because it was an investigation, not a trial.
>>
>> Yet you pretend he was found guilty.
>
>Nobody pretends that.

You're doing that right now.

>> There's not a lawyer alive in this country who doesn't completely
>> understand that the search for truth requires both prosecution AND
>> defense...
>
> In a trial.

This was a prosecution, not an investigation... if you don't
understand that, you're simply showing your dishonesty, nothing more.

>> yet they refuses any defense counsel to test their theories
>> against.

LFD.

>> Critics now fill that role, and **YOU** fail completely in your role
>> as the prosecution.
>
>Perhaps you might be a bit biased in that assessment? Just a teenie-weenie bit?

Nope. The proof, of course, is the nonstop lies, logical fallacies,
and cowardice that you and other believers utilize daily.

>>>>>He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
>>>>>with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
>>>>>calls.
>>>>
>>>> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
>>>> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.

LFD.

>>> You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he
>>> had things to divulge.
>>
>> Oswald *said* he had things to divulge.
>
>Quotes, citations? Can you support this claim?

Certainly. But would you be honest enough to publicly acknowledge
that I'm right, and you're lying?

I have a citation ready to go where Oswald stated he had things to
divulge... are you ready to admit that you're lying?

Let me know...

>> You simply label him a liar without any proof, and move on.
>
>No, we look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions.

Untrue.

>>>> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
>>>> the grave.
>>>

>>> The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent
>>> Oswald to investigate.
>>
>> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
>> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
>> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
>>
>>>>>He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
>>>>>advantage of them. Why not?
>>>>
>>>> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
>>>> book.
>
>Off the top of my head, Marchetti for one.

Oh my! How impressive! How many hundreds of thousands of
intellligence agents have their been?

You prove my point.

>>>>>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
>>>>>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
>>>>
>>>> His lunch.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>> Not even an *attempt* to refute.
>>
>> Certainly no explanation of where he carried his lunch, or where he
>> got it from.
>

>We don’t have to explain...


Yes, you do. That's your burden.

Anytime you make a claim, you need to be able to support it.

>> That's the problem with believers, they make no attempt
>> to explain the known evidence. You simply stick your head in the sand.
>

>We can explain ...

You just got through explaining that you don't have to.

Tell us Huckster - WHAT IS THE BURDEN THAT ALL MEN HAVE?

If you cannot publicly acknowledge that it's your burden to support
what you claim, then you're not a man, you're a moron.

[Steven Galbraith]

The first time a JFK conspiracy knucklehead says they agree with something I say about the assassination is the day I go and get a lobotomy. Maybe two.
They still do lobotomies, right?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:00:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Found in the censored forum.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
> >>>>>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
> >>>>>silence him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
> >>>> detrimental to the official version.
> >>>
> >>> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
> >>
> >> Yep... you could.
> >>
> >> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
> >> the other.
> >
> >What did Oswald say that was detrimental to the official version?
> That it was a frameup.

First off, watch how much of my responses get deleted by Ben. He repeatedly does this with all my posts, it’s a dishonest way to deal with a rebuttal argument, to take one sentence or phrase out of context, spin that, and rebut the spun version.

Now on to the point here: Asked and answered. Innocent and guilty people both say they are innocent. So you cannot use the protestation of innocence to determine anything.

Secondly, he didn’t say that. Oswald claimed he was a patsy, not that it was a frameup. He said he was taken in because he lived in the Soviet Union, which of course was a lie. He was taken in as a suspect in the Tippit shooting. There’s no evidence the arresting officers knew he had been in the Soviet Union, nor would it have mattered.

>
> If you can't see how that's "detrimental" to the official version, I
> can't help you.

I don’t see how the accused saying he was innocent establishes anything either way.
Ted Bundy proclaimed his innocence for over a decade. Was that detrimental to the official version?
They still got convictions in three trials for kidnapping and murder. He still insisted he was innocent.
So what?

> > It can’t be that he was innocent, framed, or a patsy. Guilty parties
> > say that almost all the time. Probably even more than innocent ones on
> > a pure numbers basis.
> So in HucksterWorld - the cops are always right, and those who are
> charged are always guilty.

