The Lone Nut Agenda

Gil Jesus

unread,

May 27, 2023, 7:05:02 AM5/27/23

to

The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos

They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?
You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about their response to the gunshots.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

They ignore evidence that the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was corrupt and only cared about convictions, including 19 convictions that were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

And that he executed an innocent man in 1954
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.
You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Bud

unread,

May 27, 2023, 9:15:49 AM5/27/23

to

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos
>
> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

You have yourself all confused as usual. This is a conspiracy forum, not a "bitch about the Warren Commission" forum.

How it works is you put up supported ideas that a conspiracy took JFK`s life, and we see if your ideas hold water.

We have no burden to do anything. If I claim leprechauns are real, it is up to me to support it, no one else has any burden to disprove the idea.

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

*YOU* can`t. Every word I just wrote is going to go right over your head.

I`m not responsible for you being an idiot.

> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>
> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

Nobody argues that. The difference is that a conspiracy *can* be proven, but "no conspiracy" cannot.

> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?

A murder proves a murder, stupid.

> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

It is the product of your imagination.

> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Well, go ahead, enlighten us. Show that the lineup Oswald took part in was not typical of the way lineups were conducted at that time in Dallas. Show cases that were thrown out of court at the time because of the way this lineup was done.

Or do the Dunning-Kruger thing and claim to know better than the entire legal system of Dallas at the time, and all law enforcement.

> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

Gil, you don`t know shit. You are listening to the voices in your head that tell you you are astute.

> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

I know much, much more than the average person on the street about this case. Yet conspiracy folks seem very impressed with the opinions of that group.

> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

This is just a lazy way of making a case. You have to show it case by case, the words "systematic racism" are not magic words. If a cop is charged with police brutality, the Rodney King video wouldn`t be allowed in court, it wouldn`t speak the instance being considered.

> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

You are welcome to use your vast knowledge of these things to make a case how his enemies took part in assassinating JFK. That people didn`t like him is nothing.

> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination.

So dangerous that Kennedy was able to get out of his limo and wade into the crowds.

> That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

If those people knew Oswald was going to kill Kennedy why didn`t they stop him?

> But not having knowledge is not enough.

What you are offering isn`t knowledge. At best it is a hunch that played out.

> Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

Like?

> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Put the evidence here.

Conspiracy folks always make pretend they have established times when they don`t.

> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

The one with Oswald`s fingerprints on it?

> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

Addressed above. You haven`t shown anything unusual about this lineup.

> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

Unknown if the scope was used. Unknown what condition the scope was in during the shooting.

The fragments in the limo speak loudly that the weapon was accurate.

> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

They gave the location using measurements.

> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

Only an idiot would believe he could have a discussion, come down and out and reach that location in two seconds. You are just such an idiot.

> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

According to you?

> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

You are desperate to throw out the evidence because the evidence shows Oswald was guilty, and you can`t come to grips with that fact.

> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about their response to the gunshots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

Tell us how those actions give us insight into the assassination.

> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

I imagine some people could find being questioned by the FBI to be intimidating.

> They ignore evidence that the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was corrupt and only cared about convictions, including 19 convictions that were overturned on DNA evidence.
> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

They were nowhere near the point this could be significant when Oswald was killed.

> And that he executed an innocent man in 1954
> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

This article does not prove innocence, at best it gives reasons to question guilt. The guy confessed twice. There is no exonerating DNA evidence.

> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

You are doing what worked for the OJ defense team, putting the focus on law enforcement to deflect attention from the obviously guilty client.

> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

The evidence is neutral. If it tends to implicate one particular person real crime investigators ten to believe that person is responsible.

You are nothing but an armchair second-guesser.

> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

In short, this is how you make pretend a guilty person is innocent. You brush away all the indications of his guilt. Witnesses say they saw Oswald at 10th and Patton with a gun, merely contrive some reason to disregard this evidence. Just a silly hobby, nothing more.

> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

Yes, it is our fault you can`t make compelling arguments.

> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.
> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Ironic. You`ve deluded yourself into thinking you are doing something significant when you are merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Good advice that I ignore by coming here and reading your nonsense.

John Corbett

unread,

May 27, 2023, 9:22:00 AM5/27/23

to

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos
>

The LN case was published by the Warren Commission in 1964. There is little we can add to
that, other than technological advancements which help to confirm the original finding. The
report is 888 pages long. It is supported by 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits which was
also made public. It is now online for all to see. We have no need to reinvent the wheel.

> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

They got the right answer. There is only one. Why do you think there is another?

>
> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Never our intent.

>
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>

We are pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

We argue that because conspiracy can't be proven, there is no reason to believe there was one.

> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?
> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

This murder was solved. In the case of an unsolved murder, you have a murder victim which is
proof there was a murder. In the six decades since the assassination, no one has presented any
evidence that Oswald had even a single accomplice.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Oswald's rights were not violated, even though his crime was committed before the Supreme
Court handed down the Miranda decision. He was offered legal counsel which he declined.

>
> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.
>
> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

I haven't read the encyclopedia either but if there is something I need to check out, I know where
to find it. The 26 volumes are reference material. If someone wants to read the entire thing, that
is up to them, but it is not necessary to read them cover-to-cover to be informed about the
important facts of the assassination. There is ample proof presented in the 888 page report
that provides positive proof Oswald was the assassin. There is no evidence inside or outside
the 26 volumes he had any accomplices.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>

We don't waste our time fretting over things that had nothing to do with the assassination.

> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.
>

Every president makes enemies. There is only evidence that one of them decided to kill him.

> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

We know all that and know it has nothing to do with the assassination. Except for one guy with
a rifle in the last building along the parade route, JFK had receeived a very warm reception in
Dallas as well as the other Texas cities he visited.

