An Unreported Bullet...(LNers remain steadfastly unconcerned)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Secret memorandums of the FBI reveal Gerald Ford had secretly conferred with FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach in 1964 assuring him that the lone gunman theory was secure. "Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the Commission," DeLoach wrote. At a December 1963 meeting, Ford told the assistant director that two commissioners did not believe that JFK had been shot from the sixth floor of the TSBD, but that these members’ dissenting views “of course would represent no problem." When the Report was completed, it was John J. McCloy and Representative Gerald R. Ford who were instrumental in pushing it through to acceptance despite the cynicism of some members on the panel.

Subsequent correspondence from Navy doctor James Young informing Ford of a whole bullet found in the back of JFK's limo go largely ignored. The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine. They came back with three pieces of bone, and the bullet. The skull fragments were reported — but not the bullet.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8

[Bud]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 9:03:37 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Secret memorandums of the FBI reveal Gerald Ford had secretly conferred with FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach in 1964 assuring him that the lone gunman theory was secure.

Produce those documents and show how they satisfy this claim.

> "Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the Commission," DeLoach wrote.

One sentence out of context, a favorite tool of the conspiracy retard.

> At a December 1963 meeting, Ford told the assistant director that two commissioners did not believe that JFK had been shot from the sixth floor of the TSBD, but that these members’ dissenting views “of course would represent no problem."

Let`s see it.

> When the Report was completed, it was John J. McCloy and Representative Gerald R. Ford who were instrumental in pushing it through to acceptance despite the cynicism of some members on the panel.

Back that up.

> Subsequent correspondence from Navy doctor James Young informing Ford of a whole bullet found in the back of JFK's limo go largely ignored.

As well they should have been.

> The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine.

Show that the limo was at Bethesda.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy, your questions aren't even that good.


YOUNG: Dear President Ford, two of my corpsmen found a whole bullet in the Queen Mary. This concerns me greatly. Do you know anything about this?

FORD: Nah, but read "Case Closed".

Heh-heh-heh...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Then you should have no trouble answering them.

>
>
> YOUNG: Dear President Ford, two of my corpsmen found a whole bullet in the Queen Mary. This concerns me greatly. Do you know anything about this?

I thought you kooks claimed the SS got a mop and bucket and cleaned out the limo at Parkland. How'd they miss a whole bullet?

[Bud]

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 10:02:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 9:29:01 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 9:03:37 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Secret memorandums of the FBI reveal Gerald Ford had secretly conferred with FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach in 1964 assuring him that the lone gunman theory was secure.
> >
> > Produce those documents and show how they satisfy this claim.
> >
> > > "Ford indicated he would keep me thoroughly advised as to the activities of the Commission," DeLoach wrote.
> >
> > One sentence out of context, a favorite tool of the conspiracy retard.
> >
> > > At a December 1963 meeting, Ford told the assistant director that two commissioners did not believe that JFK had been shot from the sixth floor of the TSBD, but that these members’ dissenting views “of course would represent no problem."
> >
> > Let`s see it.
> >
> > > When the Report was completed, it was John J. McCloy and Representative Gerald R. Ford who were instrumental in pushing it through to acceptance despite the cynicism of some members on the panel.
> >
> > Back that up.
> >
> > > Subsequent correspondence from Navy doctor James Young informing Ford of a whole bullet found in the back of JFK's limo go largely ignored.
> >
> > As well they should have been.
> >
> > > The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine.
> >
> > Show that the limo was at Bethesda.
> >
> > > They came back with three pieces of bone, and the bullet. The skull fragments were reported — but not the bullet.
> > >
> > > https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
>
> Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy,

Wow, I never heard of that one, but I looked it up and you application of it is hilarious. The fallacy...

"occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic."

You produce claims, but when pressed to support these claims, your defense is that you are ignorant of whether the claims are accurate or not since you aren`t an expert. You don`t need to be an expert to produce these sources to show they say what is claimed.

> your questions aren't even that good.

Then why are you running from them?

>
> YOUNG: Dear President Ford, two of my corpsmen found a whole bullet in the Queen Mary. This concerns me greatly. Do you know anything about this?
>
> FORD: Nah, but read "Case Closed".
>
> Heh-heh-heh...

Lets see you firm up the claim. Never happen.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy,
>

> Wow, I never heard of that one, but I looked it up and you application of it is accurate. The fallacy...

>
> "occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic."

That's exactly right. You're intending to discredit a claim by way of a series of demands you know are impossible to produce over a computer, because you're intellectually dishonest. I could use this same tactic to disprove your claim that you had breakfast today, or yesterday, or the day before. I could use it to disprove anything I wanted.

>
> > your questions aren't even that good.
>
> Then why are you running from them?

Pay attention, Chernobyl fallout. The reason your questions are so weak is because half of them are *barely* questions, rather imbecilic demands.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof

Otherwise...

Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?

Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?

Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?

If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.

And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.

> >
> > YOUNG: Dear President Ford, two of my corpsmen found a whole bullet in the Queen Mary. This concerns me greatly. Do you know anything about this?
> >
> > FORD: Nah, but read "Case Closed".
> >
> > Heh-heh-heh...
>
> Lets see you firm up the claim. Never happen.

It's clear to anyone but an intellectually dishonest retard that I'm being hyperbolic with that dialogue. But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8

All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo. If he's a liar, why, and what is your evidence?

We all know where this is going to go...

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 3:27:44 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy,
> >
> > Wow, I never heard of that one, but I looked it up and you application of it is accurate. The fallacy...
> >
> > "occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic."
>
> That's exactly right. You're intending to discredit a claim by way of a series of demands you know are impossible to produce over a computer, because you're intellectually dishonest.

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

> I could use this same tactic to disprove your claim that you had breakfast today, or yesterday, or the day before. I could use it to disprove anything I wanted.

How does that compare? You really are too stupid to try to have a dialog with. You can`t make simple distinctions. Your initial post had claims like...

"Secret memorandums of the FBI reveal Gerald Ford had secretly conferred with FBI Assistant Director Cartha D. DeLoach in 1964 assuring him that the lone gunman theory was secure."

This is a claim that a specific source says a specific thing. How does that compare to what I had for breakfast? If I said "I ate a goat for breakfast and I have the documentation to prove this.", naturally your response will be "Lets see it."

> > > your questions aren't even that good.
> >
> > Then why are you running from them?
>
> Pay attention, Chernobyl fallout. The reason your questions are so weak is because half of them are *barely* questions, rather imbecilic demands.

Demands that ask you to support your claims are "imbecilic"? It would be imbecilic to take the claims of a retard at face value.

> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof
>
> Otherwise...
>
> Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?

He didn`t say.

> Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?

He didn`t say.

> Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?

He didn`t say.

> If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.

No trouble at all.

> And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.

In which case you would have to show where he *did* say.

Challenges to read someone mind are silly, it is like me demanding you tell me what number I`m thinking of.

> > > YOUNG: Dear President Ford, two of my corpsmen found a whole bullet in the Queen Mary. This concerns me greatly. Do you know anything about this?
> > >
> > > FORD: Nah, but read "Case Closed".
> > >
> > > Heh-heh-heh...
> >
> > Lets see you firm up the claim. Never happen.
>
> It's clear to anyone but an intellectually dishonest retard that I'm being hyperbolic with that dialogue.

You didn`t understand the challenge. Firm up the claims made in the article and in the letter. Produce the corpsmen to corroborate. Show that the skull fragments mentioned aren`t the ones that came from Dealey Plaza. Show a viable timeline for these corpsmen to get to the limo before the FBI processed it for evidence. Support that two corpsmen visited the garage (who saw them? Any documentation of admittance?). Firm it up.

> But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.
>
> https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
>
> All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo.

Fallacy of false choices or false dilemma fallacy.

First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.

Ready, get set, fail.

> If he's a liar, why, and what is your evidence?
>
> We all know where this is going to go...

Oh, yes. You will squeal like a child who has had it`s favorite toy taken away from it. You like the sound of these things and you cry if they are critically examined.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 2:27:44 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy,
> >
> > Wow, I never heard of that one, but I looked it up and you application of it is accurate. The fallacy...
> >
> > "occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic."
>
> That's exactly right. You're intending to discredit a claim by way of a series of demands you know are impossible to produce over a computer, because you're intellectually dishonest. I could use this same tactic to disprove your claim that you had breakfast today, or yesterday, or the day before. I could use it to disprove anything I wanted.
>
>
> >
> > > your questions aren't even that good.
> >
> > Then why are you running from them?
>
> Pay attention, Chernobyl fallout. The reason your questions are so weak is because half of them are *barely* questions, rather imbecilic demands.
>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof
>
> Otherwise...
>
> Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
>
> Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
>
> Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
>
> If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.
>
> And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.

Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are. You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 19:10:10 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Frantic, aren't you? Not only is your approach a transparent "On the Spot" logical fallacy, your questions aren't even that good.
>
>Then you should have no trouble answering them.

This is the proof that you lost.

Critics can and do answer any evidence based questions that are asked,
but the opposite IS NOT TRUE.

Can you explain why believers run from questions about the evidence?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Demands that ask you to support your claims are "imbecilic"? It would be imbecilic to take the claims of a retard at face value.

Let's see....

> >
> > Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
>
> He didn`t say.

Empty claim. Back that up.

>
> > Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
>
> He didn`t say.

Empty claim. Show this.

>
> > Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
>
> He didn`t say.

Empty claim. Let's see it.

>
> > If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.
>
> No trouble at all.

The fact is, you don't know what he said or didn't say.

>
> > And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.
>
> In which case you would have to show where he *did* say.

No I don't. I never made a claim as to whether or not he "said or didn't say." I'm asking rhetorical defensive questions; *you're* making a direct claim as to what he said or didn't say.

>
> Challenges to read someone mind are silly, it is like me demanding you tell me what number I`m thinking of.

Probably 3. I doubt you can count much higher.

>
> > But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.
> >
> > https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
> >
> > All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo.
>
> Fallacy of false choices or false dilemma fallacy.

What's the third choice?

Also forgot to mention Burkley. He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.

>
> First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.

“Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”

So if Young didn't write the letter, then it was a forgery and a plant. That's some KonSpirAcy KooK nonsense, retard. Oh, also...Gerald Ford wrote back to him. Hope that helps.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.

What's the historically accepted case?

>
> You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.

History has no responsibility or burden to prove or disprove itself. As Chuck will demonstrate in a couple of minutes.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:55:35 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Demands that ask you to support your claims are "imbecilic"? It would be imbecilic to take the claims of a retard at face value.
>
> Let's see....
>
>
> > >
> > > Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
> >
> > He didn`t say.
>
> Empty claim. Back that up.

Can`t prove a negative.

> >
> > > Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
> >
> > He didn`t say.
>
> Empty claim. Show this.

Can`t prove a negative.

> >
> > > Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
> >
> > He didn`t say.
>
> Empty claim. Let's see it.

Can`t prove a negative.

> >
> > > If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.
> >
> > No trouble at all.
>
> The fact is, you don't know what he said or didn't say.

