Mark Lane - (#1) - Watch Believers Run!

[Ben Holmes]

Quoting from Mark Lane:

"To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
shots came from the knoll."


Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
statement by any citation to evidence or logic.

Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>
> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> railroad yardman who spoke with him.

Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.

Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it.

>Yet the statements of these six
> corroborate and are consistent with one another.

In what way?

> For testimony to be
> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.

Lane has done nothing to show that them being mistaken is not possible, he is merely employing a false dilemma fallacy.

> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection

This is how dishonest people like Lane and Ben frame their arguments, dishonestly. "apparent" to who? Isn`t it part of any investigative process to gather and weigh available information? Doesn`t this process necessarily involve rejecting information if other information seems more credible?

>of such testimony
> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> shots came from the knoll."

Lane merely declares the witnesses credible without showing that the information they supplied was credible. Then he uses his assumption to bolster his idea that this is detrimental to the WC`s credibility.

> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>
> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.

Watch as you merely talk over the points I made, claim they are fallacies, claim they are not refutations or simply delete them. You argue like a dishonest child.

[Mark Ulrik]

onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>
> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> shots came from the knoll."

How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?

Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.

How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:47:17 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >
> > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > shots came from the knoll."
> How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
>
> Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
>
> How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?

Lane seems unaware how this can be done, I wonder how he got through law school being this ignorant.

The WC should have told Johnson that since there was conflicting information nothing could be done.

[19e...@mail.com]

Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously. Not perfectly simultaneously, of course, but good enough to fool most people who were not expecting shots to be fired. Some people heard two shots. Why didn't they hear 3? People miss things.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:53:17 AM UTC-4, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:47:17 PM UTC, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> > >
> > > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > > shots came from the knoll."
> > How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
> >
> > Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
> >
> > How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
> > > Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> > > statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> > >
> > > Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.

What is the reason that such a preposterously fantastic idea should be entertained? You saw it in a comic book you read?

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>
> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.

Either/Or fallacy.

> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> shots came from the knoll."

Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also been addressed.
>
>
> <ad Hominem deleted> can't refute this

> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>
> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.

Stand by for Ben to declare this hasn't been addressed.

Also addressed last year, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and at the old Amazon chat boards.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-5, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:47:17 PM UTC, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> > >
> > > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > > shots came from the knoll."
> > How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
> >
> > Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
> >
> > How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
> > > Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> > > statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> > >
> > > Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.

> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.

Please provide your tests for this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>
>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>> railroad yardman who spoke with him.
>
> Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t
> need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.

You cannot show that these witnesses were not credible.

> Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it.

I answered it directly. You keep making empty claims.

>>Yet the statements of these six
>> corroborate and are consistent with one another.
>
> In what way?

Lie, and claim that they aren't.

>> For testimony to be
>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>
> Lane has done nothing to show that them being mistaken is not
> possible, he is merely employing a false dilemma fallacy.

You can run, but you can't refute what Mark Lane points out.

>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection
>
> This is how dishonest people like Lane and Ben frame their
> arguments, dishonestly. "apparent" to who? Isn`t it part of any
> investigative process to gather and weigh available information?
> Doesn`t this process necessarily involve rejecting information if
> other information seems more credible?

Logical fallacy.

Watch folks, as Chickenshit ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite any evidence
that refutes the statements & testimony of so many people to a Grassy
Knoll shooter.

>> of such testimony
>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>> shots came from the knoll."
>
> Lane merely declares the witnesses credible without showing that
> the information they supplied was credible. Then he uses his
> assumption to bolster his idea that this is detrimental to the WC`s
> credibility.

Not a refutation. If you wish to claim the witnesses weren't
credible, the burden is yours.

Get busy.

>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>
>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>
> Watch as you merely talk over the points I made, claim they are
> fallacies, claim they are not refutations or simply delete them. You
> argue like a dishonest child.

Lie, and claim you committed no logical fallacies.

Lie, and claim that you offered anything other than your naked
unsupported opinion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Lane seems unaware how this can be done, I wonder how he got through law school being this ignorant.
>
> The WC should have told Johnson that since there was conflicting information nothing could be done.

More logical fallacies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.
>
> What is the reason that such a preposterously fantastic idea should be entertained? You saw it in a comic book you read?

Indeed silly. All multiple shooters had to do was pull the trigger
when the target was in the kill zone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>
>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>
>Either/Or fallacy.

Chuckles won't name another possibility.

>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>> shots came from the knoll."
>
> Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of
> supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also
> been addressed.

Facts that Chuckles can't refute.


>> Monkey Boy can't refute this

>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>
>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>
>Stand by for Ben to declare this hasn't been addressed.

Stand by for no citations...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-5, 19e...@mail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 2:47:17 PM UTC, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>> onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>
>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>> How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
>>>
>>> Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
>>>
>>> How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
>>>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
>>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>>>
>>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>
>> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.
>
>Please provide your tests for this.

"When the Presidential limo gets to the yellow stripe on the curb,
fire."

Watch Chuckles claim that tests are needed to show this as a
possibility.

[19e...@mail.com]

I won't bother to provide my "tests" until somebody seemingly reasonable asks...or if I feel like it.

[19e...@mail.com]

> fire." Also, shots will sound much louder if

>
> Watch Chuckles claim that tests are needed to show this as a
> possibility.

> >>Not perfectly simultaneously, of course, but good enough toAlso, shots will sound much louder if fool most people who were not expecting shots to be fired. Some people heard two shots. Why didn't they hear 3? People miss things.

It could work the way Holmes says. The shooters could have been instructed to fire when the limo reached certain positions.. But, the shooting was in fact cued by radio signals. That's why channel one was jammed, so those signals and other communications would not be recorded on the Dictabelt machine. The signals were transmitted on DPD channel 1.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Lots of witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD. Few witnesses thought the shots
came from multiple directions so it is a certainty that one of these groups of witnesses got
it wrong. The earwitnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD are corroborated by
EYEwitnesses who SAW a gunman in the sixth floor nest, spent shells found in that nest and
the rifle that fired those shells as well as the two recovered bullets being found on the same
floor of the TSBD where the witnesses saw the shooter. There is other forensic evidence placing
the shooter on the sixth floor which has been pointed out to you and which you continue to
ignore. There is no corroborating forensic evidence for a shooter on the GK nor is there any
eyewitness. That would lead any intelligent person to conclude that the people who thought
they heard the shots coming from the GK was the group that go it wrong. The key word is
intelligent. Conspiracy hobbyists fail that litmus test.

[John Corbett]

Now all you need is evidence that supports this hypothesis. Until then we will just conclude
you made it up out of thin air.

Are we supposed to believe that there were three groups of simultaneous shots? Is that really
the best explanation you can come up with for why witnesses only heard shots from the GK or
only heard shots from the TSBD?

I'm not one who believes there are actually lurkers following these conversations but if there
are, I'll bet they are laughing there asses off at you right now.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>
>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>> shots came from the knoll."
>>
>>
>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>
>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>
>Lots of witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD.

Not relevant.

> Few witnesses thought the shots came from multiple directions

The U.S. Justice system doesn't rely on polling.

Again, not relevant.

>so it is a certainty that one of these groups of witnesses got
>it wrong.

Untrue. They WITNESSED WHAT THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO WITNESS, with
the ability that they had.

>The earwitnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD are corroborated by
>EYEwitnesses who SAW a gunman in the sixth floor nest, spent shells found in that nest and
>the rifle that fired those shells as well as the two recovered bullets being found on the same
>floor of the TSBD where the witnesses saw the shooter.

None of this is relevant to the lie told by the Warren Commission.

>There is other forensic evidence placing the shooter on the sixth
> floor which has been pointed out to you and which you continue to
>ignore.

Sorry stupid, I've *NEVER* stated that shots weren't fired from the
TSBD.

You continue to ignore that JFK died.

Same logic.

> There is no corroborating forensic evidence for a shooter on the GK

Nor is it needed.

> nor is there any eyewitness.

Nor are they needed.

>That would lead any intelligent person to conclude that the people who thought
>they heard the shots coming from the GK was the group that go it wrong.

So you believe that a majority of America aren't intelligent.

This is a simple logical fallacy.

> The key word is intelligent. Conspiracy hobbyists fail that litmus test.

More logical fallacies. Remember folks, I predicted this!


Your task is simple, Monkey Boy - you have to show that sworn
testimony isn't evidence.

Or that it's not credible.

In *NO OTHER WAY* can you justify the lie told by the WCR.

Get busy! Carry Your Burden!!!

[Ben Holmes]

>Now all you need is evidence...


Why do you keep asking for something *YOU* won't provide?

Lie, and claim you have no burden...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:40:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >>
> >> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> >> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> >> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> >> railroad yardman who spoke with him.
> >
> > Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t
> > need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.
> You cannot show that these witnesses were not credible.

As predicted Ben didn`t speak to the points made.

He couldn`t contest that Lane lied.

> > Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it.
> I answered it directly.

You are simply lying. You did exactly what I said you would do.

> You keep making empty claims.

Which was the empty claim, that credibility is subjective or that the WC may have viewed the information differently than Lane?

You just can`t argue ideas.

> >>Yet the statements of these six
> >> corroborate and are consistent with one another.
> >
> > In what way?
> Lie, and claim that they aren't.

Shifting the burden. Since you can`t support Lane`s claim we can safely assume he lied.

> >> For testimony to be
> >> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> >
> > Lane has done nothing to show that them being mistaken is not
> > possible, he is merely employing a false dilemma fallacy.
> You can run, but you can't refute what Mark Lane points out.

Non sequitur that doesn`t speak to the point made.

This is how Ben argues, he talks over points or around them and pretends as long as a response is made this counts as addressing the point made.

> >> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection
> >
> > This is how dishonest people like Lane and Ben frame their
> > arguments, dishonestly. "apparent" to who? Isn`t it part of any
> > investigative process to gather and weigh available information?
> > Doesn`t this process necessarily involve rejecting information if
> > other information seems more credible?
> Logical fallacy.

You use this as a cowardly dodge, nothing more.

> Watch folks, as Chickenshit ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite any evidence
> that refutes the statements & testimony of so many people to a Grassy
> Knoll shooter.

See how Ben tries to make it about something I need to do?

He misdirects because he can`t address the idea I expressed. The idea is simple, and one he can`t contest, so he tries various tricks to avoid addressing it. He couldn`t argue ideas honestly if his life depended on it.

If an investigative body merely gathers information then the information just accumulates but tells you nothing. You have to apply reasoning and critical thinking to the information in order to derive conclusions. In a case like this this means you must necessarily reject some information in favor of other information you find more credible. It would be nice to have a CTer capable of discussing such ideas with, what the real merits of certain ideas are, but alas Ben is not such a person. He is only interested in playing silly games trying to score meaningless points.

> >> of such testimony
> >> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> >> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> >> shots came from the knoll."
> >
> > Lane merely declares the witnesses credible without showing that
> > the information they supplied was credible. Then he uses his
> > assumption to bolster his idea that this is detrimental to the WC`s
> > credibility.
> Not a refutation.

But shows that Lane`s words as they stand don`t mean much. His opinion on what information is more credible than other information doesn`t mean much, since Johnson didn`t tap him to make such determinations.

Now what Lane could opt to do is show how certain information is more credible than other information, but he doesn`t bother with that, just make empty declarations that this is so.

> If you wish to claim the witnesses weren't
> credible, the burden is yours.

The idea I expressed was that credibility is subjective. You haven`t touched it.

> Get busy.

If Lane isn`t responsible for the ideas he expresses there isn`t much point in reading this series.

> >> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> >> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> >>
> >> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
> >
> > Watch as you merely talk over the points I made, claim they are
> > fallacies, claim they are not refutations or simply delete them. You
> > argue like a dishonest child.
> Lie, and claim you committed no logical fallacies.