>
> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

There is no evidence Oswald was innocent. You've been offered the opportunity to present such
evidence and instead you respond with your inane objections to the evidence presented by the
WC.

>
> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Simply untrue. Carolyn Arnold claimed to have seen Oswald on the first floor BEFORE the
assassination and she didn't make that claim until 15 years later. Here initial statement to the
FBI said she thinks she saw him earlier but wasn't sure where. He later signed statement made
no mention of seeing Oswald. The people who saw Oswald on the first floor did so AFTER he had
descended from the 6th floor and AFTER the second floor encounter with Baker and Truly.

>
> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>

Preposterous.

> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
>

The case against Oswald in both murders is made by the forensic evidence.

> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

You ignore the fact that all the recovered shells and bullets from the shooting were fired by that
rifle to the exclusion of all other weapon in the world which proves somebody was able to kill
JFK with that rifle. That somebody was Oswald.

>
> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>

More silliness.

> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

Obviously whoever fired the shot at Walker fled the scene without being detected. Why would it
have been possible for someone else to do that but no possible for Oswald to do it?

>
> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>

You're making shit up.

> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0
>

The forensic evidence matching the spent shells to Oswald's gun indicate those witnesses were
reliable in IDing Oswald.

> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about their response to the gunshots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>
> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

Where do you come up with this shit.

> They ignore evidence that the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was corrupt and only cared about convictions, including 19 convictions that were overturned on DNA evidence.
> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Other than filing the murder charges against Oswald, Wad had no involvement in the case.

>
> And that he executed an innocent man in 1954
> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>

Jack Ruby executed Oswald, not Wade.

> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

Oswald was never prosecuted so prosecutorial misconduct is not an issue.

>
> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.
>
> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

It is preposterous to believe that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, all the law
enforcement agencies decided to frame an innocent man for the murder. We are talking about
the DPD, the Dallas sheriff's office, the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Department of Defense.
How did your imaginary conspirators manage to get all those agencies to conspire to frame
Oswald and how did they know in advance they could do that?

>
> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.
>

What your present is not evidence. It is wild speculation.

> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.
> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Someone who is willing to buy into the nonsense you do should not be accusing others of being
brainwashed.

>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Are you saying we should stay away from you?

Bud

unread,

May 27, 2023, 9:41:19 AM5/27/23

to

And do this coordination immediately. You would have to have be in contact with *everyone* right away, so they can be told what their roles are. Even before the dust is settled, even before you have any idea what evidence would surface, what the autopsy was going to find, just start tampering immediately.

Gil thinks because he can arrange things into shapes he finds personally appealing after the fact, that makes it a possibility at the time. Even when he gives the conspirators the magical ability to make any witness say anything at any time it still doesn`t work. Even when he has all law enforcement in telepathic contact with some coordinating body, it still doesn`t work. This is why they don`t even attempt to put it on the table, it is obviously impossible.

And one last thing on framing Oswald. To frame Oswald for killing Tippit they need to allow Tippit`s actual killer to get away with the murder, there is no other way. I`ve never seen anything anywhere in all my years that would make me believe cops would be ok with the killer of one of their own getting away scot free. To make this work they have to present themselves as being more astute than actual crime investigators, the experts right on the scene are incapable of figuring out what hobbyist behind their keyboards can, that pressuring witnesses to select Oswald might mean the actual killer gets away, or switching shells might lead to the actual murderer going unpunished.

Scrum Drum

unread,

May 27, 2023, 10:43:34 AM5/27/23

to

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Here is Gil, once again, using the Conspiracy Theorist vs Lone Nutter model to try to force through wrong conspiracy evidence...This is a deception that is possible because of the Education Forum's allowance of Lone Nutters...Gil is exploiting the fact that the research community has been conditioned in to not fact-checking evidence due to the Education Forum allowing Lone Nutters and their conspiracy denial...So, in effect, Gil piggybacks on the Lone Nutters getting away with false claims in order to present his conspiracy bullshit...

Gil is a cheap bastard so he hides behind attacking the Lone Nutters because that is easy to do...We all know the Lone Nutters are uncredible so attacking them is no big feat...The real issue here is not the Lone Nutters and what they post but rather the Conspiracy Theorists like Gil who use the Lone Nutters as shields in order to not answer for their own bullshit...This is what these motherfuckers in the clique do...They flagrantly fuck-over and censor fellow Conspiracy researchers and then pop up and attack Lone Nutters in order to hide their cowardice and corruption...In this instance Gil is using that trick to try to pass off his already-disproven bullshit that Oswald was seen on the 1st Floor...Gil's claim comes directly from Greg Parker and his troll site so he has good reason to avoid accounting for it...

So while Gil poses himself as a strongly referenced and rules-oriented poster he could not back-up that claim that Oswald was seen on the 1st Floor if his cowardly life depended on it...Gil scolds others for not providing credible citation and reference but he then has the stupidity to cite the lies of the FBI against conspiracy witness Carolyn Arnold as being the truth without seeing the bigger picture of what those lies were designed to hide...Gil is stupid enough to put the FBI and its lies before Carolyn Arnold and not realize that FBI lied in order to conceal Carolyn's witnessing of Oswald in the 2nd Floor lunch Room...So the issue here is not the Lone Nutters and how they operate...The issue is uncredible Conspiracy Theorists like Gil Jesus and how they hide the real problem with JFK research by means of Lone Nutters...It isn't the Lone Nutters who are holding up the solving of the case...It is actually bogus Conspiracy Theorist researchers like Gil Jesus and his backing of Greg Parker's bullshit...