Straw man argument. Try to rebut my actual points, not the ones you have to put into my mouth to rebut. I explained what you are doing already here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AMjbVtLMimw/m/P0pyXNGuBQAJ
== quote ==
It's not one size fits all. It's one size fits everyone but Ben.
Ben has his own rules for himself.
He gets to redefine what you said to fit his faith and to be better able to dismiss it.
But if you say anything about what Ben said, you have to quote his exact words.
Double Standard? You bet.
== quote ==

>
> Are you sure you live in America?

Ad hominem.

> >>>> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
> >>>
> >>> Because it was an investigation, not a trial.
> >>
> >> Yet you pretend he was found guilty.
> >

> > Nobody pretends that. *That’s a straw man argument. We understand the current state of the evidence points to Oswald, and don’t accept the meritless claims by CTs that it all points to him because the conspiracy faked it all, got people to lie, swapped or planted evidence, forged or altered evidence, ad nauseum.*

> You're doing that right now.

Nope, I’m pointing out the evidence points to Oswald. You deleted the bulk of my response to better try to rebut my claim. I had to put it all back denoting what you omitted within asterisks *like this*.

Another straw man. Stop putting words in my mouth.

> >> There's not a lawyer alive in this country who doesn't completely
> >> understand that the search for truth requires both prosecution AND
> >> defense...
> >

> > In a trial. *Did Galileo require a prosecution and defense attorney to resolve the truth of whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones? Did Newton require both prosecution AND defense in his search for the truth of the three laws of motion?

There was no trial. Because the defendant was dead. We don’t bother with trials in those cases because the defendant is beyond the reach of justice. It’s a waste of time. If he’s found guilty, do we dig him up and execute him? While awaiting trial, do we put him in a jail cell? If he’s found innocent, do we free him?

This is a historical case, not a criminal case. Oswald wasn’t found guilty. Neither was Stalin or Hitler.

Citing lawyers for the need for lawyers might not be your best approach here. You understand what a bias is, right? Lawyers will probably say you need a lawyer for everything (hey, they like money as much as the next guy, right. Probably more than most, in fact).*

> This was a prosecution, not an investigation... if you don't
> understand that, you're simply showing your dishonesty, nothing more.

Your beliefs are not the standard here. You’re begging the question and attempting to shift the burden of proof. Don’t pretend your allegation needs rebuttal, it doesn’t.

> >> yet they refuses any defense counsel to test their theories
> >> against.
> LFD.

LFD is Ben code for “I can’t rebut this”. So let’s put it back so the lurkers can see the point you’re avoiding: *Dead people don’t have any right to counsel under the law, because the ‘defense counsel’ cannot consult with the dead, so the dead have no need of counsel or counseling. Maybe the Commission should hire a spirit medium and a defense attorney?*

> >> Critics now fill that role, and **YOU** fail completely in your role
> >> as the prosecution.
> >
> >Perhaps you might be a bit biased in that assessment? Just a teenie-weenie bit?
> Nope.

.
Sorry, your denials of bias might suffer from the same bias you denying you might be suffering from in your original assessment.

> The proof, of course, is the nonstop lies, logical fallacies,
> and cowardice that you and other believers utilize daily.

Sorry, your assertions above might suffer from the same problems of bias that you deny, but don’t establish. In other words, you are simply begging the question repeatedly

> >>>>>He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
> >>>>>with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
> >>>>>calls.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
> >>>> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.
> LFD.

Remember what LFD is Ben code for, everyone?

LFD is Ben code for “I can’t rebut this”. So let’s put it back so the lurkers can see the point you’re avoiding: *Oswald is whom Steve is talking about. You appear to be claiming those who plotted the murder AND Oswald were both “dedicated to the country” and that’s why Oswald AND the plotters didn’t reveal all.

But it gets worst for you. Oswald had two days to “instantly ‘break’, and tell all”. The plotters have had decades. Neither of them had to “instantly ‘break’, and tell all” as you allow as the only possibility.*

Ben avoided even taking a stab at rebutting any of that.

> >>> You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he
> >>> had things to divulge.
> >>
> >> Oswald *said* he had things to divulge.
> >
> >Quotes, citations? Can you support this claim?
> Certainly. But would you be honest enough to publicly acknowledge
> that I'm right, and you're lying?

I’m seeing no cites or quotations. I’m seeing an affirmation followed by a begged question with an imbedded ad hominem logical fallacy. So still asking to cite for your claim and provide the appropriate quotes.

>
> I have a citation ready to go where Oswald stated he had things to
> divulge... are you ready to admit that you're lying?

And still no cites or quotations. Just an ad hominem imbedded in a begged question logical fallacy.