Shifting the burden once more. Some day you might become a man who is capable of making adult arguments but as it stands now you are merely an intellectually dishonest child.

> Lie, and claim that you offered anything other than your naked
> unsupported opinion.

Isn`t that all Lane offered against the WC?

I didn`t write the book and I didn`t bring it here as significant. I pointed out some flaws I detected in what was presented. You offered not a single counter argument against a single idea I expressed.

[Bud]

What remedy did Lane offer in resolving the credibility of conflicting information? This must be touched on in law school, but he doesn`t tell the reader how he did it in this case.

[Bud]

<snicker> Yes, easy peasy. Everything is doable in the realm of imagination, translating those ideas into the real world is a little more difficult.

[Bud]

You might as well have said "sprinkle magic pixie dust".

> Watch Chuckles claim that tests are needed to show this as a
> possibility.

You fail to show this is a viable possibility for getting specific and precise results.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:45:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >>
> >> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> >> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> >> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> >> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> >> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> >> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> >
> >Either/Or fallacy.

> Chuckles won't name another possibility.

Nor do I need to. Pointing out Lane's logical fallacies places no additional burden on me. The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD be that the earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that so many have spoken of. Did Lane do anything to eliminate the mundane before jumping to the fantastic?

No.

> >> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> >> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> >> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> >> shots came from the knoll."
> >
> > Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of
> > supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also
> > been addressed.

> Facts that Chuckles can't refute.

Refuted by pointing out the inherent fallacies in the claim.

>
>
> >> Monkey Boy can't refute this
> >> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> >>
> >> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
> >
> >Stand by for Ben to declare this hasn't been addressed.

> Stand by for no citations...

Indeed. You'll never provide citations for the amazing things you allege occurred.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

lmfao... tell us again, you, YOU expect ACJ critics of the Warren Commission Report to do what? Law School? To quote you and Chuckles dear this is a critic's hobby, remember...? Some of you ambulance chasers need to get WCR 1964 conclusions cleared up first... you're struggling mightily in your defense of the 1964 report. Perhaps you need to seek a delay?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 1:39:40 PM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:19:24 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:41:40 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:51:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Lane seems unaware how this can be done, I wonder how he got through law school being this ignorant.
> > > >
> > > > The WC should have told Johnson that since there was conflicting information nothing could be done.
> > > More logical fallacies.
> > What remedy did Lane offer in resolving the credibility of conflicting information? This must be touched on in law school, but he doesn`t tell the reader how he did it in this case.
> lmfao...

Oh shit, Healy is here! How can we stand against his concise points and methods of argumentation?

>tell us again, you, YOU expect ACJ critics of the Warren Commission Report to do what? Law School? To quote you and Chuckles dear this is a critic's hobby, remember...? Some of you ambulance chasers need to get WCR 1964 conclusions cleared up first... you're struggling mightily in your defense of the 1964 report. Perhaps you need to seek a delay?

Wait a minute, what was I thinking, all the guy does is blather nonsense.

Get your snout out of Ben`s crack and get to work helping the little guy out, he is putting Lane`s ideas out there for consideration but doesn`t seem to know how to properly support them. He actually believes if Lane writes something in a book it immediately gets the status of valid and must be refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

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

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:45:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>
>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>
>>>Either/Or fallacy.
>
>> Chuckles won't name another possibility.
>
> Nor do I need to.

Yes... you do. It's your burden.

> Pointing out Lane's logical fallacies places no
> additional burden on me.

It does when you're lying.

> The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD
> be that the earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that
> so many have spoken of. Did Lane do anything to eliminate the mundane
> before jumping to the fantastic?

As the Warren Commission made no efforts at all to test such a
hypothesis, you need to provide the tests..

Get busy!


>No.


Not his burden.

>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>>
>>> Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of
>>> supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also
>>> been addressed.
>
>> Facts that Chuckles can't refute.
>
>Refuted by pointing out the inherent fallacies in the claim.

Nope.

Lies do not an argument make.

>>>> Monkey Boy can't refute this
>>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>>>
>>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>>>
>>>Stand by for Ben to declare this hasn't been addressed.
>
>> Stand by for no citations...
>
>Indeed.

Remember folks, I predicted it!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

as with much here, you simply ignore the obvious: you're getting your ass kicked, Clarence Darrow.

You, Chuckles and the rest of your tribe actually believes if Earl Warren and his ambulance chasers writes something in a book it immediately gets the status of valid and must be accepted in toto. It's opinion douche.... There was no trial, no victory, only deceit. Actually, a bad, one scene soap opera comes to mind...

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:45:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >>>>
> >>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> >>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> >>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> >>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> >>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> >>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> >>>
> >>>Either/Or fallacy.
> >
> >> Chuckles won't name another possibility.
> >
> > Nor do I need to.


> Yes... you do. It's your burden.

No it's not, but I did address it below in a previous post. I wrote:

The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD be that the earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that so many have spoken of.


> > Pointing out Lane's logical fallacies places no
> > additional burden on me.
> It does when you're lying.
> > The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD
> > be that the earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that
> > so many have spoken of. Did Lane do anything to eliminate the mundane
> > before jumping to the fantastic?

> As the Warren Commission made no efforts at all to test such a
> hypothesis, you need to provide the tests..

But "tests" were provided in the form of the ballistic evidence, etc. which showed the shots originated from the TSBD. Your claim (or Lane's claim) is that either the earwitnesses are right that a shot or shots were fired from the knoll OR--by inference from what Lane wrote--that there was some sort of cover-up going on. Sorry, this is logically fallacious all day long.

How does your hero Lane address the fact that most earwitnesses who expressed an opinion about the number of shots reported said they heard just three shots fired, and how does Lane address the fact that only three spent shell casings were found in the 6th floor of the TSBD, and that the WC details a shooting scenario requiring only three shots, and so on? This is called CONSILIENCE, and it's a very important part of scientific research, criminal investigations, accident scene reconstructions, etc.

How does Lane address this?

Oh, that's right.

He Didn't.

>
> Get busy!
>
>
> >No.
>
>
> Not his burden.
> >>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> >>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> >>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> >>>> shots came from the knoll."
> >>>
> >>> Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of
> >>> supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also
> >>> been addressed.
> >
> >> Facts that Chuckles can't refute.
> >
> >Refuted by pointing out the inherent fallacies in the claim.
> Nope.
>

> Lies do not an argument make.

Then stop.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Trinumaleraprumf!

((!!**BURP**!!))

[healyd...@gmail.com]

it's spelled TRUMP asshole, now, as to Dudster's whining?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Brunababbalupinumpfal!

((!!**HICCUP**!!))

[John Corbett]

The Warren Commission provided all the evidence needed to support their conclusions and I
have summarized that evidence for you yet you continue to ignore both and repeat the lie that
no evidence has been presented. Continue to ignore the fact the only shells and bullets
recovered from the shooting were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other
weapons in the world, that his Carcano was found on the same floor where all the eyewitnesses
placed the shooter, that Oswald's fingerprints were found on the tops of the boxes in the sniper's nest oriented as they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St, that his palm print was found
on the underside of the barrel in a location only accessible when the rifle was disassembled, that a bag was found with Oswald's prints near the nest that was large enough to hold said
disassembled rifle and had fibers matching the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle in the
Paine's garage, that the rifle had fibers on the butt plate that matched the shirt Oswald was
wearing when arrested, that every medical examiner that has reviewed the medical evidence
has concluded that JFK was hit by two shots fired from above and behind him, consistent
with a shot from the 6th floor sniper's nest. Ignore all that and then tell us about all the
forensic evidence you have for a shooter from the GK or anywhere else you want to hypothesize
the shots came from. Put up or shut up time, Holmes. My guess is you will do neither. Of course
it doesn't take Nostradamus to make that prediction.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:57:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >>
> >> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> >> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> >> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> >> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> >> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> >> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> >> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> >> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> >> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> >> shots came from the knoll."
> >>
> >>
> >> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> >> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> >>
> >> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
> >
> >Lots of witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD.
> Not relevant.
> > Few witnesses thought the shots came from multiple directions
> The U.S. Justice system doesn't rely on polling.
>

Yet you do when you cite the number of witnesses who thought the shots came from the GK.

> Again, not relevant.
> >so it is a certainty that one of these groups of witnesses got
> >it wrong.
> Untrue. They WITNESSED WHAT THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO WITNESS, with
> the ability that they had.

Unless we want to believe the GK witnesses didn't hear the shots from the TSBD and the
TSBD witnesses didn't hear the shots from the GK, we know both groups heard the same
shots and yet thought they came from different places. That tells us that one group or the
other had to be wrong.

> >The earwitnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD are corroborated by
> >EYEwitnesses who SAW a gunman in the sixth floor nest, spent shells found in that nest and
> >the rifle that fired those shells as well as the two recovered bullets being found on the same
> >floor of the TSBD where the witnesses saw the shooter.
> None of this is relevant to the lie told by the Warren Commission.

You are lying when you say the WC lied.

> >There is other forensic evidence placing the shooter on the sixth
> > floor which has been pointed out to you and which you continue to
> >ignore.
> Sorry stupid, I've *NEVER* stated that shots weren't fired from the
> TSBD.

Yet you can't point to any forensic evidence or eyewitnesses to a shooter from any other
location.

>
> You continue to ignore that JFK died.

That sounds like one of Marsh's stupid statements.

>
> Same logic.
> > There is no corroborating forensic evidence for a shooter on the GK
> Nor is it needed.

Not when you are just making shit up.

> > nor is there any eyewitness.
> Nor are they needed.

> >That would lead any intelligent person to conclude that the people who thought
> >they heard the shots coming from the GK was the group that go it wrong.
> So you believe that a majority of America aren't intelligent.
>

They're intelligent. Most are ignorant of the body of evidence that says Oswald was the
shooter and that there is no compelling evidence of any other shooters or accomplices.

> This is a simple logical fallacy.
> > The key word is intelligent. Conspiracy hobbyists fail that litmus test.
> More logical fallacies. Remember folks, I predicted this!
>

The safest prediction of all is that you will play the "logical fallacy" card whenever you have
no intelligent response to make.

>
> Your task is simple, Monkey Boy - you have to show that sworn
> testimony isn't evidence.
>

It's evidence. It's not always reliable.

> Or that it's not credible.
>

I've already explained why earwitness testimony is not credible. We know some of them got
it wrong because they can't all be right. It is not possible that all the shots came from the TSBD
AND that all the shots came from the GK. Yet this what would have to have happened for all
the earwitnesses to be correct.

> In *NO OTHER WAY* can you justify the lie told by the WCR.

There was no lie told by the WCR. That is your unsupported allegation.

>
> Get busy! Carry Your Burden!!!

It's not my burden to support your bullshit claims.

[John Corbett]

In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
the same time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 10:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:40:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>
>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him.
>>>
>>> Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t
>>> need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.
>>
>> You cannot show that these witnesses were not credible.
>
> As predicted Ben didn`t speak to the points made.

As predicted, dumbass couldn't support his empty claim.

> He couldn`t contest that Lane lied.

You couldn't prove that Mark Lane lied.

>>> Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it.
>>
>> I answered it directly.
>
> You are simply lying. You did exactly what I said you would do.

You are simply lying. I did precisely what I said I did.

>> You keep making empty claims.
>
> Which was the empty claim, that credibility is subjective or that
> the WC may have viewed the information differently than Lane?

You can't cite the evidence used by the WC to discredit the many GK
shooter witnesses.

Nor do you even try.

Speculation isn't an argument. Particularly UNSUPPORTED speculation.

> You just can`t argue ideas.

And yet, I'm doing perfectly fine.

>>>>Yet the statements of these six
>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> Lie, and claim that they aren't.
>
> Shifting the burden.

It's your burden. It's *YOU* trying to make a claim that is silly on
the face of it... it's your burden to support it.