The source of this is the Education Forum and its bogus moderators...The Education Forum hosts Lone Nutters under the presumption that it is being tolerant of all opinions...This false format allows those who control the forum to avoid accounting for responsibility for good research...By allowing Lone Nutters to permanently deny real conspiracy evidence the Education Forum gives them the upper hand because the Conspiracy Theorists are caught in a cycle of having to prove the same evidence from scratch over and over...This gives Warren Commission backers the false appearance of legitimacy for which the EF moderation has no accountability...That's why the EF moderation is based on superficial manners, because it falters on credibility of claims...This lack of accountability migrates over to the CT camp where the website is reduced to favorites who enjoy a gross double standard...It is that dirty double standard that Gil employs here when he has the balls to present the FBI's lies over Carolyn Arnold as a Conspiracy Researcher...If you pay attention Gil never criticizes fellow CT-ers or their wrong claims...He only grandstands about Lone Nutters because he is fully invested in the support of the clique and knows who he is catering to...Because of the false illusion of credible research created by frauds like Gil Jesus and others the research community is shielded from the fact that it is not the Lone Nutters who are holding up the solving of the case...It is this JFK research clique with its brutal and cowardly censorship and ignoring...The members of the clique have successfully railroaded and hijacked the JFK internet and they have done it by means of the criminal non-entities of James Gordon, Kathy Beckett, and Mark Knight...The controlling center of JFK research is indeed the Education Forum and the clique associated with it...It is within these sordid confines that Gil gets away with quoting the FBI's lies against important conspiracy witness Carolyn Arnold with absolutely zero protest from that uncredible clique...There is zero merit to Gil's claim that Oswald was seen on the 1st Floor, nor could Gil present anything to show so...Gil's exploitation of that censorship has created a false scenario where my incredibly important new proof of Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at the time Gil says he was on the 1st Floor has been completely disappeared from view...Remember now, this was not done by the Lone Nutters...It was done by that ignorant asshole James Gordon and the pro-Prayer Man members of his uncredible Education Forum of which Gil is a member...Gil is a liar who posts demands for citation but then, when given more than adequate citation, has a record for cutting and running from the thread...That get out of citation card Gil flashes is issued by the clique...It is the basis of their research and has destroyed credible JFK research on the internet...So while those cowards protest against Lone Nutters they hide the fact that they themselves are the ones who disappeared the most important CT evidence in 45 years...And did it in order to protect a bullshit theory from that nut Greg Parker...

Being a 3 percentile skill researcher is actually a liability on the JFK internet that has used the false crutch of unaccountable moderators to trim the best and brightest out of the community in order to maintain a mediocre average as a false consensus...Inevitably those moderators realize they don't possess the ability to oversee my material so not wanting to lose face they attack and vilify my correct input and falsely accuse me of rules violations (that they refused to show examples of)...That's how you end up with the Greg Parkers and Gil Jesus's as the norm...Or Sandy Larsen having an "administrator" tag while he abides the censoring of my Prayer Man refutation as a pro-Prayer Man moderator...

>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

It is painful to see a coward who is protected by the dirtiest type of censorship and corruption aiming that wicked practice towards its victim in order to validate his own wrongdoing...These cowards actually see themselves as staying away from a foolish man instead of the cowardly censorship and ignoring of correct evidence it is - gained by pure violation of free speech done by a mob...

John Corbett

unread,

May 27, 2023, 11:40:28 AM5/27/23

to

I have no doubt the DPD was much more determined to nab Tippit's killer than they were JFK's
killer before finding out they were one and the same. Perhaps some in the DPD suspected that
might be the case but they didn't figure that out for sure until they had Oswald in custody for
Tippit's murder.

Bud

unread,

May 27, 2023, 5:37:14 PM5/27/23

to

Probably neck and neck as far as motivation goes, it doesn`t get any more high profile than a Presidential assassination. The world was watching.

> Perhaps some in the DPD suspected that
> might be the case but they didn't figure that out for sure until they had Oswald in custody for
> Tippit's murder.

I did read where some cops drew an automatic connection, seeing the similarities in description (young, skinny white guy).

It would be interesting to see the chronology of events as far as which evidence was available when. The bullets had to be removed from Tippit and then sent to ballistics. There would be no reason to coerce witnesses into selecting Oswald if the bullets turned out to be from another gun.

John Corbett

unread,

May 27, 2023, 6:57:12 PM5/27/23

to

You're making too much sense for this forum. Suffice it to say the DPD arrested Oswald because
they were looking for Tippit's killer and got a tip about someone in the area acting suspiciously
and sneaking into a theater without paying. Had Tippit been the only shooting victim that day, I
think the DPD reaction would have been pretty much the same up to that point. Oswald was
arrested just 10-15 minutes after the official announcement of JFK's death so it's possible,
perhaps likely, that the cops were primarily looking for a cop killer. It's impossible to say what
they knew about JFK's condition but I'm sure all of them were aware that somebody had killed
one of their fellow officers and they were determined to catch that guy.

Bud

unread,

May 27, 2023, 7:37:43 PM5/27/23

to

It will be strange if Ben no longer posts here to be able to make a point that Ben doesn`t try to talk over and bury underneath ad hom or other assorted fallacies/noise. Perhaps The Toilet will step up and fill that role.

John Corbett

unread,

May 27, 2023, 7:50:56 PM5/27/23

to

I have a hunch we haven't seen the last of Ben. He does all his posting during the week. Maybe
he posts on his office computer and doesn't have home internet. Maybe he's on vacation this
week. Considering it is the week prior to a holiday, it wouldn't be surprising if he scheduled his
vacation to stretch it an extra day.

I used to say facetiously that he was on work release during the week but had to be back in
prison on weekends. At least I think I was being facetious.

Bud

unread,

May 27, 2023, 8:24:29 PM5/27/23

to

I haven`t really got a clue, but it was definitely a break in his routine. I looked in last Monday expecting to see the usual glut of posting and nothing.

Possibly a stroke, but if he can type with a pencil in his mouth he`ll be back.