So you aren`t sure he didn`t confess. And without knowing for sure he didn`t confess you have no business claiming he is innocent.

> >
> > > And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.
> >
> > In which case you would have to show where he *did* say.
>
> No I don't. I never made a claim as to whether or not he "said or didn't say." I'm asking rhetorical defensive questions;

How could they be rhetorical questions? They are questions that require information directly from Oswald since they are decisions he made. Since you know Oswald didn`t supply the necessary information why ask the questions at all?

> *you're* making a direct claim as to what he said or didn't say.

I`m using deductive reasoning to conclude he didn`t say. Let`s see you dispute my conclusion.

> > Challenges to read someone mind are silly, it is like me demanding you tell me what number I`m thinking of.
>
> Probably 3. I doubt you can count much higher.
>
>
> >
> > > But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.
> > >
> > > https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
> > >
> > > All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo.
> >
> > Fallacy of false choices or false dilemma fallacy.
>
> What's the third choice?

There are an infinite number of choices. He was on PCP when he wrote the letter. He was on heroin when he wrote the letter.He was drunk when he wrote the letter. Someone held and gun on him and made him write the letter. Someone held a knife on him. A broken bottle. He misremembered the event. He conflated things. On and on. You have to rule out each one of the infinite number of possibilities before you can make these "either/or" constructs.

> Also forgot to mention Burkley.

You forgot to quote him saying something relevant to this issue.

> He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.

Maybe you should grow a pair and make an argument rather than invent positions I`ve never taken.

> >
> > First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.
>
>
> “Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”

<snicker> I bet it was. Did he establish how they got there?

> So if Young didn't write the letter, then it was a forgery and a plant.

Not necessarily. You are a one dimensional thinker.

> That's some KonSpirAcy KooK nonsense, retard.

Why would I doubt that a conspiracy retard would do this, seeing how honest they are around here? Certainly it is about a million times less fantastic than the idea that an accomplished doctor like Humes would risk his career and freedom to tamper with evidence in the murder of the President.

> Oh, also...Gerald Ford wrote back to him. Hope that helps.

Oh, somebody might have written to Ford, and Ford might have written back to that person. That doesn`t mean it was Young.

I`ll tell you what you do, genius. Go on google maps and search for the address given on the letter...

77 Harvey Mill Road

Lee, New Hampshire 03824

Come back here and let me know what you find.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>
> What's the historically accepted case?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:57:19 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>
> What's the historically accepted case?

Oswald killed JFK and Tippit and wounded Connally. No known conspiracy.

>
> >
> > You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.
>
> History has no responsibility or burden to prove or disprove itself. As Chuck will demonstrate in a couple of minutes.

This is a straw man argument and another attempt to reset the argument from the fringe. If you think something different happened than what is accepted historically, you need to put forward a positive case for what you allege. This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny Cochrane. Creating "reasonable doubt" isn't going to change the historical verdict. There are thousands of theories, thousands of possible combinations of supposed suspects, shot combinations, and so on. What is your version of the events on 11-22-63?

If you come up with something better, the historical account that Oswald acted alone WILL be re-written. On a smaller scale, the USMC just re-wrote the history of the flag raising on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1945, and the primary research was done by amateurs. This is sacred territory for the Marines. New flag raisers have been identified, a few old ones expunged, most famously Corpsman John "Doc" Bradley, father of 'Flag of our Fathers' author James Bradley, who basically had crafted a career as the son of an Iwo Jima flag raiser.

Why did the USMC re-write the account? Because a BETTER positive narrative came to the attention of USMC brass and they were convinced by a POSITIVE case that flag raisers had been misidentified.

Put forward a case, and the burden is on you to defend it against the Oswald Alone narrative. For example, it isn't enough to say JFK was shot through the windshield from the south knoll and ask someone to disprove it. You need to show the reenactments, explain why the autopsy didn't find for a shot from the front, and on and on and on.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
> > >
> > > He didn`t say.
> >
> > Empty claim. Back that up.
>
> Can`t prove a negative.
>
> > >
> > > > Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
> > >
> > > He didn`t say.
> >
> > Empty claim. Show this.
>
> Can`t prove a negative.
>
> > >
> > > > Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
> > >
> > > He didn`t say.
> >
> > Empty claim. Let's see it.
>
> Can`t prove a negative.

You demand negatives be proven all the time. The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind. Even for you, that was stupid.

>
> > >
> > > > If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.
> > >
> > > No trouble at all.
> >
> > The fact is, you don't know what he said or didn't say.

Note, he doesn't refute this, officially rendering all his claims empty. Big surprise.

>
> So you aren`t sure he didn`t confess. And without knowing for sure he didn`t confess you have no business claiming he is innocent.

Oh, I'm fairly sure he didn't confess, or they'd have screamed it from the hilltops with bullhorns, and anyway, confessions can be falsely coerced, and even if he DID confess and it WASN'T coerced, still does preclude a conspiracy. His "I'm just a patsy" comment was allusive to some kind of involvement, but I've never denied that.

>
> > >
> > > > And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.
> > >
> > > In which case you would have to show where he *did* say.
> >
> > No I don't. I never made a claim as to whether or not he "said or didn't say." I'm asking rhetorical defensive questions;
>
> How could they be rhetorical questions? They are questions that require information directly from Oswald since they are decisions he made. Since you know Oswald didn`t supply the necessary information why ask the questions at all?

Begging the question, assuming Oswald made those decisions. Your claims are empty.

>
> > *you're* making a direct claim as to what he said or didn't say.
>
> I`m using deductive reasoning to conclude he didn`t say. Let`s see you dispute my conclusion.

Just did.

> > >
> > > > But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.
> > > >
> > > > https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
> > > >
> > > > All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo.
> > >
> > > Fallacy of false choices or false dilemma fallacy.
> >
> > What's the third choice?
>
> There are an infinite number of choices. He was on PCP when he wrote the letter. He was on heroin when he wrote the letter.He was drunk when he wrote the letter. Someone held and gun on him and made him write the letter. Someone held a knife on him. A broken bottle. He misremembered the event. He conflated things. On and on. You have to rule out each one of the infinite number of possibilities before you can make these "either/or" constructs.

Uh-huh, it was definitely probably all of those things. Desperate, aren't you?

>
> > Also forgot to mention Burkley.
>
> You forgot to quote him saying something relevant to this issue.

http://www.covertbookreport.com/dr-burkley-and-the-bullet/

>
> > He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.
>
> Maybe you should grow a pair and make an argument rather than invent positions I`ve never taken.

That's the position you're taking, you just don't have the balls to admit it. Totally gutless, beginning to end.

>
> > >
> > > First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.
> >
> >
> > “Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”
>
> <snicker> I bet it was. Did he establish how they got there?

Must have been the same way CE399 found its way onto Connally's stretcher.

>
> Why would I doubt that a conspiracy retard would do this, seeing how honest they are around here? Certainly it is about a million times less fantastic than the idea that an accomplished doctor like Humes would risk his career and freedom to tamper with evidence in the murder of the President.

Who said anything about tamper? It was simply not omitted. Remember...lying by omission? Chuck can spell it out for you, if you'd like.

>
> > Oh, also...Gerald Ford wrote back to him. Hope that helps.
>
> Oh, somebody might have written to Ford, and Ford might have written back to that person. That doesn`t mean it was Young.
>
> I`ll tell you what you do, genius. Go on google maps and search for the address given on the letter...
>
> 77 Harvey Mill Road
>
> Lee, New Hampshire 03824
>
> Come back here and let me know what you find.

Seems to be a 4-bed, 3.5-bath, 6,520 sqft single-family home, previously owned my someone named "J Young"

https://www.spokeo.com/NH/Lee/77-Harvey-Mill-Rd

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:03:29 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Back that up.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Show this.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Let's see it.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
>
> You demand negatives be proven all the time. The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind. Even for you, that was stupid.

Liar.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You demand negatives be proven all the time. The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind. Even for you, that was stupid.
>
> Liar.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/su-Ujkn_htk/heMz8_y0AwAJ

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

God, you are a stump.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 2:03:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Why didn't Oswald shoot JFK coming up Houston, when it was a much easier shot and provided him multiple chances, should the first shots miss?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Back that up.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Why did Oswald mail-order a rifle when he could have just walked into any gun shop in Texas and bought one anonymously?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Show this.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Why did Oswald own a rifle but no equipment?
> > > >
> > > > He didn`t say.
> > >
> > > Empty claim. Let's see it.
> >
> > Can`t prove a negative.
>
> You demand negatives be proven all the time.

It only seems that way to you because you don`t understand what the term means.

> The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind.

Like all conspiracy retards you misunderstand and distort every bit of information available to you.

> Even for you, that was stupid.

Quote me taking the position you assigned me, lying retard.

>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > If they're stupid questions, then you should have no trouble answering them.
> > > >
> > > > No trouble at all.
> > >
> > > The fact is, you don't know what he said or didn't say.
>
> Note, he doesn't refute this,

I haven information available that allows me to reasonably assume many of the things he said. I can use deductive reasoning to conclude that he didn`t offer the details about his thinking when he committed these crimes.

> officially rendering all his claims empty. Big surprise.
>
> >
> > So you aren`t sure he didn`t confess. And without knowing for sure he didn`t confess you have no business claiming he is innocent.
>
> Oh, I'm fairly sure he didn't confess,

Without knowing what he said or didn`t say. How did you accomplish this feat?

> or they'd have screamed it from the hilltops with bullhorns,

And if he was really a patsy he would have used this opportunity to give any information he had to expose the plot to set him up...

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAcxXcJFvVy3vmPfk1ArdknAxfANX1O0_-b8ZbHgyFPqLu3VuW

> and anyway, confessions can be falsely coerced, and even if he DID confess and it WASN'T coerced, still does preclude a conspiracy. His "I'm just a patsy" comment was allusive to some kind of involvement,

He said he was arrested because he had been in the Soviet Union. How would the cops who arrested him have known that?

> but I've never denied that.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > And I'll have no trouble calling them empty claims, regardless what you say.
> > > >
> > > > In which case you would have to show where he *did* say.
> > >
> > > No I don't. I never made a claim as to whether or not he "said or didn't say." I'm asking rhetorical defensive questions;
> >
> > How could they be rhetorical questions? They are questions that require information directly from Oswald since they are decisions he made. Since you know Oswald didn`t supply the necessary information why ask the questions at all?
>
> Begging the question, assuming Oswald made those decisions.

They were assumed in the questions you asked, stupid.

> Your claims are empty.
>
> >
> > > *you're* making a direct claim as to what he said or didn't say.
> >
> > I`m using deductive reasoning to conclude he didn`t say. Let`s see you dispute my conclusion.
>
> Just did.

How so?