> Since you can`t support Lane`s claim we can safely assume he lied.

Since you can't support your OWN claim, we can safely assume that
you're a liar and a dumbass.

>>>> For testimony to be
>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>
>>> Lane has done nothing to show that them being mistaken is not
>>> possible, he is merely employing a false dilemma fallacy.
>>
>> You can run, but you can't refute what Mark Lane points out.
>
> Non sequitur that doesn`t speak to the point made.

You're trying to do EXACTLY this.

You're trying to refute what Mark Lane stated.

You're failing.

> This is how Ben argues, he talks over points or around them and
> pretends as long as a response is made this counts as addressing the
> point made.

Until you can show that sworn testimony is not evidence, or that these
many corroborating eyewitnesses were all not credible, you lose.

It's as simple as that.

>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection
>>>
>>> This is how dishonest people like Lane and Ben frame their
>>> arguments, dishonestly. "apparent" to who? Isn`t it part of any
>>> investigative process to gather and weigh available information?
>>> Doesn`t this process necessarily involve rejecting information if
>>> other information seems more credible?
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
> You use this as a cowardly dodge, nothing more.

Yet another proven logical fallacy.

>> Watch folks, as Chickenshit ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite any evidence
>> that refutes the statements & testimony of so many people to a Grassy
>> Knoll shooter.
>
> See how Ben tries to make it about something I need to do?

Ah! But it IS your burden. You accepted it when you first tried to
deny what Mark Lane so clearly pointed out.


Logical fallacies deleted.

>>>> of such testimony
>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>>
>>> Lane merely declares the witnesses credible without showing that
>>> the information they supplied was credible. Then he uses his
>>> assumption to bolster his idea that this is detrimental to the WC`s
>>> credibility.
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>
> But shows that Lane`s words as they stand don`t mean much.

That's your opinion, not a refutation.

>> If you wish to claim the witnesses weren't
>> credible, the burden is yours.
>
> The idea I expressed was that credibility is subjective. You haven`t touched it.

The idea that your argument is based totally on your subjective
opinion is quite clear.

You've still not touched Mark Lane.

>> Get busy.
>
> If Lane isn`t responsible for the ideas he expresses there isn`t
> much point in reading this series.

He is. Just as *YOU* are responsible for your unsupported claims.

>>>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
>>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>>>
>>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>>>
>>> Watch as you merely talk over the points I made, claim they are
>>> fallacies, claim they are not refutations or simply delete them. You
>>> argue like a dishonest child.
>>
>> Lie, and claim you committed no logical fallacies.
>
> Shifting the burden once more.

Looks like Chickenshit is unwilling to blatantly lie. He's unwilling
to state that he's committed no logical fallacies.

Because, no doubt, he knows he has.

(Another logical fallacy deleted)

> I didn`t write the book and I didn`t bring it here as significant.
> I pointed out some flaws I detected in what was presented.

And was COMPLETELY UNABLE to cite for your opinions.

> You offered not a single counter argument against a single idea I
> expressed.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

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

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 1:02:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:45:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:18:35 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>>>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>>>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>Either/Or fallacy.
>>>
>>>> Chuckles won't name another possibility.
>>>
>>> Nor do I need to.
>
>> Yes... you do. It's your burden.
>
>No it's not

Yes it is.

>, but I did address it below in a previous post. I wrote:
>
>The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD be that the
> earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that so many
> have spoken of.

Your unsupported speculation isn't an argument.

>>> Pointing out Lane's logical fallacies places no
>>> additional burden on me.
>>
>> It does when you're lying.
>>
>>> The "common denominator" Lane speaks of COULD
>>> be that the earwitnesses were confused by the echoes in the Plaza that
>>> so many have spoken of. Did Lane do anything to eliminate the mundane
>>> before jumping to the fantastic?
>
>> As the Warren Commission made no efforts at all to test such a
>> hypothesis, you need to provide the tests..
>

>But ...


But nothing. You demand it all the time from critics, yet you
ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to do it yourself.

Hypocrite, aren't you?

>> Get busy!
>>
>>>No.
>>
>> Not his burden.
>>
>>>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>>>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>>>>
>>>>> Bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad Populum. Lane's clever counting of
>>>>> supposed ear witnesses to the so-called shots from the knoll has also
>>>>> been addressed.
>>>
>>>> Facts that Chuckles can't refute.
>>>
>>>Refuted by pointing out the inherent fallacies in the claim.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Lies do not an argument make.
>>

>>>>>> Monkey Boy can't refute this
>>>>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stand by for Ben to declare this hasn't been addressed.
>>>
>>>> Stand by for no citations...
>>>
>>>Indeed.
>
>> Remember folks, I predicted it!

And Chuckles didn't disappoint.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
>they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
>the same time.

Looks like Monkey Boy's a pervert too. How many children did you
molest today?

You don't mind lying about what I've stated, I don't mind lying about
what you said in your emails to me.

[Chuck Schuyler]

I win.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 14:06:50 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

Sure would be nice if I were allowed the same level of "proof" that
believers allow themselves.

Chuckles ran from EVERYTHING in the prior post, yet believes he
"wins." One can only chuckle.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5:06:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
> >they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
> >the same time.
> Looks like Monkey Boy's a pervert too. How many children did you
> molest today?
>

There's a real articulate response. How long did it take you to compose that?

> You don't mind lying about what I've stated, I don't mind lying about
> what you said in your emails to me.

When did I write you an email?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Cowards who run from every single point made, skip to the bottom, and
post their thoughts, have no right to a response.

I simply snipped it. If you cannot respond to the points made in the
post itself, start your OWN thread.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:30:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

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

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 12:57:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>
>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
>>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>>>>
>>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>>>
>>>Lots of witnesses thought the shots came from the TSBD.
>>
>> Not relevant.
>>
>>> Few witnesses thought the shots came from multiple directions
>>
>> The U.S. Justice system doesn't rely on polling.
>>
>Yet you do when you cite the number of witnesses who thought the shots came from the GK.

Nope. No-one tried to make an argument based on the numbers other
than *YOU*.

You lose.

>> Again, not relevant.
>>
>>>so it is a certainty that one of these groups of witnesses got
>>>it wrong.
>>
>> Untrue. They WITNESSED WHAT THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO WITNESS, with
>> the ability that they had.
>
>Unless we want to believe the GK witnesses didn't hear the shots from the TSBD and the
>TSBD witnesses didn't hear the shots from the GK, we know both groups heard the same
>shots

How do we "know" this? You've simply begged the question... a common
logical fallacy.

> and yet thought they came from different places. That tells us that one group or the
>other had to be wrong.

Nope. You use logical fallacies, you get nonsense.

>>>The earwitnesses who said the shots came from the TSBD are corroborated by
>>>EYEwitnesses who SAW a gunman in the sixth floor nest, spent shells found in that nest and
>>>the rifle that fired those shells as well as the two recovered bullets being found on the same
>>>floor of the TSBD where the witnesses saw the shooter.
>>
>> None of this is relevant to the lie told by the Warren Commission.
>
>You are lying when you say the WC lied.

Yet you cannot quote ANYTHING I've stated, then cite the EVIDENCE that
contradicts me.

That fact shows that you are the one lying.

You're making claims that the EVIDENCE doesn't support.

>>>There is other forensic evidence placing the shooter on the sixth
>>> floor which has been pointed out to you and which you continue to
>>>ignore.
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I've *NEVER* stated that shots weren't fired from the
>> TSBD.
>
>Yet you can't point to any forensic evidence or eyewitnesses to a shooter from any other
>location.

Don't need to. Until you can CITE RELEVANT AUTHORITY that states that
all crime scenes must contain forensic evidence and/or eyewitnesses,
and that police are perfect in gathering such evidence, your claim is
self-evidently incorrect.

>> You continue to ignore that JFK died.
>
>That sounds like one of Marsh's stupid statements.

It's a simple way to point out that someone need not "point" to
something for it to be true.

But if you believe *YOUR* logic, then my statement is correct.

>> Same logic.
>>
>>> There is no corroborating forensic evidence for a shooter on the GK
>>
>> Nor is it needed.
>
>Not when you are just making shit up.

Not even when nothing is being "made up."

You will be COMPLETELY UNABLE to cite any relevant authority that says
all crime scenes *must* contain forensic evidence, and that the
collection of said evidence is always perfect and complete.

>>> nor is there any eyewitness.
>>
>> Nor are they needed.

Dead silence...

>>>That would lead any intelligent person to conclude that the people who thought
>>>they heard the shots coming from the GK was the group that go it wrong.
>>
>> So you believe that a majority of America aren't intelligent.
>>
>They're intelligent.

Then why do a majority of them accept that there was a GK shooter?

> Most are ignorant of the body of evidence that says Oswald was the
>shooter and that there is no compelling evidence of any other shooters or accomplices.

The WC volumes and the HSCA proves that you're lying again.

>> This is a simple logical fallacy.
>>
>>> The key word is intelligent. Conspiracy hobbyists fail that litmus test.
>>
>> More logical fallacies. Remember folks, I predicted this!
>>
>The safest prediction of all is that you will play the "logical fallacy" card whenever you have
>no intelligent response to make.

Never feel the need to state it if it doesn't exist.

But you will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite for your logical fallacy above.

And that fact proves who's lying.

>> Your task is simple, Monkey Boy - you have to show that sworn
>> testimony isn't evidence.
>
>It's evidence. It's not always reliable.

So you acknowledge that the WC lied when they claimed that there
wasn't any credible evidence.

>> Or that it's not credible.
>
>I've already explained why earwitness testimony is not credible.

Untrue.

It's used in courts across the land all the time.

> We know some of them got
>it wrong because they can't all be right.

Untrue.

> It is not possible that all the shots came from the TSBD
>AND that all the shots came from the GK. Yet this what would have to have happened for all
>the earwitnesses to be correct.

No, untrue.

>> In *NO OTHER WAY* can you justify the lie told by the WCR.
>
>There was no lie told by the WCR. That is your unsupported allegation.

Yet you agree that there were earwitness testimony.

You simply lie and claim all earwitnesses aren't credible - with *NO*
citation to support you.

>> Get busy! Carry Your Burden!!!
>
>It's not my burden to support your bullshit claims.

But it *IS* your burden to support yours.

Get busy! Carry your burden!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 5 May 2021 15:26:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

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

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5:06:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
>>>they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
>>>the same time.
>>
>> Looks like Monkey Boy's a pervert too. How many children did you
>> molest today?
>>
>There's a real articulate response. How long did it take you to compose that?

Been doing it for years. Each time some kook make claims about what
I've posted that cannot be quoted or cited for, I simply do the same
thing to the kook.

>> You don't mind lying about what I've stated, I don't mind lying about
>> what you said in your emails to me.
>
>When did I write you an email?

When did I say what you claimed?


Are you seeing a pattern yet? Or do I have to spank you some more?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 10:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:40:12 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 May 2021 07:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >>>>
> >>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> >>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> >>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> >>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him.
> >>>
> >>> Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t
> >>> need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.
> >>
> >> You cannot show that these witnesses were not credible.
> >
> > As predicted Ben didn`t speak to the points made.
> As predicted, dumbass couldn't support his empty claim.

"Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.

Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it."

> > He couldn`t contest that Lane lied.
> You couldn't prove that Mark Lane lied.

I showed it. You couldn`t contest it. Still haven`t.

> >>> Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it.
> >>
> >> I answered it directly.
> >
> > You are simply lying. You did exactly what I said you would do.
> You are simply lying. I did precisely what I said I did.

Here it is again...

"Lane is simply lying here. "credibility" is subjective. You don`t need to ignore the information, only look at it differently.

Watch as Ben talks over or around the point I made, never touching it."

Show that you addressed the point I made.

You never did, you did exactly what I knew you would do.