>
> Let me know...

Quotes, citations? Can you support your claim?

> >> You simply label him a liar without any proof, and move on.
> >

> >No, we look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions. *For example, when a rifle traceable to him is found on the sixth floor after a presidential assassination, we reason he might be a suspect. When we find he told one story to an acquaintance about what was in the bag (“curtain rods“) and another to the police (“my lunch”), we understand that innocent people don’t have reasons to lie about either. Contradictions in statements by a suspect are clear evidence of being untruthful, unless you’re claiming Oswald ate the curtain rods and washed it down with a Coke. Sure, things go better with Coke, but curtain rods?

C’mon, man!*

> Untrue.

Is neither a refutation nor an truthful statement. Taking the first sentence out of context is again a dishonest way of dealing with a point.

> >>>> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
> >>>> the grave.

*Begged question. We saw you had nothing when we examined your claim Oswald was CIA.*

> >>>
> >>> The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent
> >>> Oswald to investigate.
> >>
> >> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
> >> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
> >> premises), so why did you bother posting them?
> >>
> >>>>>He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
> >>>>>advantage of them. Why not?
> >>>>
> >>>> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
> >>>> book.
> >

> >Off the top of my head, Marchetti for one. *And a straw man and begged question logical fallacies in any case. You avoided answering his question and just asked one of your own.*

> Oh my! How impressive! How many hundreds of thousands of
> intellligence agents have their been?

Rinse and repeat. You avoided responding to my point and just asked another question.


>
> You prove my point.

No, Ben, by constantly deleting the bulk of my responses, taking my points out of context, avoiding my points, and responding with logical fallacies, you prove mine.

> >>>>>And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
> >>>>>to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
> >>>>
> >>>> His lunch.
> >>>
> >>> <snicker>
> >> Not even an *attempt* to refute.
> >>
> >> Certainly no explanation of where he carried his lunch, or where he
> >> got it from.
> >

> >We don’t have to explain... *Oswald’s lies. That’s a bizarre take. You have that obligation.

Why was there a long sack in the sniper’s nest window corner with Oswald’s print on it? We can explain that — he used that long sack to transport the rifle.

Why did Frazier claim Oswald told him he was making a special trip on Thursday evening to the Paine’s to get curtain rods? We can explain that — it was to get the rifle, and explain the relative width and length of the package Frazier would see Friday morning.

Now your turn to explain the known evidence. *

>
>
> Yes, you do. That's your burden.

We don’t have to explain Oswald’s lies. That’s your burden, Ben. If you cannot make an argument without deleting my points and falsely summarizing them, you don’t have an argument.

You still need to explain the known evidence. Who was lying, the police, Frazier, or Oswald, when the evidence indicates Oswald told one story to the police and another to Frazier?

>
> Anytime you make a claim, you need to be able to support it.

That applies to you too. I’m still waiting for your support for this claim of yours:
“Oswald *said* he had things to divulge.”

> >> That's the problem with believers, they make no attempt
> >> to explain the known evidence. You simply stick your head in the sand.
> >

> >We can explain ... *the known evidence. I just explained some of it above. What we can’t explain is why CTs reject the known evidence and come up with bizarre excuses to absolve Oswald, claiming anything pointing to Oswald is faked.

Your claim means Oswald lied about the curtain rods or Frazier lied about the curtain rods. Let’s see if you make an attempt to explain the known evidence.*

Ben had to take only my first three words out of context to come up with his dishonest response below:

>
> You just got through explaining that you don't have to.

No, that’s another false summary of what I said.

One set of rules for Ben, one set for everyone else.

>
> Tell us Huckster - WHAT IS THE BURDEN THAT ALL MEN HAVE?
>
> If you cannot publicly acknowledge that it's your burden to support
> what you claim, then you're not a man, you're a moron.

Support what you said, or change the subject once more.

[Bud]

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Found in the censored forum.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
> >> >to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
> >> >silence him.
> >>
> >> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
> >> detrimental to the official version.
> >
> > You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
> Yep... you could.
>
> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
> the other.

It isn`t credible, because he was alive and he didn`t offer anything.

> >> Why do you suppose the Warren Commission didn't want defense counsel?
> >
> > Because it was an investigation, not a trial.
> Yet you pretend he was found guilty.

Wrong.

The WC concluded he was, as have I.