>
> > > >
> > > > > But the real contents of those correspondences are in the link you ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/?fbclid=IwAR2sQGaRw2KoqKklQgNeM-qGuOq9I1izZo6iYvmdI2ZdvHLrD-tQ1OCGMk8
> > > > >
> > > > > All you have left now is to call Young a liar, or admit there was a spent bullet in the limo.
> > > >
> > > > Fallacy of false choices or false dilemma fallacy.
> > >
> > > What's the third choice?
> >
> > There are an infinite number of choices. He was on PCP when he wrote the letter. He was on heroin when he wrote the letter.He was drunk when he wrote the letter. Someone held and gun on him and made him write the letter. Someone held a knife on him. A broken bottle. He misremembered the event. He conflated things. On and on. You have to rule out each one of the infinite number of possibilities before you can make these "either/or" constructs.
>
> Uh-huh, it was definitely probably all of those things. Desperate, aren't you?

Stupid, aren`t you? I said there were infinite number of things, and gave a small handful of possibilities as examples because I knew if I just said that there were an infinite number of possibilities you would challenge me to provide some. this saved that step. When *you* say there are only two possibilities *you* have to show that is the case.

>
> >
> > > Also forgot to mention Burkley.
> >
> > You forgot to quote him saying something relevant to this issue.
>
> http://www.covertbookreport.com/dr-burkley-and-the-bullet/
>
> >
> > > He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.
> >
> > Maybe you should grow a pair and make an argument rather than invent positions I`ve never taken.
>
> That's the position you're taking,

You are either stupid or dishonest. Likely both.

> you just don't have the balls to admit it. Totally gutless, beginning to end.

Then you should be able to show that I took the position that Burkley was either lying or mistaken. I`m not responsible for your faulty thinking.

> >
> > > >
> > > > First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.
> > >
> > >
> > > “Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”
> >
> > <snicker> I bet it was. Did he establish how they got there?
>
> Must have been the same way CE399 found its way onto Connally's stretcher.

So now you muddy the water with misdirection rather than firm up the details of how this information came to light.

> > Why would I doubt that a conspiracy retard would do this, seeing how honest they are around here? Certainly it is about a million times less fantastic than the idea that an accomplished doctor like Humes would risk his career and freedom to tamper with evidence in the murder of the President.
>
> Who said anything about tamper?

Where did the bullet Humes supposedly was handed go?

> It was simply not omitted. Remember...lying by omission? Chuck can spell it out for you, if you'd like.

Desperately trying to muddy the water, aren`t you? "look over here, look over there, don`t critically examine what I presented".

> >
> > > Oh, also...Gerald Ford wrote back to him. Hope that helps.
> >
> > Oh, somebody might have written to Ford, and Ford might have written back to that person. That doesn`t mean it was Young.
> >
> > I`ll tell you what you do, genius. Go on google maps and search for the address given on the letter...
> >
> > 77 Harvey Mill Road
> >
> > Lee, New Hampshire 03824
> >
> > Come back here and let me know what you find.
>
> Seems to be a 4-bed, 3.5-bath, 6,520 sqft single-family home, previously owned my someone named "J Young"

> https://www.spokeo.com/NH/Lee/77-Harvey-Mill-Rd

Very good, Boris! A few problems, I don`t see where it says "previously owned" by J Young, but it is a great find on your part, and I`m willing to stipulate that this was indeed James M Young`s house when he was alive.

Now I just come across something else that calls into the question the validity of that letter, this article written by Young detailing the events the day of the assassination...

http://navymedicine.navylive.dodlive.mil/archives/5806

In it Young writes...

"...Mr. McNally burst into the Dispensary and said, “The president’s been hit. Come with me, Doc.”

We then went to the Secret Service Office with Mister Jerry Behn in the East Wing on the run, incongruous as it may seem, running through the beautiful marble and carpeted floors of the White House. It was a matter of Mr. Behn keeping a line open to Dallas and giving us snatches of information. He said “The president’s been hit, in the head I think.” At about one fifty, he said, “They say the president’s critical and that Gov. Connelly has been hit too.”

At this point I turned and said “I’m afraid that’s it” and walked suddenly feeling horrified and dejected toward the door making a thumbs-down gesture. At about one fifty-five Mr. Behn said quietly, “The president’s dead.”

I went to the Dispensary, sat and stared at the horrible sad accounts coming from the television. I then began to have some information come to me about the president going to Naval Hospital Bethesda for an autopsy. Thereafter, I was in contact with the hospital notifying Capt. Canada[16] of the projected arrival time, the probability of transport by helicopter of the body, and informing him that I had procured a security guard from the Military District of Washington to stand by at the heliport in Bethesda by his request.

Changes then indicated that the body would be brought to Bethesda by Navy ambulance. Capt. Canada then requested the press official to help control the Press, which I attempted to obtain by a request to Mr. Hatcher to no avail. After the third request to the now President Johnson’s Press Secretary, I was successful. After completing my work here and talking to Dr. Burkley by phone, it was decided that we all should go home since nothing further could be accomplished here. With that, Chief Hendrix and I left with Chiefs Martinell and Mills remaining to lock up."

No mention of going to Bethesda, says he stayed at the White House. Yet the letter says...'

"...the autopsy that I attended from beginning to end..."

Comment?

[Bud]

Quote where I took the position you assigned me.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

sit puppy!

[Bud]

Oh good, Healey is here, now we`ll get somewhere.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
> >
> > What's the historically accepted case?
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.

over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein. Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK. Who you hiding dickwad? The curious want to know, Sherlock.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
> > >
> > > What's the historically accepted case?
> >
> > Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.
>
> over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein.

You think 50% of the people today have read the WCR? What the fuck are you on?

> Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK.

A lot of people looked at the z-film and thought it looked like Kennedy was shot from the front. They`re just wrong, that`s all.

> Who you hiding dickwad? The curious want to know, Sherlock.

I`m wondering what you are asking.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:18:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>> > >
>> > > What's the historically accepted case?
>> >
>> > Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.
>>
>> over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein.
>
> You think 50% of the people today have read the WCR? What the fuck are you on?

This is what liars do all the time, they take a simple statement that
they cannot refute, and they change the statement being made, and
respond to their invention of what was said.

Puddy's a DESPICABLE liar.

>> Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK.
>
> A lot of people looked at the z-film and thought it looked like
> Kennedy was shot from the front. They`re just wrong, that`s all.

You're lying again... it **DOES** look like he was shot from the
front.

You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
he was shot from he front.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 11:00:44 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:57:19 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>>
>> What's the historically accepted case?
>
> Oswald killed JFK and Tippit and wounded Connally. No known
> conspiracy.

This is a provable lie. The HSCA found a "probable conspiracy."

>> > You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.
>>
>> History has no responsibility or burden to prove or disprove itself. As Chuck will demonstrate in a couple of minutes.
>
> This is a straw man argument and another attempt to reset the
> argument from the fringe. If you think something different happened
> than what is accepted historically

You'll **NEVER** cite for this claim.

>, you need to put forward a positive
> case for what you allege. This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny
> Cochrane. Creating "reasonable doubt" isn't going to change the
> historical verdict. There are thousands of theories, thousands of
> possible combinations of supposed suspects, shot combinations, and so
> on. What is your version of the events on 11-22-63?

Once again Chuckles asks the question that *HE* is terrified of
answering...

> If you come up with something better, the historical account that
> Oswald acted alone WILL be re-written.

That's not the "historical account."

The Warren Commission's theory was overturned by the HSCA.

> On a smaller scale, the USMC just re-wrote the history of the flag
> raising on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1945, and the primary research
> was done by amateurs. This is sacred territory for the Marines. New
> flag raisers have been identified, a few old ones expunged, most
> famously Corpsman John "Doc" Bradley, father of 'Flag of our Fathers'
> author James Bradley, who basically had crafted a career as the son of
> an Iwo Jima flag raiser.
>
> Why did the USMC re-write the account? Because a BETTER positive
> narrative came to the attention of USMC brass and they were convinced
> by a POSITIVE case that flag raisers had been misidentified.

I'd be willing to bet money that you've not read Douglas Horne's five
volume set.

You *CERTAINLY* have been completely unable to refute Mark Lane.

Yet you're willing to lie about whether or not a "positive" case has
been made.

> Put forward a case, and the burden is on you to defend it against
> the Oswald Alone narrative.

Put forward a case, and stand ready to defend it against the actual
evidence in this case. But you won't.

> For example, it isn't enough to say JFK
> was shot through the windshield from the south knoll and ask someone
> to disprove it. You need to show the reenactments, explain why the
> autopsy didn't find for a shot from the front, and on and on and on.

The autopsy didn't even *KNOW* about that wound - can you explain why
you think that the autopsy refutes a shot from the front?

You won't, of course... you're a coward.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You demand negatives be proven all the time.
>
> It only seems that way to you because you don`t understand what the term means.
>
> > The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind.
>
> Like all conspiracy retards you misunderstand and distort every bit of information available to you.

You're not that multi-layered and deep to figure out. Everyone knows you demand negatives like an imbecile. The Sirhan example was a provable citation. Here's another...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VQhJv1cwREo/Akkycl9HDQAJ

...in which you accuse us of "shooting blanks" because we can't prove a negative. Go take a nap, little man.

>
> > Even for you, that was stupid.
>
> Quote me taking the position you assigned me, lying retard.

Done x2 ...and probably more if I felt like searching.

> >
> > Oh, I'm fairly sure he didn't confess,
>
> Without knowing what he said or didn`t say. How did you accomplish this feat?

I haven information available that allows me to reasonably assume many of the things he said. I can use deductive reasoning to conclude that he didn`t offer a confession for these crimes. Though it's a moot point.

> >
> > Uh-huh, it was definitely probably all of those things. Desperate, aren't you?
>
> Stupid, aren`t you? I said there were infinite number of things,

You're wasting time with stupid shit you couldn't confirm with a mirror and a stick.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > Also forgot to mention Burkley.
> > >
> > > You forgot to quote him saying something relevant to this issue.
> >
> > http://www.covertbookreport.com/dr-burkley-and-the-bullet/
> >
> > >
> > > > He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should grow a pair and make an argument rather than invent positions I`ve never taken.
> >
> > That's the position you're taking,
>
> You are either stupid or dishonest. Likely both.
>
> > you just don't have the balls to admit it. Totally gutless, beginning to end.
>
> Then you should be able to show that I took the position that Burkley was either lying or mistaken. I`m not responsible for your faulty thinking.

You will, and I will.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > “Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”

Bud's "gotcha" #1 whiffs.

>
> Where did the bullet Humes supposedly was handed go?
>
> > It was simply not omitted. Remember...lying by omission? Chuck can spell it out for you, if you'd like.

Self-correction...I meant to say "admitted", not "omitted"...the retard doesn't read what I write anyway.

> > >
> > > I`ll tell you what you do, genius. Go on google maps and search for the address given on the letter...
> > >
> > > 77 Harvey Mill Road
> > >
> > > Lee, New Hampshire 03824
> > >
> > > Come back here and let me know what you find.
> >
> > Seems to be a 4-bed, 3.5-bath, 6,520 sqft single-family home, previously owned my someone named "J Young"
>
> > https://www.spokeo.com/NH/Lee/77-Harvey-Mill-Rd
>
> Very good, Boris!