> >> You keep making empty claims.
> >
> > Which was the empty claim, that credibility is subjective or that
> > the WC may have viewed the information differently than Lane?
> You can't cite the evidence used by the WC to discredit the many GK
> shooter witnesses.

"discredit" is merely a strawman argument.

> Nor do you even try.

Why would I play your crooked games.

> Speculation isn't an argument. Particularly UNSUPPORTED speculation.

I`m examining Lane`s ideas. If you are afraid to have them examined, don`t produce them.

> > You just can`t argue ideas.
> And yet, I'm doing perfectly fine.

As long as you avoid the points I make you will continue to be fine.

> >>>>Yet the statements of these six
> >>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another.
> >>>
> >>> In what way?
> >>
> >> Lie, and claim that they aren't.
> >
> > Shifting the burden.
> It's your burden.

Wrong. We are examining Lane`s work here.

> It's *YOU* trying to make a claim that is silly on
> the face of it... it's your burden to support it.

I don`t need to answer to your strawmen. I pointed out that investigation is a process that involves weighing information. That necessarily means giving more weight to some information over other information.

But when you come down to it, you or Lane`s opinions about whether they did this well is not that meaningful.

Lane is like you, he says things but he doesn`t show things. He could make the case that this is strong information, stronger than the conflicting information the WC relied on, but that would be arguing on merit, something Lane isn`t going to bother with.

> > Since you can`t support Lane`s claim we can safely assume he lied.
> Since you can't support your OWN claim, we can safely assume that
> you're a liar and a dumbass.

It was Lane`s claim that these witnesses were consistent and corroborative. He *said* this, but he didn`t *show* it.

> >>>> For testimony to be
> >>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> >>>
> >>> Lane has done nothing to show that them being mistaken is not
> >>> possible, he is merely employing a false dilemma fallacy.
> >>
> >> You can run, but you can't refute what Mark Lane points out.
> >
> > Non sequitur that doesn`t speak to the point made.
> You're trying to do EXACTLY this.

You are using ad hominem to avoid the points you have no answer to.

Lane did nothing to show that there were only the two possibilities he claimed existed.

> You're trying to refute what Mark Lane stated.

I`m examining it and finding problems with it. When I mention the problems you misdirect all over but don`t address the points I`m making.

> You're failing.

Did I? Did Lane show that "perjury" and "truth" were the only two possibilities?

> > This is how Ben argues, he talks over points or around them and
> > pretends as long as a response is made this counts as addressing the
> > point made.
> Until you can show that sworn testimony is not evidence, or that these
> many corroborating eyewitnesses were all not credible, you lose.

One of your phony constructs. Investigation is a process that often requires discerning merit and assigning weight to information based on this merit. That you or Mark Lane doesn`t like how the WC went about doing that isn`t that meaningful.

> It's as simple as that.
> >>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection
> >>>
> >>> This is how dishonest people like Lane and Ben frame their
> >>> arguments, dishonestly. "apparent" to who? Isn`t it part of any
> >>> investigative process to gather and weigh available information?
> >>> Doesn`t this process necessarily involve rejecting information if
> >>> other information seems more credible?
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy.
> >
> > You use this as a cowardly dodge, nothing more.
> Yet another proven logical fallacy.

Yet another cowardly dodge. I wrote this...

"Isn`t it part of any investigative process to gather and weigh available information? Doesn`t this necessarily involve rejecting information if other information seems more credible?"

You had an answer to this obvious truth, so you label it a fallacy and cowardly dodge it.

> >> Watch folks, as Chickenshit ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite any evidence
> >> that refutes the statements & testimony of so many people to a Grassy
> >> Knoll shooter.
> >
> > See how Ben tries to make it about something I need to do?
> Ah! But it IS your burden.

Wrong. I`m examining Lane`s work. I won`t bother if you are only going to run from every point I make about what Lane writes. If you are too stupid to critically examine Lane`s ideas (which you obviously are), why should I care?

> You accepted it when you first tried to
> deny what Mark Lane so clearly pointed out.

I pointed out some flaws in the things Lane said. You`ve been in a tizzy ever since, misdirecting all over to avoid the points I made.

> Logical fallacies deleted.
> >>>> of such testimony
> >>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> >>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> >>>> shots came from the knoll."
> >>>
> >>> Lane merely declares the witnesses credible without showing that
> >>> the information they supplied was credible. Then he uses his
> >>> assumption to bolster his idea that this is detrimental to the WC`s
> >>> credibility.
> >>
> >> Not a refutation.
> >
> > But shows that Lane`s words as they stand don`t mean much.
> That's your opinion, not a refutation.

You haven`t refuted the flaws I found in Lane`s work. In fact you haven`t touched them.

> >> If you wish to claim the witnesses weren't
> >> credible, the burden is yours.
> >
> > The idea I expressed was that credibility is subjective. You haven`t touched it.
> The idea that your argument is based totally on your subjective
> opinion is quite clear.

It isn`t subjective that credibility is subjective.

> You've still not touched Mark Lane.

Just his ideas.

> >> Get busy.
> >
> > If Lane isn`t responsible for the ideas he expresses there isn`t
> > much point in reading this series.
> He is. Just as *YOU* are responsible for your unsupported claims.

The only claims I`ve made are that his ideas are flawed. I`ve shown this. There is no reason I should do more to show this when you haven`t contested the original points.

> >>>> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> >>>> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
> >>>
> >>> Watch as you merely talk over the points I made, claim they are
> >>> fallacies, claim they are not refutations or simply delete them. You
> >>> argue like a dishonest child.
> >>
> >> Lie, and claim you committed no logical fallacies.
> >
> > Shifting the burden once more.
> Looks like Chickenshit is unwilling to blatantly lie. He's unwilling
> to state that he's committed no logical fallacies.

Still desperately trying to shift the burden. Perhaps some day you might be man enough to support your own ideas.

> Because, no doubt, he knows he has.
>
> (Another logical fallacy deleted)
> > I didn`t write the book and I didn`t bring it here as significant.
> > I pointed out some flaws I detected in what was presented.
> And was COMPLETELY UNABLE to cite for your opinions.

I showed them.

This is how it works. Lane expressed ideas. I point out the flaws in the ideas Lane expressed. The only thing I can possibly cite is what Lane wrote that I am showing the flaws in.

> > You offered not a single counter argument against a single idea I
> > expressed.
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

What idea did I express that you made a counter argument against?

Did you successfully argue against the idea that investigation is a process that necessarily means giving weight to information? Did you even speak to this concept? Of course not, you can`t argue ideas to save your life. I can go back and get other ideas you didn`t touch. You blow smoke and talk over ideas because you can`t come to grips with the fact that you are too stupid to figure out for yourself that Lane`s ideas are flawed.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:

> > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >
> > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the

> > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be

> > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.

> > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony

> > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > shots came from the knoll."

> How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
>
> Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
>
> How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?

Directed at Holmes surely this was meant as a rhetorical inquiry; right Mark?

[BT George]

Arguably a more sane plan.

> > Watch Chuckles claim that tests are needed to show this as a
> > possibility.
> You fail to show this is a viable possibility for getting specific and precise results.

Don't imply logical intent from bebsy where none was intended.

[BT George]

Well based on the number of shooters postulated by some of these clowns, accuracy sure as heck wasn't a goal in play. ...Well it certainly wasn't in evidence anyhow.

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 6. maj 2021 kl. 01.57.33 UTC+2 skrev BT George:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> > >
> > > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > > shots came from the knoll."
> > How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
> >
> > Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
> >
> > How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
> Directed at Holmes surely this was meant as a rhetorical inquiry; right Mark?

I guess you could say that, BT. It's surprisingly hard to get straight answers from those fearless truth-tellers.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 5:28:17 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> torsdag den 6. maj 2021 kl. 01.57.33 UTC+2 skrev BT George:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > > > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> > > >
> > > > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > > > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > > > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > > > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > > > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > > > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > > > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > > > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > > > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > > > shots came from the knoll."
> > > How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
> > >
> > > Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
> > >
> > > How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
> > Directed at Holmes surely this was meant as a rhetorical inquiry; right Mark?
> I guess you could say that, BT. It's surprisingly hard to get straight answers from those fearless truth-tellers.

One thing you can count on from Holmes. He will never take a firm position on anything that he
would have to defend and support with actual evidence. His sole purpose is to attack the WCR
without offering an alternative explanation. He will seem to suggest some things but when you
press him for supporting evidence, he will deny ever making that claim. That makes him the
ultimate coward.

[John Corbett]

This is a perfect example of what I just stated in a reply to Mark. You seem to take positions
but when pressed for evidence to support it, you deny you ever took such a position. You
always leave yourself wiggle room. Many years ago when I was a regular contributor on acj,
this was the game you always played. Now that I have returned, you are still doing the same.
Liars never change.

To summarize, when asked why the TSBD earwitnesses didn't hear the GK shots and why the
GK earwitnesses didn't hear the TSBD shots, you suggested that the shooters could have
synced their shots. Now of course you deny taking such a position.

I know this is a futile gesture but it will illustrate you cowardice in ever taking a position you
would have to defend. Do you believe the reason the earwitnesses only heard shots from one
location when there were multiple shooters was because the shooters synced their shots to
sound as if they were one. If you don't believe that is what happened, how do you explain shots
from multiple locations but most people only heard the shots from one location.

Of course there is zero chance you will ever answer these questions because that would require
you to actually take a position, something you have never had the courage to do.

>
> Are you seeing a pattern yet? Or do I have to spank you some more?

I have no interest in your perverse fantasies.

[Bud]

Especially when you consider what he seems to think happened. He seems to think that Kennedy was struck by two shots from separate shooters in the head less than a second apart. So to get this sort of precision, how does any landmark work for shooting timing when the perspective to that mark would be different from different locations? And more importantly, how do you look at the landmark while also keeping your sights on the target?

All Ben`s ideas are equally bad, which is why he keeps them hidden.

[John Corbett]

As he just demonstrated, he never actually takes a position. He always leaves the back door
open so he can deny he ever said what he seemed to. In this case he presented this as a
possibility but now says he never claimed that is what happened. He will never take a firm
position on ANYTHING. I've watched him play this game since 2008 when I first started
participating on aaj and acj. Playing games is all he does. He will never tell you what he
thinks actually happened because that would require him to support such a position with
actual evidence. All he does is present hypotheticals which allows him to retreat from
whatever it was he was suggesting. He is the ultimate internet coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 03:11:03 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

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

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:00:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 15:26:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 5:06:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2021 13:32:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
>>>>>they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
>>>>>the same time.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like Monkey Boy's a pervert too. How many children did you
>>>> molest today?
>>>>
>>>There's a real articulate response. How long did it take you to compose that?
>>
>> Been doing it for years. Each time some kook make claims about what
>> I've posted that cannot be quoted or cited for, I simply do the same
>> thing to the kook.
>>
>>>> You don't mind lying about what I've stated, I don't mind lying about
>>>> what you said in your emails to me.
>>>
>>>When did I write you an email?
>>
>> When did I say what you claimed?
>>

>This is a perfect example...


Of every believer. When asked a question that reveals their
dishonesty, they run away.

But if you're intelligent, and dislike being called a child molester,
then you'll only use REAL statements by me, and not your ideas of what
I've said.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 02:58:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 5:28:17 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>> torsdag den 6. maj 2021 kl. 01.57.33 UTC+2 skrev BT George:
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 9:47:17 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>> onsdag den 5. maj 2021 kl. 16.18.35 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>>> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>>>>>
>>>>> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
>>>>> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
>>>>> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
>>>>> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
>>>>> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
>>>>> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
>>>>> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
>>>>> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
>>>>> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
>>>>> shots came from the knoll."
>>>> How many of those witnesses heard shots from the Book Depositiory?
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't they hear those shots? Many other witnesses did.
>>>>
>>>> How do we resolve this intelligently, Ben?
>>> Directed at Holmes surely this was meant as a rhetorical inquiry; right Mark?
>> I guess you could say that, BT. It's surprisingly hard to get straight answers from those fearless truth-tellers.
>
>One thing you can count on from Holmes. He will never take a firm position on anything that he
>would have to defend and support with actual evidence.