>He does all his posting during the week. Maybe
> he posts on his office computer and doesn't have home internet. Maybe he's on vacation this
> week. Considering it is the week prior to a holiday, it wouldn't be surprising if he scheduled his
> vacation to stretch it an extra day.

I remember years ago he went on vacation and still posted here.

John Corbett

unread,

May 28, 2023, 6:49:14 AM5/28/23

to

Time will tell. If he goes more than two weeks without posting, he might well be visiting Oswald
and asking him if he still molests his mother.

Charles Schuyler

unread,

May 28, 2023, 2:33:03 PM5/28/23

to

What do you think happened, Gil? Any thoughts?

Bud

unread,

May 28, 2023, 5:14:22 PM5/28/23

to

If Gil had a thought it would be very lonely.

Scrum Drum

unread,

May 28, 2023, 6:26:42 PM5/28/23

to

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 2:33:03 PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:

> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 6:05:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> What do you think happened, Gil? Any thoughts?

He ran off like he usually does when forced to answer the hard stuff like my point how it isn't the Lone Nutters who threaten the conspiracy evidence as much as the apostate CT-ers...

Scrum Drum

unread,

May 30, 2023, 1:05:39 PM5/30/23

to

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 6:26:42 PM UTC-4, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 2:33:03 PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:

.

Gil skips off and forms new threads instead of answering the ones he already made and badly faltered in...

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 30, 2023, 1:20:11 PM5/30/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
>> No citations
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>>
>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>
> You have yourself all confused as usual. This is a conspiracy
> forum, not a "bitch about the Warren Commission" forum.

Pretend to be a critic, and post even so much as a *SINGLE* sentence
about what happened in this case that I cannot point out is in
conflict with the WCR.

You won't do it.

You CAN'T do it.

So your complaint is meaningless.

> How it works is you put up supported ideas that a conspiracy took
> JFK`s life, and we see if your ideas hold water.

Nah... that's not how it works. You don't have any qualifications
necessary to do this.

You'd have to be knowledgeable on the case evidence.

You'd have to be honest.

Some believers can be knowledgeable, *NONE* can be honest.

As a simple example of this truth, not a *SINGLE* believer was willing
to quote a single sentence from the Autopsy Report, and stand by what
it said.

> We have no burden to do anything.

That's a blatant lie.

> If I claim leprechauns are real, it is up to me to support it, no
> one else has any burden to disprove the idea.

And if you claim that the WCR was correct, YOU HAVE A BURDEN TO
SUPPORT IT.

>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>
> *YOU* can`t. Every word I just wrote is going to go right over your head.

Lies generally do.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>>
>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
>
> Nobody argues that.

Amusingly, you can't tell us what it would take to convince *YOU* that
a conspiracy happened.

Because it would then prove you a liar.

> The difference is that a conspiracy *can* be proven, but "no
> conspiracy" cannot.

This is, of course, merely a bit of whining on your part to justify
why you refuse to do so.

>> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

Logical fallacy deleted. Chickenshit refuses to answer...

>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
>
> Well, go ahead, enlighten us. Show that the lineup Oswald took
> part in was not typical of the way lineups were conducted at that time
> in Dallas. Show cases that were thrown out of court at the time
> because of the way this lineup was done.

This reveals that Chickenshit *IS* aware and knows that the police
lineups were conducted improperly.

Amusingly, he still won't PUBLICLY admit it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.
>
> I know much, much more than the average person on the street about
> this case.

Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't state that he's read the 26
volumes... he merely proves that Gil is correct.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But not having knowledge is not enough.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.
>
> Like?

Lie again, and claim you have no knowledge of what Gil states...

>> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>
> Put the evidence here.

Lie again, and tell everyone that you don't already know...

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>
> The one with Oswald`s fingerprints on it?

Said who?

>> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
>
> Addressed above. You haven`t shown anything unusual about this lineup.

No, not addressed at all. Indeed, you implicitly admitted the
impropriety of these lineups.

>> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>
> Unknown if the scope was used.

The Warren Commission concluded that it had been. If you're going to
call the Warren Commission liars, do it explicitly.

> Unknown what condition the scope was in during the shooting.

Not any different from when the rifle was examined.

> The fragments in the limo speak loudly that the weapon was accurate.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>
> They gave the location using measurements.

You're lying again, Chickenshit. Show us that you're knowledgeable,
tell us the accurate way to locate any wound on the back of a
person...

But I predict that you won't... you're a coward.

>> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about their response to the gunshots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was corrupt and only cared about convictions, including 19 convictions that were overturned on DNA evidence.
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And that he executed an innocent man in 1954
>> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
>
> This article does not prove innocence, at best it gives reasons to
> question guilt. The guy confessed twice. There is no exonerating DNA
> evidence.

Not a refutation... you lose!

>> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.
>> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

(Anyone notice how often believers use logical fallacies?)

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 30, 2023, 2:37:40 PM5/30/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 06:21:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
>> No citations
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>>
>The LN case was published by the Warren Commission in 1964. There is little we can add to
>that, other than technological advancements which help to confirm the original finding. The
>report is 888 pages long. It is supported by 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits which was
>also made public. It is now online for all to see. We have no need to reinvent the wheel.

All Corbutt just did was demonstrate the accuracy of Gil's point.

>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>
>They got the right answer. There is only one. Why do you think there is another?

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
>
>We argue that because conspiracy can't be proven, there is no reason to believe there was one.

There you go again, calling Chickenshit a liar.

>> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?
>> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.
>
>This murder was solved. In the case of an unsolved murder, you have a murder victim which is
>proof there was a murder. In the six decades since the assassination, no one has presented any
>evidence that Oswald had even a single accomplice.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
>
>Oswald's rights were not violated, even though his crime was committed before the Supreme
>Court handed down the Miranda decision. He was offered legal counsel which he declined.

You're lying, Corbutt... and amusingly, you know enough about this
case to KNOW you're lying.

>> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.
>>
>> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.
>
>I haven't read the encyclopedia either but if there is something I need to check out, I know where
>to find it. The 26 volumes are reference material. If someone wants to read the entire thing, that
>is up to them, but it is not necessary to read them cover-to-cover to be informed about the
>important facts of the assassination. There is ample proof presented in the 888 page report
>that provides positive proof Oswald was the assassin. There is no evidence inside or outside
>the 26 volumes he had any accomplices.

And again, Corbutt proclaims Gil's point to be 100% accurate.

>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>>

>We don't waste our time ...

Again Corbutt points out the accuracy of Gil's statement...

>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.
>>
>Every president makes enemies. There is only evidence that one of them decided to kill him.

Corbutt AGAIN points out the accuracy of Gil's statement.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.
>
>There is no evidence Oswald was innocent.

Lying won't convince anyone.

>You've been offered the opportunity to present such

>evidence...

And we posted it.

>> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>
>Simply untrue. Carolyn Arnold claimed to have seen Oswald on the first floor BEFORE the

>assassination and she didn't make that claim until 15 years later...

You're lying again, Corbutt.

>> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>>
>Preposterous.

Then simply produce the photo of the bag when it was found...

>> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about their response to the gunshots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>>
>> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They ignore evidence that the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, was corrupt and only cared about convictions, including 19 convictions that were overturned on DNA evidence.
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And that he executed an innocent man in 1954
>> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.
>>
>> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.
>> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Logical fallacy deleted.

Bud

unread,

May 30, 2023, 2:48:31 PM5/30/23

to

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 1:20:11 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2023 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
> >> No citations
> >> No documents
> >> No testimony
> >> No exhibits
> >> No witness videos
> >>
> >> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
> >
> > You have yourself all confused as usual. This is a conspiracy
> > forum, not a "bitch about the Warren Commission" forum.
> Pretend to be a critic, and post even so much as a *SINGLE* sentence
> about what happened in this case that I cannot point out is in
> conflict with the WCR.

Non sequitur.

> You won't do it.
>
> You CAN'T do it.
>
> So your complaint is meaningless.

You made noise, and what I wrote remains true.

> > How it works is you put up supported ideas that a conspiracy took
> > JFK`s life, and we see if your ideas hold water.
> Nah... that's not how it works. You don't have any qualifications
> necessary to do this.

You don`t get to blame your shortcomings on other people. It is not our fault you folks won`t put up, and won`t shut up.

> You'd have to be knowledgeable on the case evidence.
>
> You'd have to be honest.
>
> Some believers can be knowledgeable, *NONE* can be honest.
>
> As a simple example of this truth, not a *SINGLE* believer was willing
> to quote a single sentence from the Autopsy Report, and stand by what
> it said.

You are doing the game playing thing where your isolate one thing out of context.

> > We have no burden to do anything.
> That's a blatant lie.

An idiot might think that.

> > If I claim leprechauns are real, it is up to me to support it, no
> > one else has any burden to disprove the idea.
> And if you claim that the WCR was correct, YOU HAVE A BURDEN TO
> SUPPORT IT.

I claim the WC came to the only reasonable conclusion. This is my opinion, which you are welcome to try to change. But you actually need something more to do it than hot air and desperation.

> >> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
> >
> > *YOU* can`t. Every word I just wrote is going to go right over your head.
> Lies generally do.
>
>
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Boy, I missed this sort of cowardice.

> >> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
> >>
> >> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
> >
> > Nobody argues that.
> Amusingly, you can't tell us what it would take to convince *YOU* that
> a conspiracy happened.

Compelling, reasonable evidence-based arguments.

> Because it would then prove you a liar.

The truth looks that way to liars.

> > The difference is that a conspiracy *can* be proven, but "no
> > conspiracy" cannot.
> This is, of course, merely a bit of whining on your part to justify
> why you refuse to do so.

You non sequitur doesn`t speak to what you are responding to, why is that?

When you can`t contest a simple truth you try to talk over it.

> >> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?
> Logical fallacy deleted.

A week without such displays of cowardice, I don`t think I could go two. I do enjoy watching Ben run...

> >> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.
> Logical fallacy deleted. Chickenshit refuses to answer...

You removed my answer, stupid.

> >> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
> >
> > Well, go ahead, enlighten us. Show that the lineup Oswald took
> > part in was not typical of the way lineups were conducted at that time
> > in Dallas. Show cases that were thrown out of court at the time
> > because of the way this lineup was done.
> This reveals that Chickenshit *IS* aware and knows that the police
> lineups were conducted improperly.

Non sequitur. Do try to speak to what you are responding to.

> Amusingly, he still won't PUBLICLY admit it.

I told you what you needed. You think it is just as good not having what you need.

Well, Ben is back, running just as fast as his stumpy little legs can carry him. Still thinks if he talks over a point or removes a point it hasn`t been made.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 30, 2023, 4:14:01 PM5/30/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 08:40:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have no doubt the DPD was much more determined to nab Tippit's killer than they were JFK's
>killer before finding out they were one and the same. Perhaps some in the DPD suspected that
>might be the case but they didn't figure that out for sure until they had Oswald in custody for
>Tippit's murder.

And yet, you can't name ANY evidence against Oswald that preceded his
arrest.

Why is that, coward?

(Oops... I answered my own question.)

BT George

unread,

May 30, 2023, 4:33:07 PM5/30/23

to

Yeah. But I can always claim I am practicing the second part of this paradox from Proverbs 26:4-5:

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. (I.e., don't be a silly and pointless as he is in his responses.)

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. (I.e., Don't let his pride build up by letting his foolishness go utterly unchecked either.)

In fact, I believe Holmes, Gill, and other CT's around here are the quintessential kind of persons these instructions have in mine.