Bud's "gotcha" #2 whiffs. We all know the retard just Googled-Earthed the address, saw a forested country road, and thought there was no house there, which led Detective LN Retard to conclude he was "onto" a juicy fraud.

>
> Now I just come across something else that calls into the question the validity of that letter, this article written by Young detailing the events the day of the assassination...
>
> http://navymedicine.navylive.dodlive.mil/archives/5806
>
> In it Young writes...
>
> "...Mr. McNally burst into the Dispensary and said, “The president’s been hit. Come with me, Doc.”
>
> We then went to the Secret Service Office with Mister Jerry Behn in the East Wing on the run, incongruous as it may seem, running through the beautiful marble and carpeted floors of the White House. It was a matter of Mr. Behn keeping a line open to Dallas and giving us snatches of information. He said “The president’s been hit, in the head I think.” At about one fifty, he said, “They say the president’s critical and that Gov. Connelly has been hit too.”
>
> At this point I turned and said “I’m afraid that’s it” and walked suddenly feeling horrified and dejected toward the door making a thumbs-down gesture. At about one fifty-five Mr. Behn said quietly, “The president’s dead.”
>
> I went to the Dispensary, sat and stared at the horrible sad accounts coming from the television. I then began to have some information come to me about the president going to Naval Hospital Bethesda for an autopsy. Thereafter, I was in contact with the hospital notifying Capt. Canada[16] of the projected arrival time, the probability of transport by helicopter of the body, and informing him that I had procured a security guard from the Military District of Washington to stand by at the heliport in Bethesda by his request.
>
> Changes then indicated that the body would be brought to Bethesda by Navy ambulance. Capt. Canada then requested the press official to help control the Press, which I attempted to obtain by a request to Mr. Hatcher to no avail. After the third request to the now President Johnson’s Press Secretary, I was successful. After completing my work here and talking to Dr. Burkley by phone, it was decided that we all should go home since nothing further could be accomplished here. With that, Chief Hendrix and I left with Chiefs Martinell and Mills remaining to lock up."
>
> No mention of going to Bethesda, says he stayed at the White House. Yet the letter says...'
>
> "...the autopsy that I attended from beginning to end..."
>
> Comment?

Clearly he didn't go home. There you have another LN retard looking at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 3:02:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You demand negatives be proven all the time.
> >
> > It only seems that way to you because you don`t understand what the term means.
> >
> > > The Sirhan issue was just one example. You demanded we prove that while standing in front of RFK, he couldn't have shot him from behind.
> >
> > Like all conspiracy retards you misunderstand and distort every bit of information available to you.
>
> You're not that multi-layered and deep to figure out. Everyone knows you demand negatives like an imbecile. The Sirhan example was a provable citation.

Yet you failed to quote anything I said in that discussion where I challenged you to prove a negative. *YOUR* position was that he couldn`t have inflicted those wounds because he was never in a position to inflict them and I challenged you to support *YOUR STATED POSITION* (or implied position, because you rarely come right out and say anything).

> Here's another...
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VQhJv1cwREo/Akkycl9HDQAJ
>
> ...in which you accuse us of "shooting blanks" because we can't prove a negative.

Why don`t you quote me?

> Go take a nap, little man.
>
>
> >
> > > Even for you, that was stupid.
> >
> > Quote me taking the position you assigned me, lying retard.
>
> Done x2

Why are all conspiracy advocates such dishonest people? You haven`t quoted me once yet you claim to have done it twice. Why did you lie so blatantly?

>...and probably more if I felt like searching.
>
>
> > >
> > > Oh, I'm fairly sure he didn't confess,
> >
> > Without knowing what he said or didn`t say. How did you accomplish this feat?
>
> I haven information available that allows me to reasonably assume many of the things he said. I can use deductive reasoning to conclude that he didn`t offer a confession for these crimes. Though it's a moot point.
>
>
> > >
> > > Uh-huh, it was definitely probably all of those things. Desperate, aren't you?
> >
> > Stupid, aren`t you? I said there were infinite number of things,
>
> You're wasting time with stupid shit you couldn't confirm with a mirror and a stick.

It was your idea that there were only two possibilities, stupid. What process did you use to rule out all other possibilities?

> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also forgot to mention Burkley.
> > > >
> > > > You forgot to quote him saying something relevant to this issue.
> > >
> > > http://www.covertbookreport.com/dr-burkley-and-the-bullet/
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > He's lying too. Or mistaken. Or maybe there's a third option there too.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe you should grow a pair and make an argument rather than invent positions I`ve never taken.
> > >
> > > That's the position you're taking,
> >
> > You are either stupid or dishonest. Likely both.
> >
> > > you just don't have the balls to admit it. Totally gutless, beginning to end.
> >
> > Then you should be able to show that I took the position that Burkley was either lying or mistaken. I`m not responsible for your faulty thinking.
>
> You will, and I will.

Now you are speaking retard, and I`m not fluent.

And you need to stop lying about positions I`ve taken.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First things first. Establish, as fact, that Young wrote the letter.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > “Recently, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board member of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) came upon Young’s papers at a Navy website. This was an exciting discovery.”
>
> Bud's "gotcha" #1 whiffs.

How does your inability to establish the letter as genuine reflect on me?

> >
> > Where did the bullet Humes supposedly was handed go?
> >
> > > It was simply not omitted. Remember...lying by omission? Chuck can spell it out for you, if you'd like.
>
> Self-correction...I meant to say "admitted", not "omitted"...the retard doesn't read what I write anyway.

Either way you position is that Humes was given a bullet and he neglected to enter it into evidence, an amazing occurrence.

>
> > > >
> > > > I`ll tell you what you do, genius. Go on google maps and search for the address given on the letter...
> > > >
> > > > 77 Harvey Mill Road
> > > >
> > > > Lee, New Hampshire 03824
> > > >
> > > > Come back here and let me know what you find.
> > >
> > > Seems to be a 4-bed, 3.5-bath, 6,520 sqft single-family home, previously owned my someone named "J Young"
> >
> > > https://www.spokeo.com/NH/Lee/77-Harvey-Mill-Rd
> >
> > Very good, Boris!
>
> Bud's "gotcha" #2 whiffs. We all know the retard just Googled-Earthed the address, saw a forested country road, and thought there was no house there, which led Detective LN Retard to conclude he was "onto" a juicy fraud.

You need to firm this up, I don`t have to do anything. It never occurred to you to look up the address, did it? Whenever a conspiracy retard hears information he likes the sound of, they apply no scrutiny to it.

>
> >
> > Now I just come across something else that calls into the question the validity of that letter, this article written by Young detailing the events the day of the assassination...
> >
> > http://navymedicine.navylive.dodlive.mil/archives/5806
> >
> > In it Young writes...
> >
> > "...Mr. McNally burst into the Dispensary and said, “The president’s been hit. Come with me, Doc.”
> >
> > We then went to the Secret Service Office with Mister Jerry Behn in the East Wing on the run, incongruous as it may seem, running through the beautiful marble and carpeted floors of the White House. It was a matter of Mr. Behn keeping a line open to Dallas and giving us snatches of information. He said “The president’s been hit, in the head I think.” At about one fifty, he said, “They say the president’s critical and that Gov. Connelly has been hit too.”
> >
> > At this point I turned and said “I’m afraid that’s it” and walked suddenly feeling horrified and dejected toward the door making a thumbs-down gesture. At about one fifty-five Mr. Behn said quietly, “The president’s dead.”
> >
> > I went to the Dispensary, sat and stared at the horrible sad accounts coming from the television. I then began to have some information come to me about the president going to Naval Hospital Bethesda for an autopsy. Thereafter, I was in contact with the hospital notifying Capt. Canada[16] of the projected arrival time, the probability of transport by helicopter of the body, and informing him that I had procured a security guard from the Military District of Washington to stand by at the heliport in Bethesda by his request.
> >
> > Changes then indicated that the body would be brought to Bethesda by Navy ambulance. Capt. Canada then requested the press official to help control the Press, which I attempted to obtain by a request to Mr. Hatcher to no avail. After the third request to the now President Johnson’s Press Secretary, I was successful. After completing my work here and talking to Dr. Burkley by phone, it was decided that we all should go home since nothing further could be accomplished here. With that, Chief Hendrix and I left with Chiefs Martinell and Mills remaining to lock up."
> >
> > No mention of going to Bethesda, says he stayed at the White House. Yet the letter says...'
> >
> > "...the autopsy that I attended from beginning to end..."
> >
> > Comment?
>
> Clearly he didn't go home.

Was he present at the autopsy?

> There you have another LN retard looking at all the wrong things incorrectly, lurkers.

<snicker> The letter claims Young was at the autopsy and a conspiracy retard thinks it is wrong to focus on whether he was there or not.

This is how they get to the places they get to.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:18:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
> >> > >
> >> > > What's the historically accepted case?
> >> >
> >> > Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.
> >>
> >> over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein.
> >
> > You think 50% of the people today have read the WCR? What the fuck are you on?
>
>
> This is what liars do all the time, they take a simple statement that
> they cannot refute, and they change the statement being made, and
> respond to their invention of what was said.

It is just common sense to have to have read the WCR in order to offer an opinion about the WCR, lurkers.

> Puddy's a DESPICABLE liar.
>
>
>
> >> Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK.
> >
> > A lot of people looked at the z-film and thought it looked like
> > Kennedy was shot from the front. They`re just wrong, that`s all.
>
>
> You're lying again... it **DOES** look like he was shot from the
> front.

Then why does his head go forward when it was struck by the bullet, lurkers?

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

With careful examination you can determine that it looks like he was struck from behind, because he was.

> You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
> he was shot from he front.

Just did, lurkers, although the main consideration is that the people seeing the z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is entertainment.

[Bud]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 10:54:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 11:00:44 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:57:19 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
> >>
> >> What's the historically accepted case?
> >
> > Oswald killed JFK and Tippit and wounded Connally. No known
> > conspiracy.
>
>
> This is a provable lie. The HSCA found a "probable conspiracy."

Then beb should be able to identify this *known* conspiracy, lurkers. Unless he was lying, of course.

>
>
> >> > You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.
> >>
> >> History has no responsibility or burden to prove or disprove itself. As Chuck will demonstrate in a couple of minutes.
> >
> > This is a straw man argument and another attempt to reset the
> > argument from the fringe. If you think something different happened
> > than what is accepted historically
>
>
> You'll **NEVER** cite for this claim.
>
>
> >, you need to put forward a positive
> > case for what you allege. This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny
> > Cochrane. Creating "reasonable doubt" isn't going to change the
> > historical verdict. There are thousands of theories, thousands of
> > possible combinations of supposed suspects, shot combinations, and so
> > on. What is your version of the events on 11-22-63?
>
>
> Once again Chuckles asks the question that *HE* is terrified of
> answering...
>
>
>
> > If you come up with something better, the historical account that
> > Oswald acted alone WILL be re-written.
>
> That's not the "historical account."
>
> The Warren Commission's theory was overturned by the HSCA.

