EVIDENCE vs. INTERPRETATION, OPINION OR CONJECTURE

[Gil Jesus]

If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.

We don't care about your conjecture
We don't care about your opinions
We don't care about your interpretations
We want to see your EVIDENCE

If you can't post evidence then you're not in the conversation.
And don't expect me to respond to you.

I'm not wasting my time with your silly bullshit.
I have better things to do.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Oh Jesus. Gil's back on his cocaine again. Let's translate this for the lurkers:

What Gil actually means is that he doesn't want reasonable interpretations of the evidence posted that contradict the retarded fantasy world he lives in. Because, you see, the retarded fantasy world Gil lives in demands that Oswald is innocent. So he must distort and mangle the evidence to be this way. And he posts his opinion multiple times on his silly little website and here. Here are just a few opinions he treats as fact:

1. Oswald could not have ran down in time to reach Marrion Baker in 90 seconds. The way he does this is by extending the time to absurd lengths in his article. And guess what he posts? Opinion, not evidence.

2. That adult males don't refer to themselves as "boy".

3. In his article about the rifle, he posts his opinion multiple times. Anyone who can read this can see.

So why do these get a free pass? Because they help him keep living in that fantasy world.

So in other words, Gil is saying: "Don't post reasonable explanations that contradict my pre-conceited conclusion that Oswald was an innocent patsy because then lurkers will see that there is a much more logical alternative then to my retarded fantasy beliefs."

Waiting for the usual to begin in approximately a couple of seconds.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.

Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
Note how often in your articles you tell us what something *has to mean* (according to you). It doesn’t have to mean what you claim. There are a host of explanations, including simple human error.

>
> We don't care about your conjecture

Ditto, Gil.

> We don't care about your opinions

Ditto, Gil.

> We don't care about your interpretations

Ditto, Gil.

> We want to see your EVIDENCE

Ditto, Gil.

>
> If you can't post evidence then you're not in the conversation.

This applies to you, as well. Why don’t you understand that?

That means skip the hearsay. Skip the conjecture, skip your opinions, skip the interpretations, skip telling us what all this has to mean. That’s all you. Not evidence.

> And don't expect me to respond to you.

I will shoot down your falsehoods in flames, as time allows. You will not be able to stay away, and will take things out of context to create strawmen, as I pointed out you did here concerning Weitzman:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Cy2O-8y-Wjc/m/_puOROgFBgAJ

>
> I'm not wasting my time with your silly bullshit.

I’m retired, I got time to waste on yours.

> I have better things to do.

Me too, but shooting at sitting ducks with a howitzer is so much fun.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Ah, yes! Just like Rush Limbaugh, the Howitzer of Blubber on the Battlefield of Blather.

[Hank Sienzant]

A simile is not a rebuttal, nor is it an explanation, or even of necessity true.

Sorry, your simile fails to advance the discussion any. It’s just ad hominem because you lack any meaningful rebuttal. Asking Gil to stick to the evidence is wrong exactly how? Or pretend some more that I am failing to understand your points. Either way gets us to the same place. You reduced to name-calling.

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.

The WCR can be found online, stupid.

> We don't care about your conjecture
> We don't care about your opinions
> We don't care about your interpretations

Gil, when you say...

"It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice."

Is this the evidence or your opinion about the evidence? Can you tell?

I sure can.

> We want to see your EVIDENCE

Much of it is available online.

> If you can't post evidence then you're not in the conversation.
> And don't expect me to respond to you.

If you don`t like people trashing your stupid ideas perhaps you shouldn`t post them in a public forum.

> I'm not wasting my time with your silly bullshit.
> I have better things to do.

Then why have you devoted so much time to this stupid hobby?

[Hank Sienzant]

I wish I could be as succinct as you. Alas, I must have vaccinated with a phonograph needle (as my Mom succinctly put it about 65 years ago).

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>
> We don't care about your conjecture
> We don't care about your opinions
> We don't care about your interpretations
> We want to see your EVIDENCE

Gil Jesus has provided us with yet another huge Pot/Kettle moment here.

And let's now have a gander at all the "conjecture", "opinions", and crackpot "interpretations" that Gil has treated us to within just the very first discussion in my "DVP vs. Gil Jesus" archive:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Gil+Jesus

"The curtain rods were found in the TSBD. The Dallas cops even dusted them for prints." -- Gil J.

"The curtain rods which were dusted were NOT "found" in the Paine garage." -- Gil J.

"The Oswald rifle was found in the Paine Garage when the Dallas cops first searched it on the evening of November 22nd. It was wrapped in a blanket. The cops took the rifle, complete with the blanket fibers, to the police station. They then removed ALL of the fibers from the rifle and placed them inside the "bag" that they had removed from the TSBD building." -- Gil J.

"The Mannlicher Carcano removed by Lt. Day was not the Oswald rifle. .... When the cops got their hands on the Oswald rifle, they made the switch." -- Gil J.

[End of Gil's made-up junk.]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Gil+Jesus

Not a single thing uttered by Gil J. Jesus in the above quotes is "evidence". And, of course, none of it is even close to being true. It's nothing more than wishful thinking and totally made-up crap coming from a long-time conspiracy fantasist who (for some odd reason) has a desire to exonerate a double murderer named Oswald.