BT George

unread,

May 30, 2023, 4:39:27 PM5/30/23

to

BTW, there is no contradiction between these paradoxes and Gil's (misapplied) Proverbs 14:7 For I would paraphrase that one is, "Don't hang out spending quality time with fools and expect to learn anything, except how to be a fool too!

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 30, 2023, 7:24:15 PM5/30/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 16:37:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> It will be strange if Ben no longer posts here to be able to make a
> point that Ben doesn`t try to talk over and bury underneath ad hom or
> other assorted fallacies/noise. Perhaps The Toilet will step up and
> fill that role.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

Bud

unread,

May 30, 2023, 7:53:32 PM5/30/23

to

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 7:24:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2023 16:37:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > It will be strange if Ben no longer posts here to be able to make a
> > point that Ben doesn`t try to talk over and bury underneath ad hom or
> > other assorted fallacies/noise. Perhaps The Toilet will step up and
> > fill that role.
> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only truth.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 30, 2023, 7:54:01 PM5/30/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 16:50:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have a hunch we haven't seen the last of Ben. He does all his posting during the week. Maybe
>he posts on his office computer and doesn't have home internet. Maybe he's on vacation this
>week. Considering it is the week prior to a holiday, it wouldn't be surprising if he scheduled his
>vacation to stretch it an extra day.
>
>I used to say facetiously that he was on work release during the week but had to be back in
>prison on weekends. At least I think I was being facetious.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 31, 2023, 1:29:00 PM5/31/23

to

On Sat, 27 May 2023 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I haven`t really got a clue, but it was definitely a break in his
> routine. I looked in last Monday expecting to see the usual glut of
> posting and nothing.
>
> Possibly a stroke, but if he can type with a pencil in his mouth he`ll be back.
>

> I remember years ago he went on vacation and still posted here.

I live rent free...

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 31, 2023, 1:59:23 PM5/31/23

to

On Sun, 28 May 2023 11:33:02 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

A question that Chuckles ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to answer and support.
Such amazing cowardice!

Bud

unread,

May 31, 2023, 6:03:53 PM5/31/23

to

It was quiet without the Swampmaster General around.

John Corbett

unread,

May 31, 2023, 6:12:44 PM5/31/23

to

It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post yet I would estimate the volume of posts have
quadrupled over last week and that might be conservative. There is hardly a thread he hasn't
poked his nose into while contributing nothing to the discourse.

Ben Holmes

unread,

May 31, 2023, 6:47:16 PM5/31/23

to

On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:12:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post

It's comical that you believe Chickenshit ever defined that term...

> There is hardly a thread he hasn't poked his nose into while
> contributing nothing to the discourse.

Bud

unread,

May 31, 2023, 8:06:22 PM5/31/23

to

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:47:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:12:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post
> It's comical that you believe Chickenshit ever defined that term...

Strange that everyone knew what I meant but you, the person doing the swamp posting.

Bud

unread,

May 31, 2023, 8:08:20 PM5/31/23

to

On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:12:44 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:03:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:29:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Sat, 27 May 2023 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I haven`t really got a clue, but it was definitely a break in his
> > > > routine. I looked in last Monday expecting to see the usual glut of
> > > > posting and nothing.
> > > >
> > > > Possibly a stroke, but if he can type with a pencil in his mouth he`ll be back.
> > > >
> > > > I remember years ago he went on vacation and still posted here.
> > > I live rent free...
> > It was quiet without the Swampmaster General around.
> It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post yet I would estimate the volume of posts have
> quadrupled over last week and that might be conservative.

He was pent up.

> There is hardly a thread he hasn't
> poked his nose into while contributing nothing to the discourse.

He thinks he is accomplishing something by talking over everyone.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 9:28:18 AM6/8/23

to

On Tue, 30 May 2023 11:48:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 1:20:11?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2023 06:15:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 7:05:02?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
>>>> No citations
>>>> No documents
>>>> No testimony
>>>> No exhibits
>>>> No witness videos
>>>>
>>>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>>>
>>> You have yourself all confused as usual. This is a conspiracy
>>> forum, not a "bitch about the Warren Commission" forum.
>>
>> Pretend to be a critic, and post even so much as a *SINGLE* sentence
>> about what happened in this case that I cannot point out is in
>> conflict with the WCR.
>>

>> You won't do it.
>>
>> You CAN'T do it.
>>
>> So your complaint is meaningless.

And you didn't... thus proving myself correct.

Yet again.

>>> How it works is you put up supported ideas that a conspiracy took
>>> JFK`s life, and we see if your ideas hold water.
>>
>> Nah... that's not how it works. You don't have any qualifications
>> necessary to do this.
>>

>> You'd have to be knowledgeable on the case evidence.
>>
>> You'd have to be honest.
>>
>> Some believers can be knowledgeable, *NONE* can be honest.
>>
>> As a simple example of this truth, not a *SINGLE* believer was willing
>> to quote a single sentence from the Autopsy Report, and stand by what
>> it said.

Cowardice deleted...

>>> We have no burden to do anything.
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>

>>> If I claim leprechauns are real, it is up to me to support it, no
>>> one else has any burden to disprove the idea.
>> And if you claim that the WCR was correct, YOU HAVE A BURDEN TO
>> SUPPORT IT.
>
> I claim the WC came to the only reasonable conclusion.

It's an unsupported claim... therefore, according to YOU, we know
you're lying...

>>>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>>>
>>> *YOU* can`t. Every word I just wrote is going to go right over your head.
>>
>> Lies generally do.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>

>>>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>>>>
>>>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
>>>
>>> Nobody argues that.
>>
>> Amusingly, you can't tell us what it would take to convince *YOU* that
>> a conspiracy happened.
>
> Compelling, reasonable evidence-based arguments.

You're lying again...