Watch folks, as Monkey Boy ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support this empty
claim.

> His sole purpose is to attack the WCR without offering an
> alternative explanation.

Unlike most believers, I *have* posted a scenario with supporting
evidence.

This is something *YOU* will never do.

>He will seem to suggest some things but when you
>press him for supporting evidence, he will deny ever making that claim.

You're lying... and the proof that you're a liar is that you can't
quote ANYTHING I've ever posted about this case that I can't cite the
supporting evidence.


This prediction is rock solid... watch folks, as Monkey Boy proves
himself a liar.

>That makes him the ultimate coward.

Your response to this post will prove interesting...

[BT George]

...OR WHEN *YOU* (SUPPOSEDLY) KILLFILE THEM BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET LITTTLE BEBSY WIN.

[BT George]

Well. I suppose that's *one* thing we can say somewhat positive about him. (Fondness for young males not being an apparent source of shame for him given his fixation with that topic, it's rather remarkable even *he* has developed some sense of shame when it comes to spelling out his bad ideas.)

[Chuck Schuyler]

Liar.

Ben's scenario:

Something else happened, somehow.

Ben's supporting evidence:

Ben will be happy to match any "believers" evidence in detail and length, and just as soon as "believers" post their evidence for Ben's begged questions, Ben will be happy to post his evidence for his scenario that something else happened, somehow, on 11/22/63.

That's how he rolls.

[John Corbett]

That would be proving a negative. No quote can prove what you didn't say. This is an observation
I have made from watching your act going back to 2008 when I first posted in this forum. I
suppose it is theoretically possible that in the roughly ten years I was not a regular contributor
here you might have actually made a post with some substance but that would be so out of
character for you and completely contrary to what I used to see you post and what I have seen
you post since my return. You never tell us what you think actually happened. Your posts have
almost exclusively contained your objections to the WC scenario but you never tell us what you
think actually happened. Making vague allusions to multiple gunman somewhere in Dealey Plaza
does not constitute a scenario. A scenario provides specifics. The WC identified the gunman, his
weapon, his location, the forensic evidence to support these findings. The provided the means by
which Oswald smuggled his rifle into the TSBD. The provided specific as to how he fled the
TSBD, identifying the exact bus and cab he took to his rooming house. The provided the evidence
that he arrived at 10th and Patton and murdered J. D. Tippit, provided the eyewitnesses to that
crime and Oswald's subsequent flight. They provided the eyewitness testimony that established
where he went after killing Tippit all the way to the theater that he ducked into to escape capture
and the tied the revolver he had in his possession to the Tippit murder by matching it to the
shells the killer discarded as he fled the seen of the murder.

The WC gave us this level of detail and ample forensic, medical, and eyewitness testimony to
support all of it. You have never provided a scenario with anywhere close to that level of detail
nor even a small fraction of the evidence to support it. The best you have done is claim
multiple shooters based SOLELY on the impressions of earwitnesses, a highly unreliable way of
identifying the location of a shooter. When you are able to offer more, get back to us. I think
we'll be waiting a LONG time for that to happen.

>
> This prediction is rock solid... watch folks, as Monkey Boy proves
> himself a liar.
> >That makes him the ultimate coward.
> Your response to this post will prove interesting...

I just jammed my response up your fucking nose. Now we get to watch you avoid dealing with
it.

[Ben Holmes]

Oh?

My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ

The liar is PROVABLY you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 10:39:20 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

I predicted it! And once again, Monkey Boy proves himself a liar.

>>> His sole purpose is to attack the WCR without offering an
>>> alternative explanation.
>>
>> Unlike most believers, I *have* posted a scenario with supporting
>> evidence.
>>
>> This is something *YOU* will never do.

Again folks, I PREDICTED IT!

Monkey Boy's a coward like all believers are...

>>>He will seem to suggest some things but when you
>>>press him for supporting evidence, he will deny ever making that claim.
>>
>> You're lying... and the proof that you're a liar is that you can't
>> quote ANYTHING I've ever posted about this case that I can't cite the
>> supporting evidence.
>>
>That would be proving a negative.

No stupid, that would be PROVING THAT THE CLAIM MADE IS TRUE!

But you can't do it... the claim is a lie.

> No quote can prove what you didn't say.

Sorry stupid, that wasn't the claim.


[The rest of your word salad deleted...]

[John Corbett]

All one has to do is look at My Scenario - Part 1 to know it isn't a scenario at all. It is composed
ENTIRELY of Holmes' objections to the WC findings. A real scenario answers the questions, Who,
What, Where, When, and How. Your "scenario" doesn't even attempt to answer any of them.
I don't think you even understand what the word "scenario" means.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 10:50:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

That's your unsupported claim.

Why would anyone believe a liar?

> It is composed ENTIRELY of Holmes' objections to the WC findings. A
> real scenario answers the questions, Who, What, Where, When, and
> How. Your "scenario" doesn't even attempt to answer any of them.
>I don't think you even understand what the word "scenario" means.

Amusingly, you CANNOT post your own scenario. This proves you a liar.

Run coward... RUN!

[John Corbett]

Do you want to bet $1000 I can cite a post I have already made that contains a scenario that
answers all of the questions I have listed above.

Let's see who runs now.

This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't meet, he tried to divert.
Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 12:18:50 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

No answer... but the answer is obvious - of course.

>>> It is composed ENTIRELY of Holmes' objections to the WC findings. A
>>> real scenario answers the questions, Who, What, Where, When, and
>>> How. Your "scenario" doesn't even attempt to answer any of them.
>>>I don't think you even understand what the word "scenario" means.
>>
>> Amusingly, you CANNOT post your own scenario. This proves you a liar.
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!
>
>Do you want to bet $1000 I can cite a post I have already made that contains a scenario that
>answers all of the questions I have listed above.
>
>Let's see who runs now.

Sure... as long as it doesn't rely on the WCR. Go for it.

But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
where you referenced the WCR.

I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.

See how easy that is?

And there's nothing you can say about it.

> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
> meet, he tried to divert.
>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?

And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.

You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.

I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario - AND I
WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.

So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.

You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
own.

[Chuck Schuyler]

As Big Dog will learn, your Magnum Opus has been discussed and addressed endlessly. Your "scenario" is no such thing. It provides no tests or recreations for the fantastic things you allege, doesn't touch upon the JFK coffin/body switcheroo you've promoted, the supposed shot through the front of JFK's limo, RFK's assassination--which you speculate was masterminded by LBJ to keep the lid on the JFK assassination--and on and on. All you have presented is your worn out hobby-points in a sort of multi-segment "part" and "conclusion" format (even including labeled subsections "a." and "b." for some items!) to give tis turd you're shining the veneer as some sort of scholarly work. What a JOKE. You even mention a fringe poster in one segment who used the moniker of "Conan" or something and participated at this board briefly some years ago. Your Magnum Opus is simply a series of begged questions based of of subjective inferences. You don't spell out A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G.

Now lie and claim this hasn't been addressed.

And they wonder why historians don't take them seriously, although non-historian Healy is probably impressed.

Healy: "Ben, you should write a BOOK about that John FRANCIS Kennedy assassination someday!" ((!!**BURP**!!))

What a bunch of morons!

[Chuck Schuyler]

You haven't provided a scenario yet.

despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
> own.

Burden shifting. When will this sink into your skull? The "scenario" has been historically accepted, the evidence used for the commission to reach its conclusions has been provided. There is no need to CONTINUE to post the same scenario over and over again. You have a computer, you know where to find the WCR, etc.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 13:15:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

Chuckles is up to his usual cowardice again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 13:12:40 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

As usual, Chuckles runs to the end, ignores all points made, and shows
his cowardice...

[Chuck Schuyler]

Translation: The GPS guided missile is over the target.

[John Corbett]

What kind of damn sense does that make? The WCR presented the truth. Now you want me
to present an alternate truth as if there is such a thing. It's only you morons who refuse to
accept the WCR that think there is an alternate truth.

> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
> where you referenced the WCR.
>

I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR. My scenario and the WCR scenario are
one and the same. Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario. I didn't think it
was possible but you get more pitiful with each post. Once again you prove what I have said for
a long time. You aren't here to engage in an honest debate. You are here to play chickenshit
games because you are nothing but a pathetic troll.

> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>

Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.

> See how easy that is?
>
> And there's nothing you can say about it.
> > This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
> > meet, he tried to divert.
> >Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.
>

Do you think anybody believes that. If you do, then you are dumber than I thought.

> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
>

Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.

> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario - AND I
> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
>

This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.

> So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.
>

You couldn't find your own ass with a map.

> You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
> scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
> own.

My scenario is the WCR scenario. I don't owe you or anyone else a different one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

>Translation...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 14:00:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Perfect sense. It's avoiding the fallacy of begging the question. Let
me guess, you cite the WCR, and when I ask for your evidence, you cite
the 26 volumes... but you can't do this in the specifics.

Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
volume set.

>> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
>> where you referenced the WCR.
>>
>I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.

If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
nothing but empty claims.

> My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.

Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
show the lies told by the WCR.

>Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.

No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.

Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.

[More logical fallacies deleted.]

>> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>>
>Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
>more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.

You've just indicted your own logic. You thought you could cite a
book... I cite a book and you go spastic.

I knew you'd show your true colors... that's why I did this.

>> See how easy that is?
>>
>> And there's nothing you can say about it.

Because anything you say falls back on *YOUR* silly claim to cite the
WCR for a scenario.

>>> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
>>> meet, he tried to divert.
>>>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
>>
>> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
>
>Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.

Just because you reject the scenario I provided, DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T
GIVE YOU ONE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!

You lose!

>> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario - AND I
>> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
>
>This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
>that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.

Who said anything about being different from the WCR?

Are you busy molesting your own mother now?

You truly are a pervert.

>> So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Note folks, another perfect prediction!

>> You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
>> scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
>> own.
>
>My scenario is the WCR scenario. I don't owe you or anyone else a different one.

My scenario is Douglas Horne's five volume set. I don't owe you or
anyone else a different one. And each time you whine that I can't
provide a scenario - YOU'RE A PROVEN LIAR.

You lose!

[Chuck Schuyler]

Lol. Perfect sense to a kook.

If not relying on the ballistic forensic tests, first person accounts provided to the FBI, film and photo evidence, etc. that was relied upon by the FBI, what, pray tell, should someone use to come to a conclusion about what happened on 11/22/63?

Prepare for the running to commence.

>It's avoiding the fallacy of begging the question.

Please look up the definitions for words and phrases you are unfamiliar with and misuse.

Let
> me guess, you cite the WCR, and when I ask for your evidence, you cite
> the 26 volumes... but you can't do this in the specifics.

Give an example.

>
> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
> volume set.

Who does he say did it?

(Running to commence shortly.)

> >> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
> >> where you referenced the WCR.

Which is proper. The conclusions the WC reached are still accepted today by historians. Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy.

> >>
> >I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.


> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
> nothing but empty claims.

There is no shared burden. The case has been made--like it or not--so the burden falls upon you or other buffs to produce a better scenario explaining the events of 11/22/63. From your Magnum Opus conclusion:

"And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated."

Please detail this conspiracy that Oswald was most likely--in your opinion--the designated patsy for.

> > My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
> show the lies told by the WCR.
> >Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.

> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.

There is no shared burden. One side has met their burden--Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy--the other side can't get out of the starting blocks. Ben: "Something else happened, somehow."

>
> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
>
> [More logical fallacies deleted.]

> >> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Who does he say did it?