Let beb cite for that, lurkers.

And both investigation found that Oswald killed Kennedy.

>
> > On a smaller scale, the USMC just re-wrote the history of the flag
> > raising on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1945, and the primary research
> > was done by amateurs. This is sacred territory for the Marines. New
> > flag raisers have been identified, a few old ones expunged, most
> > famously Corpsman John "Doc" Bradley, father of 'Flag of our Fathers'
> > author James Bradley, who basically had crafted a career as the son of
> > an Iwo Jima flag raiser.
> >
> > Why did the USMC re-write the account? Because a BETTER positive
> > narrative came to the attention of USMC brass and they were convinced
> > by a POSITIVE case that flag raisers had been misidentified.
>
>
> I'd be willing to bet money that you've not read Douglas Horne's five
> volume set.
>
> You *CERTAINLY* have been completely unable to refute Mark Lane.
>
> Yet you're willing to lie about whether or not a "positive" case has
> been made.
>
>
> > Put forward a case, and the burden is on you to defend it against
> > the Oswald Alone narrative.
>
>
> Put forward a case, and stand ready to defend it against the actual
> evidence in this case. But you won't.

Either beb has no case or he is afraid to say what it is, lurkers. Either way is no good for him. And his desperate attempts to employ the "you too" fallacy (Tu quoque) doesn`t work for several reasons. One, Chuck saying beb hasn`t put up a case isn`t impacted by whether Chuck has or not. Secondly, this is a conspiracy forum, presumably people come here to see the case for conspiracy made. beb`s failure to put this case up for the lurkers shows he has nothing to offer them.

> > For example, it isn't enough to say JFK
> > was shot through the windshield from the south knoll and ask someone
> > to disprove it. You need to show the reenactments, explain why the
> > autopsy didn't find for a shot from the front, and on and on and on.
>
> The autopsy didn't even *KNOW* about that wound -

How could an unknown wound be mentioned in the autopsy report, lurkers?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

<snicker> If you think someone managed to forge a letter to the President of the United States correctly detailing Young’s home address, known associates, the skull bone fragments recovered, then “lied” about the found bullet (presumably at knifepoint while on heroin and PCP or whatever), then you’re a bigger idiot and even more desperate than even I thought possible. No mention from you about why a fraud letter “concurs with the WCR” either...or were you saving that failed “gotcha” for after your third spanking?

Just another LN monkey throwing shit everywhere hoping some of it sticks, lurkers.

[Bud]

A retard like you found it easily.

> known associates,

Yes, you are very impressed by name dropping.

> the skull bone fragments recovered,

I`ve heard of fragments recovered from Dealey Plaza (the Harper fragment, for one). Can you show any fragments in evidence known to come from anywhere else?

You can look in Jerrol Custer`s AARB deposition, I believe he talks about x-raying them when they came in.

> then “lied” about the found bullet (presumably at knifepoint while on heroin and PCP or whatever), then you’re a bigger idiot and even more desperate than even I thought possible. No mention from you about why a fraud letter “concurs with the WCR” either...or were you saving that failed “gotcha” for after your third spanking?

A lot of noise and dancing but still no explanation for why Young says he was never at the autopsy, and the letter has him claiming he was there.

This is you idea to support, I don`t have to do anything. You need to show that Young was at the autopsy like the letter claims.

> Just another LN monkey throwing shit everywhere hoping some of it sticks, lurkers.

These are you ideas, stupid. You need to firm them up. Since you have no critical thinking skill I was trying to help you out on how to go about that. I know the approach you retards like to take is "I like the sound of this, I get to believe it".

[BT George]

Boris, you almost had me thinking you were clearly onto something. Yet when Bud (Good job Bud!) finds one of the *very sources* mentioned in the article you linked to "What Price a Rose" and shows that it contains statements incompatible with Young's presence as the supposed "letter" maintains, you just try to blow it off.

Why would you assume the same Young, so keen to find out why his reported actions were never mentioned in the WC, would choose to lie his rear off in public statements given 38 years after-the-fact that could be easily fact checked or contradicted by other witnesses? Or was it that he just "forgot" this rather important detail?!?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris, you almost had me thinking you were clearly onto something.

It wouldn't have mattered to you regardless. The issue is not Young, but the spent bullet found, which Burkley also talked about. It's the bullet you can't reconcile with.

>
> Yet when Bud (Good job Bud!) finds one of the *very sources* mentioned in the article you linked to "What Price a Rose" and shows that it contains statements incompatible with Young's presence as the supposed "letter" maintains, you just try to blow it off.

Nah, just playing "Bud". If LNers are unwilling to accept the authenticity of one statement out of necessity, they may not accept the authenticity of another without looking at the likelihood of each. As in, how to replete a letter to the President with information few other than Young would know, with all of it verifiable. It's as easy as chronology, and confirmation from Burkley's refusal to agree with the WC's report on the number of bullets that hit Kennedy. The number of experts you're forced to dismiss continues to grow by the day.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Nor does it hurt that anyone on this list could corroborate his presence, including Young, who is...on the list

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#Personnel_present_during_autopsy

[Bud]

What makes this "the" list?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Boris, you almost had me thinking you were clearly onto something.
>
> It wouldn't have mattered to you regardless. The issue is not Young, but the spent bullet found, which Burkley also talked about. It's the bullet you can't reconcile with.

You need to firm it up, you haven`t produced anything to show the idea is viable. You stumbled on step one and there was a whole list of things you never got to...

Who were the corpsman and how come they never came forward to say they had a bullet.

Why would the FBI and SS allow two to remove ballistic evidence from the limo and leave with it?

Where is the documentation to show they were there?

The letter says three fragments were found in the limo and are in evidence, you need to show three fragments in evidence that came from the limo.

This is just a partial list, I know you retards like to leave things right where they are, suspicious sounding, but you really need to firm this up before thinking people should take it seriously.

>
> >
> > Yet when Bud (Good job Bud!) finds one of the *very sources* mentioned in the article you linked to "What Price a Rose" and shows that it contains statements incompatible with Young's presence as the supposed "letter" maintains, you just try to blow it off.
>
> Nah, just playing "Bud".

By displaying a complete inability to apply critical thinking to information?

> If LNers are unwilling to accept the authenticity of one statement out of necessity, they may not accept the authenticity of another without looking at the likelihood of each.

The proper way to look at this letter would be with skepticism, it comes decades after the fact relating extraordinary events. This retard likes what it says so has no interest in scrutinizing it.

> As in, how to replete a letter to the President with information few other than Young would know, with all of it verifiable. It's as easy as chronology, and confirmation from Burkley's refusal to agree with the WC's report on the number of bullets that hit Kennedy.

Show how many bullets Burkley said hit the President by quoting Burkley.

>The number of experts you're forced to dismiss continues to grow by the day.

Burkley didn`t conduct the autopsy, you are looking at the wrong thing, incorrectly.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You need to firm it up, you haven`t produced anything to show the idea is viable. You stumbled on step one and there was a whole list of things you never got to...

Your "on the spot" logical fallacy still betrays your desperate bullshit. Remember, your job here is to deny the BULLET. You ask all the wrong retard questions like who found it, what color socks were they wearing, and if they got laid that night. Not going to jump through your retard hoops.

>
> The letter says three fragments were found in the limo and are in evidence, you need to show three fragments in evidence that came from the limo.

This is the only legitimate question you've presented, so it can be answered.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283a.htm

Unfortunately, I don't know who typed that page, what font the typescript is, or what paper stock it was typed on. In case those were your next retard questions.

[BT George]

The likelihood is that the public statements---given well after any Kennedy "Death Squads" should have ceased functioning---are the correct, bona-fide recollections of Young. The letter, written (if I followed things correctly) pretty near to the same time period is the more likely source of claims made by someone else in his name. Especially since the writer virtually begged to be kept anonymous. (Which seems a tad strange, in a letter that included your whole name and a valid address.)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The likelihood is that the public statements---given well after any Kennedy "Death Squads" should have ceased functioning---are the correct, bona-fide recollections of Young. The letter, written (if I followed things correctly) pretty near to the same time period is the more likely source of claims made by someone else in his name.

*(and then signed by him)

>
> Especially since the writer virtually begged to be kept anonymous.

To be anonymous from public record, not from the President to whom he's writing.

>
> (Which seems a tad strange, in a letter that included your whole name and a valid address.)

Too bad what you think is as meaningless as your empty claim.

Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it. I wonder if the letter alluded to aliens firing a laser from the sky into JFK, if we'd still be on this topic. :-)

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 5:05:54 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You need to firm it up, you haven`t produced anything to show the idea is viable. You stumbled on step one and there was a whole list of things you never got to...
>
> Your "on the spot" logical fallacy still betrays your desperate bullshit.

Sorry, your "I like the sound of it, I get to believe it" desperation doesn`t count for anything. You are advancing fantastic ideas so you need extraordinary support.

> Remember, your job here is to deny the BULLET.

I have no job here. What I can do naturally is something you can`t do with effort, and that is look at information correctly.

> You ask all the wrong retard questions like who found it, what color socks were they wearing, and if they got laid that night. Not going to jump through your retard hoops.

You bristle at being asked to firm up an extraordinary claim. If someone stumbles out of the woods and says they saw a bigfoot and you want to believe that you will get annoyed if anyone suggests it isn`t so.

> >
> > The letter says three fragments were found in the limo and are in evidence, you need to show three fragments in evidence that came from the limo.
>
> This is the only legitimate question you've presented, so it can be answered.
>
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283a.htm

This doesn`t answer the point. I *know* that fragments were found. You need to show three being found in the limo by two corpsmen. And you need to stop hiding behind links.

> Unfortunately, I don't know who typed that page, what font the typescript is, or what paper stock it was typed on. In case those were your next retard questions.

You pretend I am being unreasonable with demands that you firm up your fantastic premises. The best way to firm up fantastic claims is to support the components of the claim. If conspiracy retards are really serious about determining what occurred they should have put an effort out to firm this up as soon as they got it. That they didn`t shows the same "this is all I need to know" attitude that conspiracy retards always exhibit. They run right to LNers and say "What about this, huh, huh?" rather than firm the information up to the point that it can bear the weight of the fantastic ideas being advanced.

[Bud]

I told you Boris would cry like a child when his favorite toy is taken away from it if this issue was examined critically. "I desperately want to believe there was a bullet, dammit!".

Firm up the claim.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 5:26:35 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> > The likelihood is that the public statements---given well after any Kennedy "Death Squads" should have ceased functioning---are the correct, bona-fide recollections of Young. The letter, written (if I followed things correctly) pretty near to the same time period is the more likely source of claims made by someone else in his name.
>
> *(and then signed by him)
>
> >
> > Especially since the writer virtually begged to be kept anonymous.
>
> To be anonymous from public record, not from the President to whom he's writing.
>
> >
> > (Which seems a tad strange, in a letter that included your whole name and a valid address.)
>
> Too bad what you think is as meaningless as your empty claim.
>
> Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it.