>> Because it would then prove you a liar.
>>

>>> The difference is that a conspiracy *can* be proven, but "no
>>> conspiracy" cannot.
>>
>> This is, of course, merely a bit of whining on your part to justify
>> why you refuse to do so.
>>

>>>> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ?
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>

>>>> You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted. Chickenshit refuses to answer...
>>

>>>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
>>>
>>> Well, go ahead, enlighten us. Show that the lineup Oswald took
>>> part in was not typical of the way lineups were conducted at that time
>>> in Dallas. Show cases that were thrown out of court at the time
>>> because of the way this lineup was done.
>>
>> This reveals that Chickenshit *IS* aware and knows that the police
>> lineups were conducted improperly.
>>

>> Amusingly, he still won't PUBLICLY admit it.
>>

And once again, Chickenshit couldn't do it.

It's really simple, you specify which vertebra it's adjacent to, and
the measurement away from the centerline. Those two specifics will
pinpoint any wound anywhere on someone's back.

Chickenshit not only could *NOT* give this easy and accurate method,
but he'll be TOTALLY UNABLE to agree to it publicly, or to refute it.

Chickenshit loses again...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 9:28:19 AM6/8/23

to

On Tue, 30 May 2023 16:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 7:24:15?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 May 2023 16:37:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> It will be strange if Ben no longer posts here to be able to make a
>>> point that Ben doesn`t try to talk over and bury underneath ad hom or
>>> other assorted fallacies/noise. Perhaps The Toilet will step up and
>>> fill that role.
>>
>> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
>

> Only lies.

No, you like to mix your lies with logical fallacies...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 9:29:42 AM6/8/23

to

On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Of COURSE it was. You believers need me. You're *LOST* without
someone to whine about.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 9:30:14 AM6/8/23

to

On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:12:44?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:03:53?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:29:00?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 May 2023 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I haven`t really got a clue, but it was definitely a break in his
>>>>> routine. I looked in last Monday expecting to see the usual glut of
>>>>> posting and nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly a stroke, but if he can type with a pencil in his mouth he`ll be back.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember years ago he went on vacation and still posted here.
>>>> I live rent free...
>>> It was quiet without the Swampmaster General around.
>> It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post yet I would estimate the volume of posts have
>> quadrupled over last week and that might be conservative.
>
> He was pent up.

Speculation and logical fallacies are the hallmark of believers...

>> There is hardly a thread he hasn't
>> poked his nose into while contributing nothing to the discourse.
>
> He thinks he is accomplishing something by talking over everyone.

You really miss the censored forum, don't you?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 9:30:24 AM6/8/23

to

On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:47:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:12:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post
>> It's comical that you believe Chickenshit ever defined that term...
>
> Strange that everyone knew what I meant but you, the person doing the swamp posting.

Not strange at all that you have continued to refuse to cite a
definition...

You can't.

Bud

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 4:01:15 PM6/8/23

to

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:08:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:12:44?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:03:53?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:29:00?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 May 2023 17:24:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I haven`t really got a clue, but it was definitely a break in his
> >>>>> routine. I looked in last Monday expecting to see the usual glut of
> >>>>> posting and nothing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Possibly a stroke, but if he can type with a pencil in his mouth he`ll be back.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I remember years ago he went on vacation and still posted here.
> >>>> I live rent free...
> >>> It was quiet without the Swampmaster General around.
> >> It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post yet I would estimate the volume of posts have
> >> quadrupled over last week and that might be conservative.
> >
> > He was pent up.
> Speculation and logical fallacies are the hallmark of believers...

A sense of humor is.

> >> There is hardly a thread he hasn't
> >> poked his nose into while contributing nothing to the discourse.
> >
> > He thinks he is accomplishing something by talking over everyone.
> You really miss the censored forum, don't you?

I miss the OT posts, they were sometimes interesting. Rehashing this conspiracy crap over and over is boring. You guys never have anything.

Bud

unread,

Jun 8, 2023, 4:02:31 PM6/8/23

to

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 17:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:47:16?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:12:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> >> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It's comical that claims he doesn't swamp post
> >> It's comical that you believe Chickenshit ever defined that term...
> >
> > Strange that everyone knew what I meant but you, the person doing the swamp posting.
> Not strange at all that you have continued to refuse to cite a
> definition...

unread,

Jun 17, 2023, 8:58:09 PM6/17/23

to

You are providing more enjoyment as you scurry around deleting things while you wet your panties.

Ben Holmes

unread,

unread,

Jun 21, 2023, 11:01:34 AM6/21/23

to

One supports his views; the other opposes it. Facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter - it's all about fitting into his view of the world.
Remember he also knows the Covid vaccines were developed with the knowledge that they will kill many people by causing pericarditis/myocarditis/heart problems. And yet the same people who made the vaccines, who promoted them, who were involved with their development, took them themselves. And had their families take them. Even though they *knew* it would likely kill them. In some fantasy world that makes sense; in this real world it doesn't.

John Corbett

unread,

Jun 21, 2023, 12:14:14 PM6/21/23

to

I've never understood how taking vaccines became a political issue when it is purely a medical
one. I am a conservative and fully vaccinated and boosted (which reminds me, I'm due for
another booster). It seems it is mostly conservatives who are anti-vaxers although RFK Jr. is
also one. While Trump was in office, it was the liberals who were saying they wouldn't take a
vaccine which Trump had rushed through the process. Call me weird but I turned to my doctor
to get advice on whether to take the jab.