[Bud]

The most succinct thing I`ve seen said recently is Jordan Peterson talking about mass shooters...

"They would rather die notoriously than live anonymously."

Talk about hitting the nail on the head with few words.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>
>> We don't care about your conjecture
>> We don't care about your opinions
>> We don't care about your interpretations
>> We want to see your EVIDENCE
>>
>> If you can't post evidence then you're not in the conversation.
>> And don't expect me to respond to you.
>>
>> I'm not wasting my time with your silly bullshit.
>> I have better things to do.
>
>Oh Jesus. Gil's back on his cocaine again.
>Let's translate this for the lurkers:

Lurkers are smarter than that, they need no translation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>
>Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.

We do.

Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.

What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
*SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
answer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>
> The WCR can be found online, stupid.
>
>> We don't care about your conjecture
>> We don't care about your opinions
>> We don't care about your interpretations
>
> Gil, when you say...
>
> "It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police
> to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an
> accomplice."
>
> Is this the evidence or your opinion about the evidence? Can you tell?

What part of "It appears more than likely" didn't you understand? Are
you stupid, or just illiterate?

>> We want to see your EVIDENCE
>
> Much of it is available online.

And NONE of it supports your faith, or you'd be citing and posting it.

>> If you can't post evidence then you're not in the conversation.
>> And don't expect me to respond to you.
>>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>
>> We don't care about your conjecture
>> We don't care about your opinions
>> We don't care about your interpretations
>> We want to see your EVIDENCE
>
>Gil Jesus has provided us with yet another huge Pot/Kettle moment here.

Says the coward who refuses to support his claims...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
> >
> >Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
> We do.

Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours. CTs will post something from an expert, then immediately tell us why, *in their opinion*, it cannot be correct. Their opinion is not evidence, the expert’s opinion is.

>
> Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.

I cite more evidence than the top five CTs on the board combined. I quote what the eyewitnesses said, and I quote what the expert witnesses said. I tell you the expert’s conclusions. Not my own.

>
> What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
> *SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
> answer...

You already provided a few different times, including the one you believe is most accurate. Do you need me to remind you what you said?

[Bud]

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
> >
> > The WCR can be found online, stupid.
> >
> >> We don't care about your conjecture
> >> We don't care about your opinions
> >> We don't care about your interpretations
> >
> > Gil, when you say...
> >
> > "It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police
> > to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an
> > accomplice."
> >
> > Is this the evidence or your opinion about the evidence? Can you tell?
> What part of "It appears more than likely" didn't you understand?

You can answer for him, was this the evidence or his opinion about the evidence?

> Are
> you stupid, or just illiterate?

I understand perfectly, you guys are hypocrites. This is what Gil wrote...

"We don't care about your conjecture
We don't care about your opinions
We don't care about your interpretations"

Meanwhile he floods the forum with his conjecture, opinion and interpretations.

And this hypocrisy occurs to neither one of you stumps.

> >> We want to see your EVIDENCE
> >
> > Much of it is available online.
> And NONE of it supports your faith, or you'd be citing and posting it.

The evidence isn`t the problem. The problem is that you guys are idiots, and no amount of evidence citing can fix that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>>
>>> Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
>> We do.
>
>Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours.

No.

>> Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.
>
>I cite more evidence than the top five CTs on the board combined.

Cite for your posting of evidence.

>> What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
>> *SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
>> answer...
>
> You already provided a few different times, including the one you
> believe is most accurate. Do you need me to remind you what you said?

So here we see Huckster acknowledging that I can post what he's afraid
of posting.

The cowardice on this topic continues... not a *SINGLE* believer has
posted the evidence for when JFK arrived at Parkland.

But *ALL* of them are willing to lie about that time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:17:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>>
>>> The WCR can be found online, stupid.
>>>
>>>> We don't care about your conjecture
>>>> We don't care about your opinions
>>>> We don't care about your interpretations
>>>
>>> Gil, when you say...
>>>
>>> "It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police
>>> to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an
>>> accomplice."
>>>
>>> Is this the evidence or your opinion about the evidence? Can you tell?
>>
>> What part of "It appears more than likely" didn't you understand?
>
> You can answer for him

I did. You didn't like the answer.

>> Are
>> you stupid, or just illiterate?
>
> I understand perfectly

Yet you ask again...

>>>> We want to see your EVIDENCE
>>>
>>> Much of it is available online.
>> And NONE of it supports your faith, or you'd be citing and posting it.
>

> The evidence isn`t the problem...

Of course it is. If it supported your faith, you'd be citing and
posting it.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:50:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
> >>>
> >>> Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
> >> We do.
> >
> >Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours.
> No.

Then you've already lost. Whether you realize it or not, or admit it or not.

> >> Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.
> >
> >I cite more evidence than the top five CTs on the board combined.
> Cite for your posting of evidence.

See my posts on this board.

> >> What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
> >> *SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
> >> answer...
> >
> > You already provided a few different times, including the one you
> > believe is most accurate. Do you need me to remind you what you said?
> So here we see Huckster acknowledging that I can post what he's afraid
> of posting.