> >>
> >Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
> >more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.
> You've just indicted your own logic. You thought you could cite a
> book... I cite a book and you go spastic.
>
> I knew you'd show your true colors... that's why I did this.
> >> See how easy that is?
> >>
> >> And there's nothing you can say about it.
> Because anything you say falls back on *YOUR* silly claim to cite the
> WCR for a scenario.
> >>> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
> >>> meet, he tried to divert.
> >>>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
> >>
> >> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
> >
> >Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.

> Just because you reject the scenario I provided, DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T
> GIVE YOU ONE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!

Actual exchange between Ben and I:

Me: Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

See? Ben has "carried his burden" and outlined his "scenario."

>
> You lose!
> >> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario

Shifting the burden. We do not have a scenario separate from the historically accepted scenario, relied upon by historians, JFK's own online Presidential library, etc.

- AND I
> >> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.

When will you start?

> >
> >This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
> >that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.

> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?

You did. Your wrote above, "Sure... as long as it [JFK shooting scenario Ben is asking Big Dog to provide] doesn't rely on the WCR. Go for it."

Make sure you snip this out at our "uncensored" forum when you respond.
>
> <Ben's ad hominem snipped>.

>
> You truly are a pervert.
> >> So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> Note folks, another perfect prediction!

> >> You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
> >> scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
> >> own.

Burden shifting. Produce your JFK assassination scenario and detail the methodology used, the tests performed, etc. Get busy.

> >
> >My scenario is the WCR scenario. I don't owe you or anyone else a different one.


> My scenario is Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Who does he say did it?

I don't owe you or
> anyone else a different one.

Lurkers will note the incredibly low bar Ben sets for himself.

Me: Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

We are apparently supposed to accept that and move on.

And each time you whine that I can't
> provide a scenario - YOU'RE A PROVEN LIAR.

Ben stomps his little feet and wads his fists into little balls, whining to the heavens over the unfairness of it all, capitalizing his written anguish to show the rare lurker how EVERYONE IS A LIAR!
>
> You lose!

Our pint-sized Investigoogler has never lost a debate point.

He's all yours, kooks. Enjoy.

[John Corbett]

Do you ever get tired of lying? That was a stupid question. Of course you don't. I've given you
very specific items of evidence that Oswald was the assassin. You can ignore those all you
want, but they are part of the record. You are without a doubt the most bald faced liar I have
ever met in my life, and it's not even close.

> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
> volume set.

You have provided no specifics. It's just another of your lame dodges.

> >> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
> >> where you referenced the WCR.
> >>
> >I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.
> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
> nothing but empty claims.

I've cited the evidence, asswipe, and very specifically. Finger and palm prints. Ballistic matching.
Fiber evidence. Eyewitnesses. You have offered nothing of the kind.

> > My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
> show the lies told by the WCR.

You have claimed there are lies. You have offered nothing but lame arguments. You accusing
someone else of lying is like Hitler accusing someone of being anti-Semitic.

> >Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.
> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.
>

Keep lying, asswipe. It's the only thing you do. You suck at it, but you keep doing it anyway.

> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
>

Why? So you can ignore again and claim I've never presented a scenario or the supporting
evidence. I'm not playing your silly games.

> [More logical fallacies deleted.]
> >> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> >>
> >Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
> >more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.
> You've just indicted your own logic. You thought you could cite a
> book... I cite a book and you go spastic.
>

I have cited very specific items. You have cited nothing. You lie about both of these things.

> I knew you'd show your true colors... that's why I did this.

You show your true colors all the time and it isn't pretty. Dogshit brown seems to be your
favorite color.

> >> See how easy that is?
> >>
> >> And there's nothing you can say about it.
> Because anything you say falls back on *YOUR* silly claim to cite the
> WCR for a scenario.

You just keep right on lying.

> >>> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
> >>> meet, he tried to divert.
> >>>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
> >>
> >> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
> >
> >Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.
> Just because you reject the scenario I provided, DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T
> GIVE YOU ONE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!
>

You gave no scenario. You just lie and claim you have. Nobody is buying it.

> You lose!
> >> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario - AND I
> >> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
> >
> >This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
> >that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.
> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?
>

You did. You asked me to present a scenario they didn't rely on the WCR.

> Are you busy molesting your own mother now?
>

> You truly are a pervert.

I was tempted to sink to your level but I thought better of it. You just demonstrated what a
truly despicable human being you are. You have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

> >> So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> Note folks, another perfect prediction!

Another Holmes lie.

> >> You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
> >> scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
> >> own.
> >
> >My scenario is the WCR scenario. I don't owe you or anyone else a different one.
> My scenario is Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Anyone who believes Horne's body snatching theory which he snatched from David Lifton
is a dumbfuck.

> I don't owe you or
> anyone else a different one. And each time you whine that I can't
> provide a scenario - YOU'RE A PROVEN LIAR.
>
> You lose!

Says the biggest loser on Usenet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 15:46:36 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

Logical fallacies deleted.

>>It's avoiding the fallacy of begging the question.
>
> Please look up the definitions for words and phrases you are
> unfamiliar with and misuse.

You can't deny that it's begging the question to cite the WCR and
refuse to cite the relevant evidence.

You'd better look up what you clearly don't know...

> > Let
>> me guess, you cite the WCR, and when I ask for your evidence, you cite
>> the 26 volumes... but you can't do this in the specifics.
>
>Give an example.

Sure. Cite the evidence that Oswald fired a rifle.

>> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
>> volume set.
>
>Who does he say did it?
>
>(Running to commence shortly.)

I do.

Who says the WCR did it?

(Running to commence shortly.)


>>>> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
>>>> where you referenced the WCR.
>
> Which is proper. The conclusions the WC reached are still accepted
> today by historians. Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy.

Actually, the LAST government investigation came to the conclusion
that this was a probable conspiracy. They could only name one of the
conspirators.

You always lie about this.

>>>I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.
>
>
>> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
>> nothing but empty claims.
>
>There is no shared burden.

Yes stupid, there is.

Just because you DENY that you carry a burden, it's the same burden
EVERYONE has - to be able to support their claims.


>The case has been made


No... it hasn't. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to make it.

>"And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
>realized and stated."
>
> Please detail this conspiracy that Oswald was most likely--in your
> opinion--the designated patsy for.

Been there, done that. See Douglas Horne's 5 volume set.

This is the SAME answer you give to the similar question, only with a
different title. You reference the WCR.

So my answer is LOGICALLY THE SAME as yours... you reference one book,
I reference another.

>>> My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
>>
>> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
>> show the lies told by the WCR.

Notice the silence here...

>>>Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.
>
>> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.
>
>There is no shared burden.

You're lying.

>> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
>>
>> [More logical fallacies deleted.]
>
>>>> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>
>Who does he say did it?

Buy the set... read it for yourself.

>>>Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
>>>more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.
>>
>> You've just indicted your own logic. You thought you could cite a
>> book... I cite a book and you go spastic.
>>
>> I knew you'd show your true colors... that's why I did this.

Notice that Chuckles couldn't defend Monkey Boy here...

>>>> See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>> And there's nothing you can say about it.
>>
>> Because anything you say falls back on *YOUR* silly claim to cite the
>> WCR for a scenario.
>>
>>>>> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
>>>>> meet, he tried to divert.
>>>>>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
>>>>
>>>> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
>>>
>>>Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.
>
>> Just because you reject the scenario I provided, DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T
>> GIVE YOU ONE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!
>
>Actual exchange between Ben and I:
>
>Me: Who killed JFK?
>
>Ben: The snipers.
>
>See? Ben has "carried his burden" and outlined his "scenario."

You, with the exception of the one letter, "s" ... say precisely the
same thing.

See? Chuckles has "carried his burden" and outlined his "scenario."


>> You lose!


And, of course, this is still true of Chuckles as well as Monkey Boy.

>>>> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario
>
>Shifting the burden.

You're lying again.

>>> - AND I
>>>> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
>
>When will you start?

Already did once, will do again as soon as someone posts their
scenario.

>>>This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
>>>that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.
>
>> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?
>
>You did.

YOU'RE MOLESTING MONKEY BOY'S MOTHER NOW!!

>Your wrote above, "Sure... as long as it [JFK shooting scenario Ben is
> asking Big Dog to provide] doesn't rely on the WCR. Go for it."

Where does this say that the scenario had to be different than the
WCR?


Are you retarded?

>Make sure you snip this out at our "uncensored" forum when you respond.

Why would I snip out the proof that you lied?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 16:13:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
>> volume set.
>
>You have provided no specifics. It's just another of your lame dodges.

I did *PRECISELY* what you wanted to do... cite the WCR.


You lose!

>>>> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
>>>> where you referenced the WCR.
>>>>
>>>I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.
>>
>> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
>> nothing but empty claims.
>
>I've cited the evidence, asswipe, and very specifically. Finger and palm prints. Ballistic matching.
>Fiber evidence. Eyewitnesses. You have offered nothing of the kind.

Cite for your definition of "cite."

>>> My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
>>
>> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
>> show the lies told by the WCR.
>
>You have claimed there are lies.

Supported it, too.

>You have offered nothing but lame arguments. You accusing
>someone else of lying is like Hitler accusing someone of being anti-Semitic.

So well, in fact, that it's turned you mute.

>>>Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.
>>
>> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
>
>Why? So you can ignore again and claim I've never presented a scenario or the supporting
>evidence. I'm not playing your silly games.

Ah! It's a "silly game" to ask you what you ask me.

The truth comes out!

>> [More logical fallacies deleted.]
>>
>>>> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>>>>
>>>Yes, it's easy to demonstrate how fucking stupid you are by citing Doug Horne who did nothing
>>>more than polish off David Lifton's body snatching turd of a scenario.
>>
>> You've just indicted your own logic. You thought you could cite a
>> book... I cite a book and you go spastic.
>>
>I have cited very specific items. You have cited nothing. You lie about both of these things.

Cite for your definition of "cite."

>> I knew you'd show your true colors... that's why I did this.

Logical fallacies deleted.

Everytime I can force believers into obscenities, I win.

>>>> See how easy that is?
>>>>
>>>> And there's nothing you can say about it.
>>
>> Because anything you say falls back on *YOUR* silly claim to cite the
>> WCR for a scenario.
>
>You just keep right on lying.

Not a refutation.

>>>>> This is so typical of Holmes. When faced with a challenge he can't
>>>>> meet, he tried to divert.
>>>>>Everybody is on to this, Holmes. Why do you even bother?
>>>>
>>>> And diversion is *EXACTLY* what you just did.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> You cannot post a scenario as I have, and you know the reason why.
>>>
>>>Just because you reject the scenario I provided, doesn't mean I didn't give you one.
>>
>> Just because you reject the scenario I provided, DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T
>> GIVE YOU ONE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LOGIC!
>>
>You gave no scenario. You just lie and claim you have. Nobody is buying it.

Gave the same one you were ready to give me.

>> You lose!
>>
>>>> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario - AND I
>>>> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
>>>
>>>This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
>>>that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.
>>
>> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?
>>
>You did.

Quote it.

> You asked me to present a scenario they didn't rely on the WCR.

Example:

Oswald killed JFK. His prints were on the rifle:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=15

This is a proposed "fact" in a scenario, the evidence is cited, and
the WCR isn't quoted or cited at all.

Yet you would agree 100% with the above statement...

What's different from the WCR???

If you cannot quote me saying something, and you simply lie about what
I stated, I'm simply going to do the same to you.

>> Are you busy molesting your own mother now?
>>
>> You truly are a pervert.
>
>I was tempted to sink to your level but I thought better of it. You just demonstrated what a
>truly despicable human being you are. You have no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

And yet, you still can't quote me saying what you claim I said, nor do
you retract it.

Why is that?

>>>> So you cannot do it... because you *KNOW* that I can do what I say.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>> Note folks, another perfect prediction!