Notice this retard makes a big deal out of me addressing his idea, but in the header puts "LNers remain steadfastly unconcerned". So we are wrong if we ignore it and wrong if we explore it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Heads conspiracy wins, tails Oswald Alone loses. Hence this is a game with these turds, not a quest to test their ideas or offer a better understanding of what happened on 11-22-63.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283a.htm
>
> This doesn`t answer the point. I *know* that fragments were found.

You probably didn't.

>
> You need to show three being found in the limo by two corpsmen. And you need to stop hiding behind links.

I've done that. You've simply chosen not to believe the evidence provided. Not my problem. Your "I don't like the sound of it, I don't get to believe it" desperation doesn't count for anything.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it. I wonder if the letter alluded to aliens firing a laser from the sky into JFK, if we'd still be on this topic. :-)
>
> I told you Boris would cry like a child when his favorite toy is taken away from it if this issue was examined critically.

You didn't, and I haven't. You're terrified, and have nowhere to go. Every attempt you've made to discredit Young and his letter have fallen flat, and you think you've achieved something because I don't know what type of toothpaste one of the corpsmen used. This whole thread is filled with you crying like a bitch, while I've laughed off every attempt you've made to smear the name of a good man. Keep trying, Bud the Anti-Science Retard. Maybe somebody will buy it.

>
> "I desperately want to believe there was a bullet, dammit!".

Doesn't matter to me one way or another if there was a bullet or not. There was a conspiracy either way. A found bullet makes it only a *little* bit more obvious than it already is, that's all. Besides, we all know what you'll do once you can no longer discredit Young and his letter. You'll just say the bullet came from Kellerman's gun; it slipped out of its chamber as the limo sped off...or something.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:16:30 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0283a.htm
> >
> > This doesn`t answer the point. I *know* that fragments were found.
>
> You probably didn't.

Actually I bookmarked this a few days back...

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bone_frags.htm

But as you pointed out, it isn`t my job to refute you, it is your job to firm this issue up.

> >
> > You need to show three being found in the limo by two corpsmen. And you need to stop hiding behind links.
>
> I've done that.

You`re lying.

>You've simply chosen not to believe the evidence provided.

Where did you quote any evidence?

> Not my problem. Your "I don't like the sound of it, I don't get to believe it" desperation doesn't count for anything.

You think you can produce a link that doesn`t satisfy you claim and lie and say it does. If something in the link supported you, quote it.

[BT George]

Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it. I wonder if the letter alluded to aliens firing a laser from the sky into JFK, if we'd still be on this topic. :-)
> >
> > I told you Boris would cry like a child when his favorite toy is taken away from it if this issue was examined critically.
>
> You didn't, and I haven't. You're terrified, and have nowhere to go. Every attempt you've made to discredit Young and his letter have fallen flat, and you think you've achieved something because I don't know what type of toothpaste one of the corpsmen used. This whole thread is filled with you crying like a bitch, while I've laughed off every attempt you've made to smear the name of a good man. Keep trying, Bud the Anti-Science Retard. Maybe somebody will buy it.
>
>
> >
> > "I desperately want to believe there was a bullet, dammit!".
>
> Doesn't matter to me one way or another if there was a bullet or not. There was a conspiracy either way.

Heads conspiracy wins, tails Oswald Alone loses. A game Boris the Truther can always win.

>A found bullet makes it only a *little* bit more obvious than it already is, >that's all. Besides, we all know what you'll do once you can no longer discredit Young and his letter.

You just discredited the letter by saying it doesn't matter.

>You'll just say the bullet came from Kellerman's gun; it slipped out of its >chamber as the limo sped off...or something.

The propeller on Boris the Truther's tinfoil beanie is glowing red.

Keep speaking Truth to Power, Boris!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it. I wonder if the letter alluded to aliens firing a laser from the sky into JFK, if we'd still be on this topic. :-)
> >
> > I told you Boris would cry like a child when his favorite toy is taken away from it if this issue was examined critically.
>
> You didn't, and I haven't. You're terrified, and have nowhere to go.

I never has anywhere I needed to go, you did. and you`ve failed, you haven`t firmed this issue up in the least.

> Every attempt you've made to discredit Young and his letter have fallen flat,

Assumes that it proper to take the letter at face value, rather than weigh it on it`s merits.

> and you think you've achieved something because I don't know what type of toothpaste one of the corpsmen used.

You think it is irrelevant that you`ve produced no corroboration from the other people supposedly involved?

> This whole thread is filled with you crying like a bitch,

What I did was critically examined the information, stupid.

> while I've laughed off every attempt you've made to smear the name of a good man.

How so?

> Keep trying, Bud the Anti-Science Retard. Maybe somebody will buy it.

I think this is as good a way as any to illustrate the different ways of thinking between the two camps.

>
> >
> > "I desperately want to believe there was a bullet, dammit!".
>
> Doesn't matter to me one way or another if there was a bullet or not. There was a conspiracy either way. A found bullet makes it only a *little* bit more obvious than it already is,

Then you and the other tards should be busy firming it up rather than sticking it under the nose of other people and demanding "What about this?"

> that's all. Besides, we all know what you'll do once you can no longer discredit Young and his letter. You'll just say the bullet came from Kellerman's gun; it slipped out of its chamber as the limo sped off...or something.

The thrashing around by a desperate retard. You always spin what I say but never address what I actually say.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:23:48 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >

> > > Isn't it amusing how TERRIFIED they are of this bullet, lurkers? The other idiot went so far as to Google an address, hoping to find *anything*. You can tell how badly something scares a LNer by how much time they put into trying to "debunk" it. I wonder if the letter alluded to aliens firing a laser from the sky into JFK, if we'd still be on this topic. :-)
> >
> > I told you Boris would cry like a child when his favorite toy is taken away from it if this issue was examined critically.
>
> You didn't, and I haven't.

I did, and you have. I wrote this 4 days ago in this thread...

"Oh, yes. You will squeal like a child who has had it`s favorite toy taken away from it. You like the sound of these things and you cry if they are critically examined."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.

Jesus, does everything have to be spoonfed to you imbeciles? It's the BIG SCANNED IMAGE near the bottom of the article, with little arrows you can click that will let you skip to "page 2/2" of the letter...on the same page where Young writes "I totally concur with the Warren Commission Report," since I know you surely couldn't miss *that*.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > You need to show three being found in the limo by two corpsmen. And you need to stop hiding behind links.
> >
> > I've done that.
>
> You`re lying.

I'm not. Their origin is documented in the letter. It's not my problem if you don't like the sound of it. As the Midwestern Mouth-Breather Chuck would say, there's nothing that would satisfy you...unless the letter mentioned nothing about a bullet, of course. Then it *might* be safe enough to allow. Coward.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

> Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.

When you go to the bottom of Young`s letter a bar appears on the bottom that lets you go to the next page. Now Boris berates you for not knowing this, but if he would have done the same with the Oral History page and read through the 114 pages of telephonic interviews he would have fared much better in these discussions.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

old Chuckles is gonna call his old lady to come here and distract, they're gettin' desperate... you've got all three of the .John wannabe's on the run.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Word salad.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:36:04 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Yes, everything *DOES* need to be spoonfed... believers really aren't
interested in the evidence, you have to force-feed them.

[BT George]

Speaking of inattention to details. From this post see below:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uVR0_OCz0-o/TPNvRR2dCgAJ

As the "Boris" personality asserts without evidence. Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments. Here is one of the simplest and best from JFK The Lost Bullet. See the Larry Sturdivan segment, from about the 34:00 minute through 36:19 minute marks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.

> >
> >
> > hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed.
>
> Yes. It was. But...that's MY argument. Not yours. LOL!!!!
>
> Don't be a LNer kids. They get all addled and confused, trying to keep their shit together.


Lurkers, this idiot has apparently intentionally mangled my response, or else his viewer is haywire and he stupidly thought I couldn't tell *my* response from his babblings. Here is the correct statement and my response from my prior post at:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/uVR0_OCz0-o/t2HS4MRdCgAJ

"Boris" babbled:

"[T]hat is, of course, the path of a bullet following a downward trajectory fired from 60 feet up. And that is, of course, EXACTLY what the MythBusters program showed."

BT (Brock) George responds:

"What they showed---though not their intention---was that even a slight miss of the target, is still enough to be *magnified* along the path of the trajectory. (Just like aiming a half an inch to the right or left, gets magnified much larger if the target it 200 yards away vs. 20 feet away.) Nevertheless, since we are talking only a few feet from JFK neck to Connally's back and chest, the difference really matters less because of the magnification of the error, than because it was just enough to cause it to strike more than one bony structure solidly before it did so in JBC. Not to mention that the strike to JBC was likely a side-swipe vs. nose first, and it is highly unlikely that that occurred with the demo, since the bullet damage to the nose was much greater even though it didn't collide (if memory serves) with the surrogate wrist."

Don't grow up have MPD and cluelessness Lurkers. It's not very pretty. :-)

[BT George]

And BTW, the page turning buttons appear *only* when I hover over the page when I follow the link from here on my computer in Google. I can see them all along only if I pull it up from my phone using the Safari browser as I did last night. And that is why I didn't see them.

[BT George]

Bud, from the hyperlinked words (I put in asterisks) in this paragraph of the "Who.What.Why" link that "Boris" had linked to:

“After that I found the earlier piece *Navy Medicine and the Kennedy Assassination* which contained the dynamite about the bullet…

...I found the context of these statements in the excerpted version of "What Price a Rose? from the Nave Medicine Live article. See below link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dk6dwvzn6yq2ukd/NM%20and%20the%20Kennedy%20Assassination.pdf?dl=0

Reading most of this, seems to indicate---though very confusingly worded---that Young actually *did* go to Bethesda and witness most of the autopsy after all. It also seems to indicate that his WPAR memoir (apparently originally written in 1963) directly mentions this slug as well as the skull fragments. Maybe I am missing something, but this is pretty strong evidence that this claim of a bullet being in the envelop with fragments, represents Young's actual and early recollections.

Now that does not mean he was correct that there was an actual bullet in the envelope. (It's not clear from the memoir that he personally saw the contents, but may have been relating what he had been told.) Also, there must be caution, because the only witness to "corroborate" Chief Petty Officer Mills, merely stated he remembered the event, but apparently did not *specifically* affirm the bullet story. (The article linked to for this assertion, noted merely that he did not repudiate the claim.)

At any rate, unless I am missing something in the 114 pages that you found and I never have, this appears to be yet another strange---but legit---early report of events that we cannot now take anywhere, because there is no compelling evidence to confirm it. Nor even to confirm with 100% certainty that Young actually saw the bullet, or was simply going from something he was told or misremebered by conflating it with various things he heard that day/night.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:00:58 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 8:08:52 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > > Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.
> >
> > When you go to the bottom of Young`s letter a bar appears on the bottom that lets you go to the next page. Now Boris berates you for not knowing this, but if he would have done the same with the Oral History page and read through the 114 pages of telephonic interviews he would have fared much better in these discussions.
>
> Bud, from the hyperlinked words (I put in asterisks) in this paragraph of the "Who.What.Why" link that "Boris" had linked to:
>
> “After that I found the earlier piece *Navy Medicine and the Kennedy Assassination* which contained the dynamite about the bullet…
>
> ...I found the context of these statements in the excerpted version of "What Price a Rose? from the Nave Medicine Live article. See below link:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/dk6dwvzn6yq2ukd/NM%20and%20the%20Kennedy%20Assassination.pdf?dl=0
>
> Reading most of this, seems to indicate---though very confusingly worded---that Young actually *did* go to Bethesda and witness most of the autopsy after all.