> There's not a lawyer alive in this country who doesn't completely
> understand that the search for truth requires both prosecution AND
> defense...

They also understand we don`t put dead people on trial.

They also understand that it would be the defendant who steers the defense. For all anyone knows Oswald may have pled guilty.

> yet they refuses any defense counsel to test their theories
> against.

If I tell you it wasn`t a trial again will that help?

> Critics now fill that role, and **YOU** fail completely in your role
> as the prosecution.

I have no such role. I looked at this event and have drawn my own conclusions. It really wasn`t hard.

You guys have offered nothing to make me doubt my conclusions.

> >> >He had about two days to expose the conspiracy. He met with the police,
> >> >with his family, with others, with the press. He was able to make phone
> >> >calls.
> >>
> >> Steve's the moron who imagines that those dedicated to the country
> >> would instantly 'break,' and tell all.
> >
> > You imagine he had things to divulge without being able to show he
> > had things to divulge.
> Oswald *said* he had things to divulge.

Like what?

>You simply label him a liar
> without any proof, and move on.

I satisfied myself that he was a liar and moved on.

> >> The real truth is that intelligence agents quite frequently take it to
> >> the grave.
> >
> > The CIA heard they were laying floor in the TSBD so they sent
> > Oswald to investigate.
> You`re a dumbass. Claims that can`t be supported are empty claims.
> Empty claims are worthless (especially in support of fantastic
> premises), so why did you bother posting them?

What else was going on in the TSBD that the CIA felt the need to plant an agent there?

> >> >He had numerous opportunities to expose the conspiracy but didn't take
> >> >advantage of them. Why not?
> >>
> >> Give us a list of intelligence agents who've written a 'tell all'
> >> book.
> >>
> >> >And one ancillary question: Do you think he brought curtain rods with him
> >> >to work that day? What was in the bag he carried?
> >>
> >> His lunch.
> >
> > <snicker>
> Not even an *attempt* to refute.

I think it is good you think this.

> Certainly no explanation of where he carried his lunch, or where he
> got it from.

First establish it`s existence.

After that we can explore what happened to it.

> That's the problem with believers, they make no attempt
> to explain the known evidence. You simply stick your head in the sand.

We look at the available information, draw reasonable conclusions and move on.

You opt to look at the wrong things and stare at them endlessly, as if they are capable of moving you forward. They aren`t.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 6:53:50 AM UTC-8, Steven Galbraith wrote:
> The first time a JFK conspiracy knucklehead says they agree with something I say about the assassination is the day I go and get a lobotomy. Maybe two.
> They still do lobotomies, right?

you lie about even THIS? Here we thought you've had 2 or 3 lobotomies already... Go figure, dudette!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:47:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:00:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Found in the censored forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>>>>>>>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>>>>>>>silence him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
>>>>>> detrimental to the official version.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
>>>>
>>>> Yep... you could.
>>>>
>>>> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
>>>> the other.
>>>
>>>What did Oswald say that was detrimental to the official version?
>>
>> That it was a frameup.
>

>First off, watch how much of my responses get deleted by Ben...

Happy to do so again.

I answered, and you couldn't acknowledge the perfectly correct answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:03:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 9:49:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 06:00:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Found in the censored forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>>>>>>>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>>>>>>>silence him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
>>>>>> detrimental to the official version.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
>>>>
>>>> Yep... you could.
>>>>
>>>> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
>>>> the other.
>>>
>>>What did Oswald say that was detrimental to the official version?
>>
>> That it was a frameup.
>

[Ben Holmes]

Your problem is that you cannot remove what doesn't exist.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yes, Steve is a moron. We can all agree on that.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

Notice folks, that Huckster simply ran away...

[Ben Holmes]

Notice folks, that Huckster simply ran away... the cowardice around
here just STINKS!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:36:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 11:00:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:37:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 11:31:15 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Found in the censored forum.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why would they need to kill Oswald? If he didn't now anything - as he said
>>>>>to the press "I don't know what this is about" - then why the need to
>>>>>silence him.
>>>>
>>>> Because he could, alive, prove many things that would be seriously
>>>> detrimental to the official version.
>>>
>>> You can *say* he had a cure for cancer.
>> Yep... you could.
>>
>> However, one is far more credible and supported by the evidence than
>> the other.
>

> It isn`t credible...

ROTFLMAO!!!

Chickenshit thinks it's MORE credible that Oswald had a cure for
cancer!!