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> You're stuck with repeatedly trying to whine that my scenario isn't a
>>>> scenario - despite the obvious fact that you can't produce one on your
>>>> own.
>>>
>>>My scenario is the WCR scenario. I don't owe you or anyone else a different one.
>>
>> My scenario is Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> I don't owe you or
>> anyone else a different one. And each time you whine that I can't
>> provide a scenario - YOU'RE A PROVEN LIAR.
>>
>> You lose!

Logical fallacy deleted.

[John Corbett]

You can tell how bad Benny is getting his ass kicked by how many times he has to resort to
"Logical fallacy deleted.". I counted five in this latest post but I might have missed one or two.

[Chuck Schuyler]

That's not what begging the question is.

>
> You'd better look up what you clearly don't know...
> > > Let
> >> me guess, you cite the WCR, and when I ask for your evidence, you cite
> >> the 26 volumes... but you can't do this in the specifics.
> >
> >Give an example.

> Sure. Cite the evidence that Oswald fired a rifle.

What type of evidence would you accept?

> >> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
> >> volume set.
> >
> >Who does he say did it?
> >
> >(Running to commence shortly.)
> I do.
>
> Who says the WCR did it?

Arguing to argue. You know their conclusions.

> (Running to commence shortly.)
>
>
> >>>> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
> >>>> where you referenced the WCR.
> >
> > Which is proper. The conclusions the WC reached are still accepted
> > today by historians. Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy.

> Actually, the LAST government investigation came to the conclusion
> that this was a probable conspiracy. They could only name one of the
> conspirators.

Which you disagree with. Your Magnum Opus conclusion ends with your statement that while it's possible Oswald was involved, he was most likely what he said he was: a patsy.

>
> You always lie about this.
> >>>I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.
> >
> >
> >> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
> >> nothing but empty claims.
> >
> >There is no shared burden.

> Yes stupid, there is.

No, there isn't.

When will be "sharing" your burden? The WC said it was Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy. They met their burden. Via the FBI and other sources, thousands of interviews were carried out, examinations performed, a conclusion reached, etc. and almost 60 years later, we're still waiting for Team Oswald to come up with something.

>
> Just because you DENY that you carry a burden, it's the same burden
> EVERYONE has - to be able to support their claims.

I make no claims, I have no case, I carry no burden.

>
>
> >The case has been made
>
>
> No... it hasn't. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to make it.

Nor will I "make" a case for something that has been established for decades.

> >"And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
> >realized and stated."
> >
> > Please detail this conspiracy that Oswald was most likely--in your
> > opinion--the designated patsy for.

> Been there, done that. See Douglas Horne's 5 volume set.

Who does he say did it?
>

> This is the SAME answer you give to the similar question, only with a
> different title. You reference the WCR.
>
> So my answer is LOGICALLY THE SAME as yours... you reference one book,
> I reference another.
> >>> My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
> >>
> >> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
> >> show the lies told by the WCR.
> Notice the silence here...
> >>>Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.
> >
> >> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.
> >
> >There is no shared burden.
> You're lying.
> >> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
> >>
> >> [More logical fallacies deleted.]
> >
> >>>> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
> >
> >Who does he say did it?

> Buy the set... read it for yourself.

Translation: Doug Horne thinks something else happened, somehow, too.

I don't have a scenario.

>
>
> >> You lose!
>
>
> And, of course, this is still true of Chuckles as well as Monkey Boy.
> >>>> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario
> >
> >Shifting the burden.

> You're lying again.

Still shifting the burden.

> >>> - AND I
> >>>> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
> >
> >When will you start?

> Already did once, will do again as soon as someone posts their
> scenario.

Teenage Beni will show his titties at the slumber party when the others show theirs first.

> >>>This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
> >>>that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.
> >
> >> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?
> >
> >You did.

> YOU'RE MOLESTING MONKEY BOY'S MOTHER NOW!!

> >Your wrote above, "Sure... as long as it [JFK shooting scenario Ben is
> > asking Big Dog to provide] doesn't rely on the WCR. Go for it."

> Where does this say that the scenario had to be different than the
> WCR?

Arguing to argue. Fighting the tar baby. Eristics.

>
>
> Are you retarded?

> >Make sure you snip this out at our "uncensored" forum when you respond.

> Why would I snip out the proof that you lied?

About?

[Chuck Schuyler]

What's really fun is challenging him to name the so-called logical fallacy in question. He can't. His claim that he's simply snipping a logical fallacy he cannot name is just another tactic our pint-sized Investigoogler employs to flee the field of battle. The Marine Corps must be very proud.

Wherever men discuss the JFK assassination, you can count on Ben to run. Every. Single. Time.

[Jason Burke]

But when underage boys are around, Bennie-boy is there. Every. Single. Time.

[John Corbett]

If Benny ever was in the USMC, I doubt he made it through boot camp. It requires a man to do
that. Cowardice is frowned on by the Marines.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 4:32:18 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 1:21:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.
> > > >
> > > > What is the reason that such a preposterously fantastic idea should be entertained? You saw it in a comic book you read?
> > > Indeed silly. All multiple shooters had to do was pull the trigger
> > > when the target was in the kill zone.
> > <snicker> Yes, easy peasy. Everything is doable in the realm of imagination, translating those ideas into the real world is a little more difficult.
> In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
> they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
> the same time.


Not only that, but the sound from these various supposedly synchronized shots would arrive at a given randomly chosen point in Dealey Plaza at different times, depending on how far from the supposed source of the sound(s) the witness was standing. At best, one witness would be equidistant from all three conjectured sources of shots. Most of the witnesses would not be in that location, of course, and thus, most witnesses would hear multiple shots from multiple sources, not three shots overlapping as one.

Their arguments make no sense.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 May 2021 04:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 4:32:18 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 1:21:46 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 11:43:13 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 5 May 2021 08:01:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> Shooters in different locations were shooting on cue by radio signal, so their shots were fired nearly simultaneously.
>> > > >
>> > > > What is the reason that such a preposterously fantastic idea should be entertained? You saw it in a comic book you read?
>> > > Indeed silly. All multiple shooters had to do was pull the trigger
>> > > when the target was in the kill zone.
>> > <snicker> Yes, easy peasy. Everything is doable in the realm of imagination, translating those ideas into the real world is a little more difficult.
>> In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one,
>> they did it three times. I wonder how these shooters could sync their shots while trying to aim at
>> the same time.
>
>

> Not only that...

"That" is a blatant lie... I never said any such thing.

But Huckster believes it, and it's far preferable to reply to than the
original post.

Because Mark Lane just TERRIFIES Huckster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 7 May 2021 03:55:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Such cowardice!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 19:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

Yes moron, it is. When you refuse to cite the evidence, and you
pretend that your scenario is complete and done, this is EXACTLY what
you are doing.

>> You'd better look up what you clearly don't know...
>>>> Let
>>>> me guess, you cite the WCR, and when I ask for your evidence, you cite
>>>> the 26 volumes... but you can't do this in the specifics.
>>>
>>>Give an example.
>
>> Sure. Cite the evidence that Oswald fired a rifle.
>
>What type of evidence would you accept?

Anything you think is evidence. I reserve the right to point out your
lies and errors.

But you've already refused to cite any.


Coward... aren't you?

>>>> Which is absolutely no different than me citing Douglas Horne's 5
>>>> volume set.
>>>
>>>Who does he say did it?
>>>
>>>(Running to commence shortly.)
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> Who says the WCR did it?
>
>Arguing to argue. You know their conclusions.

This is, indeed, what you're doing.

>> (Running to commence shortly.)
>>
>>
>>>>>> But I know, and you know, that all you're going to do is cite a post
>>>>>> where you referenced the WCR.
>>>
>>> Which is proper. The conclusions the WC reached are still accepted
>>> today by historians. Oswald alone, no KNOWN conspiracy.
>
>> Actually, the LAST government investigation came to the conclusion
>> that this was a probable conspiracy. They could only name one of the
>> conspirators.
>
>Which you disagree with.

Doesn't matter... **YOU** are bound by it. Yet you repeatedly lie
about it.

>> You always lie about this.

And continue doing so...

>>>>>I have summarized the findings for you from the WCR.
>>>
>>>> If you cannot cite the evidence, and DEFEND your claims, then they are
>>>> nothing but empty claims.
>>>
>>>There is no shared burden.
>
>> Yes stupid, there is.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Just because you DENY that you carry a burden, it's the same burden
>> EVERYONE has - to be able to support their claims.
>
>I make no claims, I have no case, I carry no burden.

Then you have no right to disagree with anything I post.

Go away, coward...

>>>The case has been made
>>
>> No... it hasn't. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to make it.
>

>Nor will I ...


Ever the coward, eh Chuckles?

>>>"And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
>>>realized and stated."
>>>
>>> Please detail this conspiracy that Oswald was most likely--in your
>>> opinion--the designated patsy for.
>
>> Been there, done that. See Douglas Horne's 5 volume set.
>
>Who does he say did it?

What do you care? You have no scenario.

>> This is the SAME answer you give to the similar question, only with a
>> different title. You reference the WCR.
>>
>> So my answer is LOGICALLY THE SAME as yours... you reference one book,
>> I reference another.

Chuckles ran...

>>>>> My scenario and the WCR scenario are one and the same.
>>>>
>>>> Then you know it to be a lie. You've run from most of the posts that
>>>> show the lies told by the WCR.
>> Notice the silence here...
>>>>>Now you are telling me I have to present a different scenario.
>>>
>>>> No, I merely ask for the SAME THING YOU BELIEVERS ASK ME TO PROVIDE.
>>>
>>>There is no shared burden.
>> You're lying.
>>>> Post your scenario, and cite the evidence that supports it.
>>>>
>>>> [More logical fallacies deleted.]
>>>
>>>>>> I can do as much easily: Douglas Horne's five volume set.
>>>
>>>Who does he say did it?
>
>> Buy the set... read it for yourself.
>
>Translation:


Buy the set... read it for yourself.

So you don't believe that Oswald killed Tippit & JFK.

But... of course... you're lying.

>>>> You lose!
>>
>>
>> And, of course, this is still true of Chuckles as well as Monkey Boy.
>>>>>> I've repeatedly challenged believers to post their scenario
>>>
>>>Shifting the burden.
>
>> You're lying again.
>
>Still shifting the burden.

It's your burden.

>>>>> - AND I
>>>>>> WOULD MATCH IT IN LENGTH, DETAIL, AND NUMBER OF CITATIONS.
>>>
>>>When will you start?
>
>> Already did once, will do again as soon as someone posts their
>> scenario.

And again the coward refuses to post his scenario...

>>>>>This is how dishonest you are. You challenge people who believe the WCR to present a scenario
>>>>>that is different from the WCR. You truly are a lowlife.
>>>
>>>> Who said anything about being different from the WCR?
>>>
>>>You did.
>
>> YOU'RE MOLESTING MONKEY BOY'S MOTHER NOW!!
>
>>>Your wrote above, "Sure... as long as it [JFK shooting scenario Ben is
>>> asking Big Dog to provide] doesn't rely on the WCR. Go for it."
>
>> Where does this say that the scenario had to be different than the
>> WCR?

Chuckles couldn't say.


>> Are you retarded?


Chuckles didn't want to lie. So he just refused to answer.

>>>Make sure you snip this out at our "uncensored" forum when you respond.
>
>> Why would I snip out the proof that you lied?
>
>About?

Forgetful, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 18:50:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

You can tell how bad Monkey Boy is getting spanked by the points he
can't address.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 6 May 2021 19:15:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

>What's really fun ...

Another skip to the end and refuse to answer all points raised
Chuckles post.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Quoting from Mark Lane:
>
> "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> shots came from the knoll."
>
>

> Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
>
> Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Miss Mercer's claims were investigated and disposed of in the Warren Report, weren't they?

Mark Lane denied the incident was investigated in his book RUSH TO JUDGMENT.