I am against vaccine mandates. People should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves.
Even dumb decisions. The vaccine doesn't stop people from getting the virus. It doesn't stop
people from spreading the virus. What it does do is lower the chances one will become deathly
ill from the virus. That was good enough for me. Since the vaccine doesn't stop people from
spreading the disease, the government has no business mandating that people must get the
shot, even if they work for the government.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

unread,

Jun 24, 2023, 6:58:09 AM6/24/23

to

You and I are thinking along the same lines. Yesterday in another news group I wrote the
following under the title "OMG!!! The White House press corps is committing journalism"

Today, they were actually grilling Karine Jean-Pierre over the bombshell
revelation that despite Joe's 2019 bald faced lie that he had never been
involved in Hunter's business dealings, Hunter's text message proved he
was in the room when Hunter was shaking down a China business
associate. Jean-Pierre naturally stonewalled all questions and tried to
redirect them to the White House counsel but the press corps was having
none of it and it turned into a feeding frenzy.

Now we know that 90% of the White House press corps has been in bed with
the Democrats for decades and they didn't suddenly have an infusion of
ethics. This is a calculated shift done with the blessing and possibly even
the direction of the DNC. I think even the Democrat leadership recognizes
this is probably just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Biden Crime
Family, just as Watergate was about far more than a break-in at DNC HQ.
The Biden presidency is beginning to unravel and the DNC is trying to figure
out what their exit strategy will be. It seems to me this could take three
different routes.

1. Joe is pressured to withdraw from the 2024 race, presumably to make way
for Gavin Newsome, although don't think Hillary isn't waiting to pounce.

2. Joe is pressured to resign, making Kamala the 47th POTUS.

3. Joe refuses to resign and the Dems join the Republicans in impeaching
and removing Joe from office.

Options 2 and 3 would make Kamala the POTUS. The downside to that is it
would make Kamala the POTUS. Dems know she is as unelectable as Joe
but if she becomes POTUS before next year's primary season, it would be
hard to dump her. I think the DNC would prefer option 1. They want to see
just enough dirt on Joe to force him to withdraw as a 2024 candidate but
not so much as to force him out of office. They don't want either Joe or
Kamala heading their ticket in 2024, so they have to tiptoe through this mine
field.

John Corbett

unread,

Jun 24, 2023, 7:03:46 AM6/24/23

to

Joe might have been present physically but not mentally. I'm sure he has no memory of it.
I doubt he remembers where the men's room is off the Oval Office.

>
> I suspect Joe Biden has outlived his usefulness, he is seen as a handicap who might allow Trump to get elected. This would leave the swamp vulnerable, and they won`t risk that.

I wonder how long before Jim Jordan's committee subpoena's Hunter. Of course, he is going to
take the Fifth but it would make for good television and a nice campaign ad for 2024 if Joe does
manage to get renominated.

Bud

unread,

unread,

Jun 28, 2023, 9:29:27 AM6/28/23

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 06:41:31 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 8:17:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 4:23:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>> All these Lone Nutters can post is opinions.
>> I have better things to do with my time than read their bullshit opinions.
>

>You're the guy who said ...

Another PERFECT example of a troll spouting another logical fallacy.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 28, 2023, 9:29:27 AM6/28/23

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 05:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 4:23:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
>All these Lone Nutters can post is opinions.
>I have better things to do with my time than read their bullshit opinions.

Indeed! I merely point it out and move on...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 28, 2023, 9:29:28 AM6/28/23

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 07:46:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 9:41:32?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 8:17:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 4:23:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>
>>> All these Lone Nutters can post is opinions.
>>> I have better things to do with my time than read their bullshit opinions.
>> You're the guy who said "the Russians got it right" in their investigation. And then later admitted he knew nothing about their investigation. They got it right even though you know nothing about it? Does that make sense? Or is that just an opinion?
>> And the Russians said that the CIA killed JFK. You say the Birchers were allowed to kill JFK by the "militarists" who ran policy in order to get him out of their way. The CIA is not the Birchers.
>> See, all you have to do to get out of this is to admit you made a mistake. Withdraw your endorsement of the Russian investigation. Say you were wrong. But you can't admit error, you can't acknowledge making a mistake because the assassination is some weird obsession with you and you think you're an expert. You're not. You're some guy sitting behind a computer smearing and defaming innocent people and then accusing others of not being faithful to the "innocent until proven guilty" standard. You claim all sorts of people are guilty and then lecture others about not following the presumption of innocence?
>> I would suggest that you clean up your own act before lecturing others about their problems.
>
>Gil is perfectly willing to acknowledge the Russia hoax regarding the Steele dossier (which it was)
>but not the Russia hoax regarding the JFK assassination.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 28, 2023, 9:29:28 AM6/28/23

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 09:14:12 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've never understood how taking vaccines became a political issue when it is purely a medical
>one. I am a conservative and fully vaccinated and boosted (which reminds me, I'm due for
>another booster). It seems it is mostly conservatives who are anti-vaxers although RFK Jr. is
>also one. While Trump was in office, it was the liberals who were saying they wouldn't take a
>vaccine which Trump had rushed through the process. Call me weird but I turned to my doctor
>to get advice on whether to take the jab.
>
>I am against vaccine mandates. People should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves.
>Even dumb decisions. The vaccine doesn't stop people from getting the virus. It doesn't stop
>people from spreading the virus. What it does do is lower the chances one will become deathly
>ill from the virus. That was good enough for me. Since the vaccine doesn't stop people from
>spreading the disease, the government has no business mandating that people must get the
>shot, even if they work for the government.

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. And not even about the assassination of JFK. We gain
nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jun 28, 2023, 9:29:28 AM6/28/23

to

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 08:01:32 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>One supports his views; the other opposes it. Facts don't matter, logic doesn't matter - it's all about fitting into his view of the world.
>Remember he also knows the Covid vaccines were developed with the knowledge that they will kill many people by causing pericarditis/myocarditis/heart problems. And yet the same people who made the vaccines, who promoted them, who were involved with their development, took them themselves. And had their families take them. Even though they *knew* it would likely kill them. In some fantasy world that makes sense; in this real world it doesn't.

Logical fallacies, speculations, and silly & wacky theories... you're
a real kook, aren't you?