Yes, I found that Yesterday. Strange that he would say that he was at the White House at 5, puts the autopsy at 5, but then writes in the letter that he was at the autopsy from start to finish. But not that big a deal.

> It also seems to indicate that his WPAR memoir (apparently originally written in 1963) directly mentions this slug as well as the skull fragments. Maybe I am missing something, but this is pretty strong evidence that this claim of a bullet being in the envelop with fragments, represents Young's actual and early recollections.
>
> Now that does not mean he was correct that there was an actual bullet in the envelope. (It's not clear from the memoir that he personally saw the contents, but may have been relating what he had been told.) Also, there must be caution, because the only witness to "corroborate" Chief Petty Officer Mills, merely stated he remembered the event, but apparently did not *specifically* affirm the bullet story. (The article linked to for this assertion, noted merely that he did not repudiate the claim.)
>
> At any rate, unless I am missing something in the 114 pages that you found and I never have,

Put you pointer on the bottom of the "oral history" page, it will appear at the bottom. I breezed through it, it is four (I think) long telephone interviews with Young.

> this appears to be yet another strange---but legit---early report of events that we cannot now take anywhere, because there is no compelling evidence to confirm it. Nor even to confirm with 100% certainty that Young actually saw the bullet, or was simply going from something he was told or misremebered by conflating it with various things he heard that day/night.

I breezed through some of the 114 pages last night, and one thing struck me as interesting. The two corpsmen were named, and one was dead (Martinell) and the other (Mills) was still alive. Young looked up Mills on his own, and he says Mills confirmed his recollections (this is on page 54). Young gave the interviewer the information to contact Mills. On page 56, the interviewer said he contacted Mills, and they had set up time for an interview. On page 111 they talk about the interviewer speaking with Mills. The interviewer says that Mills said he "remembered it", but wouldn`t discuss it. I`d like to see the transcript of that discussion to see what Mills said in context.

The two things I see as making the least amount of sense in the story are on both ends, the garage and the autopsy. In the garage the SS and FBI had control of the limo, they were processing it for evidence, two medical guys waltz in, remove evidence, *ballistic* evidence, and they allow this? What does the autopsy team need with a spent round? Where is the paperwork for this removed evidence (notice how quickly a chain of evidence is deemed a non-issue). Where are the account of people there that saw these corpsmen? Just nothing is offered putting them in the garage. And if there were skull fragments found there the evidence should be tagged "found in limo".

At the autopsy the account is just as strange, the corpsmen arrive with an envelope. Presumably Humes opens it and what? Shows the bullet to no one, not even the ballistic expert on the team, Finck? If he showed no one how did Young see it?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

This is the closest a LNer will ever get to an apology, lurkers. Funnily enough, there's no cause for calling BT a "retard" or any other epithet for *his* findings. No 1001 "on the spot" questions from Bud to be found here.

We shall now see what I meant when I titled this thread "steadfastly unconcerned" (as one of the LN trolls asked about yesterday)...that is, now corroboration is confirmed and we know the letter is authentic, LNers will return to the "oh well...Oswald did it anyway" default setting they're accustomed to. They are "steadfastly unconcerned" about...

1.) The findings of this bullet
2.) What it actually means
3.) Gerald Ford's nonplussed response to a charge this serious, whether or not the finding had yet been "proven" at the time

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> As the "Boris" personality asserts without evidence. Yes strangely enough Lurkers, the trajectory works, as has been shown in *numerous* experiments. Here is one of the simplest and best from JFK The Lost Bullet. See the Larry Sturdivan segment, from about the 34:00 minute through 36:19 minute marks:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw
>
> Simply put, *IT* *DOES* *WORK*.

And works so well that a million tests later, LNers have results only vaguely resembled tests of transit...and no successful trajectory tests, which LNers must of course downplay the importance of, likely because it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

As he goes on to do.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:23:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:04:18 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:00:58 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 8:08:52 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > > > > Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.
> > > >
> > > > When you go to the bottom of Young`s letter a bar appears on the bottom that lets you go to the next page. Now Boris berates you for not knowing this, but if he would have done the same with the Oral History page and read through the 114 pages of telephonic interviews he would have fared much better in these discussions.
> > >
> > > Bud, from the hyperlinked words (I put in asterisks) in this paragraph of the "Who.What.Why" link that "Boris" had linked to:
> > >
> > > “After that I found the earlier piece *Navy Medicine and the Kennedy Assassination* which contained the dynamite about the bullet…
> > >
> > > ...I found the context of these statements in the excerpted version of "What Price a Rose? from the Nave Medicine Live article. See below link:
> > >
> > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/dk6dwvzn6yq2ukd/NM%20and%20the%20Kennedy%20Assassination.pdf?dl=0
> > >
> > > Reading most of this, seems to indicate---though very confusingly worded---that Young actually *did* go to Bethesda and witness most of the autopsy after all.
> >
> > Yes, I found that Yesterday. Strange that he would say that he was at the White House at 5, puts the autopsy at 5, but then writes in the letter that he was at the autopsy from start to finish. But not that big a deal.
> >
> > > It also seems to indicate that his WPAR memoir (apparently originally written in 1963) directly mentions this slug as well as the skull fragments. Maybe I am missing something, but this is pretty strong evidence that this claim of a bullet being in the envelop with fragments, represents Young's actual and early recollections.
> > >
> > > Now that does not mean he was correct that there was an actual bullet in the envelope. (It's not clear from the memoir that he personally saw the contents, but may have been relating what he had been told.) Also, there must be caution, because the only witness to "corroborate" Chief Petty Officer Mills, merely stated he remembered the event, but apparently did not *specifically* affirm the bullet story. (The article linked to for this assertion, noted merely that he did not repudiate the claim.)
> > >
> > > At any rate, unless I am missing something in the 114 pages that you found and I never have,
> >
> > Put you pointer on the bottom of the "oral history" page, it will appear at the bottom. I breezed through it, it is four (I think) long telephone interviews with Young.
> >
> > > this appears to be yet another strange---but legit---early report of events that we cannot now take anywhere, because there is no compelling evidence to confirm it. Nor even to confirm with 100% certainty that Young actually saw the bullet, or was simply going from something he was told or misremebered by conflating it with various things he heard that day/night.
> >
> > I breezed through some of the 114 pages last night, and one thing struck me as interesting. The two corpsmen were named, and one was dead (Martinell) and the other (Mills) was still alive. Young looked up Mills on his own, and he says Mills confirmed his recollections (this is on page 54). Young gave the interviewer the information to contact Mills. On page 56, the interviewer said he contacted Mills, and they had set up time for an interview. On page 111 they talk about the interviewer speaking with Mills. The interviewer says that Mills said he "remembered it", but wouldn`t discuss it. I`d like to see the transcript of that discussion to see what Mills said in context.
> >
> > The two things I see as making the least amount of sense in the story are on both ends, the garage and the autopsy. In the garage the SS and FBI had control of the limo, they were processing it for evidence, two medical guys waltz in, remove evidence, *ballistic* evidence, and they allow this? What does the autopsy team need with a spent round? Where is the paperwork for this removed evidence (notice how quickly a chain of evidence is deemed a non-issue). Where are the account of people there that saw these corpsmen? Just nothing is offered putting them in the garage. And if there were skull fragments found there the evidence should be tagged "found in limo".
> >
> > At the autopsy the account is just as strange, the corpsmen arrive with an envelope. Presumably Humes opens it and what? Shows the bullet to no one, not even the ballistic expert on the team, Finck? If he showed no one how did Young see it?
>
> This is the closest a LNer will ever get to an apology, lurkers.

For what? I never heard a Young a few days ago (if I did I don`t remember), you brought his fantastic story to my attention. I applied critical thinking and told you what you needed to do to firm things up. You did nothing, I looked into it. BT did the same thing. You didn`t, which shows the difference between your side and ours. You liked the sound of it so you accepted it at face value.

And since I have the ability to think critically, I knew just what was lacking (the names of the corpsmen, for instance). Being a dope with no ability to reason you never gave these things a thought, it was all "I like the sound of this, let me put it under the noses of LNers".

> Funnily enough, there's no cause for calling BT a "retard" or any other epithet for *his* findings. No 1001 "on the spot" questions from Bud to be found here.

What are you babbling about. I found this before BT posted what he found and bookmarked it...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20853-interview-with-captain-james-young-on-autopsy/

Hitting the link takes you to the same information BT found.

But you were saying I was putting too much effort into disputing these claims so I thought I`d sit back and see if you could firm them up. Predictably you did nothing. You didn`t even do a simple google search "James M Young JFK" which would have given you these things in the first five entries. You didn`t look up the address. You brought it here.

> We shall now see what I meant when I titled this thread "steadfastly unconcerned" (as one of the LN trolls asked about yesterday)...

One minute you complain we are unconcerned, then you say we are too concerned. Can`t win with retards.

>that is, now corroboration is confirmed and we know the letter is authentic,

What did I say several days back, stupid? The *first step* would be establishing the validity of the letter (did you do this?). A first step is not a completed trip, you still have firming up to do.

> LNers will return to the "oh well...Oswald did it anyway" default setting they're accustomed to. They are "steadfastly unconcerned" about...
>
> 1.) The findings of this bullet

You haven`t established a bullet was found.

> 2.) What it actually means

What does it mean? Didn`t seem to convince Young that Kennedy wasn`t struck twice from behind.

> 3.) Gerald Ford's nonplussed response to a charge this serious, whether or not the finding had yet been "proven" at the time

What about your response, what did you and the other retards do to firm this up? What have you found out about the limo in the garage, who had control, who visited it? You think there are things other people have to do to allay your suspicions, who signed up for that, did Ford? Perhaps he is content that you stay suspicious.

[Bud]

Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.

Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that. Lets see you replicate a knoll shot.

[BT George]

Why would I be a retard for correctly reporting the information as I found it and drawing from it the only *reasonable* conclusion: "It doesn't go anywhere from here."? Bud outlined further information he located in the 114 pages and how to get to it. He also stated good reasons to wonder how the story even *could* be true. Nothing retarded there either.

> We shall now see what I meant when I titled this thread "steadfastly unconcerned" (as one of the LN trolls asked about yesterday)...that is, now corroboration is confirmed and we know the letter is authentic, LNers will return to the "oh well...Oswald did it anyway" default setting they're accustomed to. They are "steadfastly unconcerned" about...
>
> 1.) The findings of this bullet

Because you haven't even provided enough evidence to *factually* establish that Young actually saw a bullet himself, or was merely relating what he was told or somethings he heard and then misremebered. For that matter, no one but Young is on record as supporting this version of events. Given those limitations, it clearly doesn't "go anywhere".