Here's what Lane wrote:
== QUOTE ==
Miss Mercer signed an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office
on November 22, describing the incident in detail, and it was
published in the volumes of evidence by the Warren Commission.
Yet the Commission did not call her as a witness. Neither
was she questioned by a Commission investigator, nor did any
reference to the event appear in the Commission Report, not even
her name. The Commission did not try to identify the three
police officers so as to question them or to locate the truck which
Miss Mercer had described.

The so-called gun case may have been empty, but a man
carrying the case toward the bushes above the President's route
was possibly observed and yet unchallenged by the Dallas police.
Great security precautions had been taken to protect the President
in hostile Dallas; here was an apparent violation. If the case was
empty, it was still negligent of the Commission not to investigate.

And perhaps the case was not empty.
== UNQUOTE ==

The Mercer claim was investigated.

All three of the men from the truck were observed and investigated at the time by the Dallas police. Their presence did not go unchallenged. Mark Lane is not telling his readers the truth. He never intended to. His book was written to make him money, not expose a conspiracy that didn't exist. All he did was muddy the water and lie throughout his book. The Julia Ann Mercer incident is the first one he discusses in his first chapter of RUSH TO JUDGMENT. His actions here reveal a concerted effort to create an impression of a failure to properly investigate an incident but he lies throughout in discussing this incident.

First off, the truck was gone by 11:10, which, if this was an assassin, meant he arrived 80 minutes before the assassination with a rifle and had to somehow remain concealed for all that time. See the police log here which states the truck which was stuck on Elm was gone:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=868
See the right-hand side of the page, which states the truck was moved by 11:09. This is directly from the police log, which Lane should be familiar with, and should reference. He conceals this information from his readers.

And officer Joe Murphy dispels the notion that anyone remained behind with a weapon in this FBI interview:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=323

"...All three of the men [from the stopped truck] left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.
"Murphy noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade.
"... Murphy further stated ... these men were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street ... and it would have been impossible for them to have anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy."

So what exactly is the problem with the stalled truck? Nobody stayed behind. The police were on the scene, checked out the stalled truck, and took action to get the truck off the route before the assassination.

Mark Lane paints an entirely different, and disingenuous scene utilizing Mercer's statement.
(1) He pretends it wasn't investigated (it was),
(2) He pretends Mercer wasn't interviewed by any Commission investigator (she was interviewed by the FBI and the Commission supplied with a summary of that interview - the FBI acted as one investigatory staff arm of the Warren Commission as the Warren Commission admitted*),
(3) He pretends someone with a gun case remained behind (they didn't) and
(4) He pretends the police on the scene did nothing (that too is untrue - they took an active part in checking out the truck and ensuring it was long gone before the motorcade arrived).

In short, Lane accuses the Warren Commission of perfidy but it is his perfidy that is exposed by the evidence.

Hank
___________________
* "Because of the diligence, cooperation, and facilities of Federal investigative agencies, it was unnecessary for the Commission to employ investigators other than the members of the Commission's legal staff." -- page XIII from the WR foreword

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben snips my points and pretends he never suggested synchronized shots. He did here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Gy-rv6jWeMY/m/UofAQkRVAQAJ

"When the Presidential limo gets to the yellow stripe on the curb, fire."

He fails entirely to address the central point, that even if there were synchronized shots (by, for instance, using landmarks in Dealey Plaza to determine when to shot) the shots would still sound separate unless the all the witnesses were exactly equidistant from the sources of all the conjectured shots. He can't deal with reality, so he pretends he never suggested synchronized shots. He did, using landmarks, quoted above.

>
> But Huckster believes it, and it's far preferable to reply to than the
> original post.
>
> Because Mark Lane just TERRIFIES Huckster.

Mark Lane is even worse than you in terms of avoiding the evidence and lying about it.

I'm not terrified of Lane, I enjoy exposing his lies.

See below.

[John Corbett]

You don't make points. You tell lies. Addressing them would be giving you respect you don't
deserve. I would be happy to engage in a dialog with someone who wanted to legitimately
and honestly debate the issues of the JFK assassination. That isn't you. You are just here
to troll and play your chickenshit games. Your tactic is to play bait and switch. You SEEM
to take a position on an issue and when that position is refuted, you deny you ever took such
a position.

On the remote chance that someday you will grow a pair and actually take positions and state
unequivocally what you believe and provide the evidence to support those beliefs, you will find
I will be more than happy to address whatever points you make. I have no interest in engaging
in a dialog with someone who just wants to play childish games. Grow up if you want to
converse with the adults in the room.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10:02:41 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 10:18:35 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Quoting from Mark Lane:
> >
> > "To conclude that 'no credible evidence suggests' that shots came from
> > any place other than the Book Depository is to ignore the evidence of
> > Miss Mercer, Bowers, Price, Holland, Deputy Constable Weitzman and the
> > railroad yardman who spoke with him. Yet the statements of these six
> > corroborate and are consistent with one another. For testimony to be
> > so compatible, the common denominator - bar perjury - must be truth.
> > The Commission's apparently arbitrary rejection of such testimony
> > reflects more damagingly upon itself than upon the credibility of the
> > witnesses, for, in fact, nearly 100 other persons believed that the
> > shots came from the knoll."
> >
> >
> > Monkey Boy, (and indeed, all the other kooks) can't refute this
> > statement by any citation to evidence or logic.
> >
> > Stand by for dead silence of logic or citation.
>

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Miss Mercer's claims were investigated and disposed of in the Warren Report, weren't they **?

______________________________
** Correction: The Warren Report contains no mention of Mercer or her claims, but the documents revealing there is nothing to her observations are all available in the published Warren Commission documents.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yep. That's exactly what he did with the synchronized shots argument. He claimed the shooters could have used landmarks to synchronize their shots, then called me and you a liar for taking him at his word.

Ben said: "When the Presidential limo gets to the yellow stripe on the curb, fire."

John Corbett wrote: "In Holmes's world, not only did the shooters perfectly sync their shots so that it sounded like one, they did it three times."

I wrote: "Not only that, but the sound from these various supposedly synchronized shots would arrive at a given randomly chosen point in Dealey Plaza at different times, depending on how far from the supposed source of the sound(s) the witness was standing. At best, one witness would be equidistant from all three conjectured sources of shots. Most of the witnesses would not be in that location, of course, and thus, most witnesses would hear multiple shots from multiple sources, not three shots overlapping as one.

Their arguments make no sense."

Ben said: ' "That" is a blatant lie... I never said any such thing.'

>
> On the remote chance that someday you will grow a pair and actually take positions and state
> unequivocally what you believe and provide the evidence to support those beliefs, you will find
> I will be more than happy to address whatever points you make. I have no interest in engaging
> in a dialog with someone who just wants to play childish games. Grow up if you want to
> converse with the adults in the room.

The problem isn't that Ben isn't grown. It's that he has no evidence of a conspiracy that withstands scrutiny, so he has to avoid discussing the evidence at all costs, else his lack of evidence gets exposed. So he has to make this about what we said and what liars and cowards we are instead of discussing the evidence.

[19e...@mail.com]

Well-synchronized shots would fool most people, because they would perceive the louder shot as being the source of the sound. Yes, if you conducted tests in which the subjects knew what they were listening for, then you might get more people noticing shots from different directions, but this was a real world situation where the witnesses were not expecting gunfire. And at least one witness, who was centrally located, AJ Millican, heard shots from 3 different locations. Was he hallucinating, or was he more perceptive than the average ear witness?

[Chuck Schuyler]

No, Ben, it's not. You beg the question when you embed an assumption of truthfulness to a charge or conclusion without supporting it. (Begging the question example: Ben: Since we know shots were heard from the grassy knoll, we can conclude a conspiracy killed JFK.) You beg the question and assume shots from the knoll when, a.) the vast majority of earwitnesses reported all the shots were from one direction, b.) the physical evidence shots were fired at the motorcade was only found at one location, c.) The WC lays out a case supported with physical evidence that only requires one shooter from one location, etc.

The WC supports its conclusion that Oswald acted alone, and that there was no KNOWN conspiracy with thousands of items of evidence, and it has a SPECIFIC conclusion.

The choice isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy; it is Oswald Alone (the historically accepted conclusion) or a SPECIFIC conspiracy, which would involve the conspiracists stripping away dozens of the wacky conspiracy claims that are out there and narrowing the filed down considerably. You need to make a POSITIVE case for what you allege, and not just nit-pick at the WC.

You refuse to do this because this is a HOBBY, not a quest for a greater understanding of what happened on 11/22/63. And if options are narrowed down, the fun of the hobby is reduced significantly for the average JFK buff.

Hell, at this point, you don't even care what happened. You just like to argue.

Lol, Ben's frustration mounts. He's being challenged to put up a case and he can't.

[Hank Sienzant]

You're arguing that only one witness was accurate in perceiving shots from three directions (your ancillary claim that he was centrally located isn't supported by you in any fashion. You neither specify his location nor the location of the shooters you conjecture). I'd ask you to support your 'centrally located' claim, but we both know you're just making that up. So let's table that for the time being.

However, doesn't your new argument that the vast majority of the witnesses were inaccurate therefore call into question the entire line of argument that because some witnesses thought all the shots came from the knoll, that is therefore evidence of shots from the knoll?

Put another way, if the witnesses were as inaccurate at perceiving the sources of the shots as you now claim, why do you put any faith into what they thought the source of the shots were?

You can't have it both ways. The witnesses were either accurate in perceiving the source or not. Which is it?

Hank

[Chuck Schuyler]

But not all people. Imagine being part of the Dealey Plaza "kill squad" and firing a multi-volley hail of shots, ala the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord, and then expecting to get away with something this stupid. In the minds of the average buff, everything is possible except Oswald alone with a cheap rifle and some luck.

>because they would perceive the louder shot as being the source of the sound.

Begged.

>Yes, if you conducted tests in which the subjects knew what they were listening for, then you might get more people noticing shots from different directions,

Perhaps not. Provide tests for this fantastic claim.

>but this was a real world situation where the witnesses were not expecting gunfire.

Which is why witnesses make mistakes, and which is why their accounts need to be sorted for consistency and balanced against the physical evidence collected later. If witnesses to a car unexpectedly going over a bridge into a river claim the car was a black sedan traveling at a high rate of speed, and when the car is hauled out of the water it turns out it was light grey two-door, and the accident investigation reveals the car was actual traveling at the speed limit, it doesn't mean there was a CONSPIRACY to swap out vehicles and fudge data to restate the automobile's rate of speed. It simply means the witnesses were mistaken on those details. Happens.

And at least one witness, who was centrally located, AJ Millican, heard shots from 3 different locations. Was he hallucinating, or was he more perceptive than the average ear witness?

Either/Or fallacy. He was probably neither hallucinating or more preceptive than the average ear witness. There are other possibilities.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not only that, but note how quickly he put up his Lane #2, #3, etc... he's attempting to bury the challenge mounted here to Lane #1. I saw this repeatedly on Amazon when I tried to discuss the evidence with him there. He'll play whack the mole now, where if we don't knock down #2, #3, etc... he'll concentrate on those and claim those are unrefuted, and ignore #1. If we chase him around, he will double back to #1 or add more claims to the forum.

Hank

[19e...@mail.com]

If you don't know AJ Millican's location, then you are too ignorant to discuss the evidence. As for having it both ways, you take it every which way, and then when one of your ways is challenged, you just switch to every other which way. Google AJ Millican, you lazy ignorant propagandist piece of shit.

[Chuck Schuyler]

His shtick is pretty dated, but it's still amusing to watch him squirm when he's challenged to lay out a case. Ben's posts epitomize the fallacy of begging the question. When he's shut down on one item, he shrugs his shoulders and flits off to the next begged question. Wait a few months, and **POOF** the same begged questions are back as if they weren't addressed, and yes this stretches all the way back to the Amazon days.