No, I am pointing out you already posted multiple different times, and declared one the winner.

>
> The cowardice on this topic continues... not a *SINGLE* believer has
> posted the evidence for when JFK arrived at Parkland.
>
> But *ALL* of them are willing to lie about that time.

You need the earliest possible time because you're a conspiracy theorist who believes in body alteration on the dead president's body. But you ignore that even Cyril Wecht (a forensic pathologist and a long-time CT) says it can't be done in a day, and that post-mortem wounds don't look anything like wounds inflicted on a living person, and for that reason, would not fool a first-year medical student.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:50:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
>>>> We do.
>>>
>>>Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours.
>>
>> No.
>
>Then you've already lost. Whether you realize it or not, or admit it or not.

Here folks, we see Huckster admitting that he lost. He knows that he
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to state what his scenario is, and ABSOLUTELY
REFUSES to cite for it.

>>>> Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.
>>>
>>>I cite more evidence than the top five CTs on the board combined.
>>
>> Cite for your posting of evidence.
>
>See my posts on this board.

Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

>>>> What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
>>>> *SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
>>>> answer...
>>>
>>> You already provided a few different times, including the one you
>>> believe is most accurate. Do you need me to remind you what you said?
>>
>> So here we see Huckster acknowledging that I can post what he's afraid
>> of posting.
>

>No...

Yes.

>> The cowardice on this topic continues... not a *SINGLE* believer has
>> posted the evidence for when JFK arrived at Parkland.
>>
>> But *ALL* of them are willing to lie about that time.
>

>You...

No, the topic is *YOUR* inability to cite evidence.

Even when you cannot claim that someone is "changing the topic."

Here we see that the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda
*IS* the topic, and yet, Huckster still runs...

Huckster's a coward.

By any objective standard.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 10:57:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:50:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
> >>>> We do.
> >>>
> >>>Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours.
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >Then you've already lost. Whether you realize it or not, or admit it or not.
> Here folks, we see Huckster admitting that he lost. He knows that he
> ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to state what his scenario is, and ABSOLUTELY
> REFUSES to cite for it.

Same as the Warren Commission.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-1#conclusions


Same as the HSCA initial draft conclusions, prior to the erroneous accoustic findings.
See the first column in the below:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0266a.htm

The evidence is here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh.htm

And here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vols.htm

> >>>> Notice, however, that **YOU** refuse to do so.
> >>>
> >>>I cite more evidence than the top five CTs on the board combined.
> >>
> >> Cite for your posting of evidence.
> >
> >See my posts on this board.
> Argumentum Ad Tony Marshium.

Above is more posting of evidence, contrary to anything you say.

> >>>> What's the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda? Not a
> >>>> *SINGLE* believer has answered that question. And no, lying is not an
> >>>> answer...
> >>>
> >>> You already provided a few different times, including the one you
> >>> believe is most accurate. Do you need me to remind you what you said?
> >>
> >> So here we see Huckster acknowledging that I can post what he's afraid
> >> of posting.
> >

> >No, I am pointing out you already posted multiple different times, and declared one the winner.
>

> Yes.

So where's that leave us? Your interpretation is not evidence. I pointed out above why you need to declare the earliest one the winner.

> >> The cowardice on this topic continues... not a *SINGLE* believer has
> >> posted the evidence for when JFK arrived at Parkland.
> >>
> >> But *ALL* of them are willing to lie about that time.
> >

> >You need the earliest possible time because you're a conspiracy theorist who believes in body alteration on the dead president's body. But you ignore that even Cyril Wecht (a forensic pathologist and a long-time CT) says it can't be done in a day, and that post-mortem wounds don't look anything like wounds inflicted on a living person, and for that reason, would not fool a first-year medical student.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


>

> No, the topic is *YOUR* inability to cite evidence.

I cite more evidence (not my own opinion of the evidence) than any five CTs on this board. Here's Wecht on the topic of what bullets struck the body:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car.

>
> Even when you cannot claim that someone is "changing the topic."
>
> Here we see that the evidence for what time JFK arrived at Bethesda
> *IS* the topic, and yet, Huckster still runs...

Asked and answered. You already declared one the winner.


>
> Huckster's a coward.

Ad hominem.


>
> By any objective standard.

No, by the Ben Holmesian standard of snipping and running and avoiding the evidence at all costs, and reducing every discussion to a personal attack on the other person's integrity. Ben to call me a coward and a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 01:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 10:57:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 13:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:50:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 18:01:39 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:53:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 06:38:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:46:17 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you're backing the WC fairy tale, post evidence or STFU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or backing a conspiracy fairy tale, post evidence.
>>>>>> We do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cite for Gil’s posting of evidence. Or yours.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>>Then you've already lost. Whether you realize it or not, or admit it or not.
>> Here folks, we see Huckster admitting that he lost. He knows that he
>> ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to state what his scenario is, and ABSOLUTELY
>> REFUSES to cite for it.
>
>Same as the Warren Commission.

You refuse to accept this sort of answer from critics, why would
anyone accept such cowardice from you?