> 2.) What it actually means

You haven't carried your burden of proof by showing that the event actually happened as Young reported, still less what it means.

> 3.) Gerald Ford's nonplussed response to a charge this serious, whether or not the finding had yet been "proven" at the time

Given the limitations outlined above, and that he doubtless got 100's of similar assassination related inquiries, why would he be be "plussed" over the claim? Also since the letter stated that the writer agreed with the WC findings, Ford's response honestly sounds like either he, or whoever read these things for him, really didn't even pay very close attention to it. Likely, because of the 100's of these things he got---mostly from pro-CT parties I am sure---on frequent basis.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.

Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.

>
> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.

If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.

>
> Lets see you replicate a knoll shot.

So...not a fan of Lattimer's wound ballistics skull tests then?

[BT George]

Notice Lurkers how "Boris" ignores what I posted about his own carelessness, and seeks to pretend the point was to rehash what he already failed miserably to critique properly the last go 'round.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:39:17 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
>
> Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
>

As "Boris" begs the question, he has never been able to clearly underscore with solid evidence.

> >
> > Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
>
> If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
>

LN's believe a metal jacketed military round can easily go through multiple bodies. It's you goofs that seem to struggle with that. Maybe you, beb, and Healy should line up and let someone try for a triple crown.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:39:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
>
> Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.

There is all sorts of ballistic testing. I mentioned the testing the WC had performed on the skulls and you handwaved it way because it goes against what you are desperate to believe.

> >
> > Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
>
> If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.

Not necessary, I know how it went. It was filmed for one thing.

> > Lets see you replicate a knoll shot.
>
> So...not a fan of Lattimer's wound ballistics skull tests then?

Another non-argument. This is one of hundreds of things you`ve brought up that you have no interest in supporting.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
>
>Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
>
>>
>> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
>
>If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.

And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > So...not a fan of Lattimer's wound ballistics skull tests then?
>
> Another non-argument.

I love it when you admit I'm right.

[Jason Burke]

On 1/9/2019 2:24 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
>>
>> Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
>>
>> If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
>
>
> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
>

A better idea would be for you to volunteer to be the target, dumbshit.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Why would I be a retard for correctly reporting the information as I found it and drawing from it the only *reasonable* conclusion:

You wouldn't, and nor would I. But you *would* be dishonest for stating it's the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn. In fact, now that the entirety of the letter's contents have been proven corroborative, the most reasonable conclusion is, in fact, that it's *entirely* substantiated.

> >
> > 1.) The findings of this bullet
>
> Because you haven't even provided enough evidence to *factually* establish that Young actually saw a bullet himself,

Other than a letter to President Ford whose contents are almost entirely about the bullet he saw?

>
> or was merely relating what he was told or somethings he heard and then misremebered.

Ah, the "lying or mistaken" card.

>
> For that matter, no one but Young is on record as supporting this version of events. Given those limitations, it clearly doesn't "go anywhere".

Your reasoning that it's unsubstantiated because the bullet was never found is a causality, because the whole *keynote* of the letter is to discuss the very problem of its disappearance.

>
> > 2.) What it actually means
>
> You haven't carried your burden of proof by showing that the event actually happened as Young reported, still less what it means.

Your resolute denial is doing as fine a job of that for me.

>
> > 3.) Gerald Ford's nonplussed response to a charge this serious, whether or not the finding had yet been "proven" at the time
>
> Given the limitations outlined above, and that he doubtless got 100's of similar assassination related inquiries, why would he be be "plussed" over the claim?

He wouldn't be "plussed" over any claim that debunked the hill he should have died on. And I was unaware that Young was one of "100's" of inquiries you allege he received, unless he assumed it was "James Young, the janitor from Seattle" rather than a physician with actual firsthand authority.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:24:03 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> >
> >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> >
> >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
>
>
> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.

You'd miss.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:24:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> >
> >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> >
> >>
> >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> >
> >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
>
>
> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.

Funny that beb thinks the Marines give Sharpshooter badges to poor shooters, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:11:32 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

So did the NRA rated Masters, who are as far above me in shooting
ability as I am above Oswald.

Don't cry, Chuckles... Just accept your spanking.

[Bud]

It was a non sequitur. As is this.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Why would I be a retard for correctly reporting the information as I found it and drawing from it the only *reasonable* conclusion:
>
> You wouldn't, and nor would I. But you *would* be dishonest for stating it's the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn. In fact, now that the entirety of the letter's contents have been proven corroborative, the most reasonable conclusion is, in fact, that it's *entirely* substantiated.
>

If you think the *substance* of his statements have been entirely substantiated, I suggest you not stand so close to Healy when he's smoking that Peace Pipe with the Loco Weed. :-)

>
> > >
> > > 1.) The findings of this bullet
> >
> > Because you haven't even provided enough evidence to *factually* establish that Young actually saw a bullet himself,
>
> Other than a letter to President Ford whose contents are almost entirely about the bullet he saw?
>

You do realize that the letter simply says that it *did* contain the spent bullet and skull fragments, *not* that he himself saw them or handled them? Therefore there is no way to know for sure if he was not merely reporting what he recalls (correctly?) them telling him they had found, and that he never had reason to doubt. (This, of course, assumes he actually wrote the letter, and is reporting things honestly, which I cannot prove, but have no evidence to doubt at this juncture.)

> >
> > or was merely relating what he was told or somethings he heard and then misremebered.
>
> Ah, the "lying or mistaken" card.
>

Either is more likely than that he alone---and maybe a Chief Petty officer---recalls this rather significant set of details.

> >
> > For that matter, no one but Young is on record as supporting this version of events. Given those limitations, it clearly doesn't "go anywhere".
>
> Your reasoning that it's unsubstantiated because the bullet was never found is a causality, because the whole *keynote* of the letter is to discuss the very problem of its disappearance.
>

*I* never stated that as one of my reasons. ...Though it certainly would help your case, wouldn't it "Boris"?

> >
> > > 2.) What it actually means
> >
> > You haven't carried your burden of proof by showing that the event actually happened as Young reported, still less what it means.
>
> Your resolute denial is doing as fine a job of that for me.
>

As it is those who can think this thing through logically and conclude it is another of many "weird" and often contradictory memories and claims about the Kennedy Assassination that lacks enough independent corroboration to "go anywhere."

> >
> > > 3.) Gerald Ford's nonplussed response to a charge this serious, whether or not the finding had yet been "proven" at the time
> >
> > Given the limitations outlined above, and that he doubtless got 100's of similar assassination related inquiries, why would he be be "plussed" over the claim?
>
> He wouldn't be "plussed" over any claim that debunked the hill he should have died on. And I was unaware that Young was one of "100's" of inquiries you allege he received, unless he assumed it was "James Young, the janitor from Seattle" rather than a physician with actual firsthand authority.

What are you babbling about? What makes you think he---or whoever actually read his mail for him---personally knew who James Young the physician, from James Young the janitor? Doubtless he got many letters, claiming many things about the identity of the writer. Why would you assume they usually took much time trying to determine the authenticity of the writer's identity unless the Ford or person reading the letter took the claims in it very seriously?

[BT George]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:17:13 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:24:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> > >
> > >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> > >
> > >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
> >
> >
> > And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> > be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
>
> Funny that beb thinks the Marines give Sharpshooter badges to poor shooters, lurkers.
>

...And beb claims to be proud of his service, yet thinks his outfit was full of poor shooters who could qualify, and would willing commit *high treason* if simply ordered to do so.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You wouldn't, and nor would I. But you *would* be dishonest for stating it's the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn. In fact, now that the entirety of the letter's contents have been proven corroborative, the most reasonable conclusion is, in fact, that it's *entirely* substantiated.
> >
>
> If you think the *substance* of his statements have been entirely substantiated, I suggest you not stand so close to Healy when he's smoking that Peace Pipe with the Loco Weed. :-)

You've essentially conceded to the authenticity of the letter's entire contents EXCEPT the bullet. Did you really think your denial of key evidence was the twist ending I didn't expect?

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 3:41:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You wouldn't, and nor would I. But you *would* be dishonest for stating it's the only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn. In fact, now that the entirety of the letter's contents have been proven corroborative, the most reasonable conclusion is, in fact, that it's *entirely* substantiated.
> > >
> >
> > If you think the *substance* of his statements have been entirely substantiated, I suggest you not stand so close to Healy when he's smoking that Peace Pipe with the Loco Weed. :-)
>
> You've essentially conceded to the authenticity of the letter's entire contents EXCEPT the bullet.

It was the most fantastic element. I`m skeptical that any evidence was retrieved from the limo in the garage by these corpsmen. In the interviews he is talking about very substantial pieces of skull being found. Outside of the Harper fragment no such sizable pieces are in evidence. As I said, Jerrol Custer spoke of x-raying pieces of skull as they came in, those x-rays are in evidence.

> Did you really think your denial of key evidence was the twist ending I didn't expect?

I didn`t expect you could firm the claims made in the letter up. I wasn`t disappointed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 14:02:02 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 10:54:14 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 11:00:44 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:57:19 AM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>> >>
>> >> What's the historically accepted case?
>> >
>> > Oswald killed JFK and Tippit and wounded Connally. No known
>> > conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> This is a provable lie. The HSCA found a "probable conspiracy."
>
> Then beb should be able to identify ...


Tut tut tut liar...

Did the HSCA find a "probable conspiracy?"

Yes or no.

After you've refused to answer that question, your cowardice will be
crystal clear.



>> >> > You have the burden of supporting your claims, there is no burden to disprove in your mind the anomalies you find.
>> >>
>> >> History has no responsibility or burden to prove or disprove itself. As Chuck will demonstrate in a couple of minutes.
>> >
>> > This is a straw man argument and another attempt to reset the
>> > argument from the fringe. If you think something different happened
>> > than what is accepted historically
>>
>>
>> You'll **NEVER** cite for this claim.


Puddy was unwilling to try either...



>> >, you need to put forward a positive
>> > case for what you allege. This isn't a criminal trial, Johnny
>> > Cochrane. Creating "reasonable doubt" isn't going to change the
>> > historical verdict. There are thousands of theories, thousands of
>> > possible combinations of supposed suspects, shot combinations, and so
>> > on. What is your version of the events on 11-22-63?
>>
>>
>> Once again Chuckles asks the question that *HE* is terrified of
>> answering...


So too is Puddy. Absolutely TERRIFIED!



>> > If you come up with something better, the historical account that
>> > Oswald acted alone WILL be re-written.
>>
>> That's not the "historical account."
>>
>> The Warren Commission's theory was overturned by the HSCA.
>
> Let beb cite for that, lurkers.


Nope. You already know it to be a fact.

The Warren Commission couldn't find a conspiracy.

The HSCA did.

You're a liar to imply otherwise.


> And both investigation found that Oswald killed Kennedy.


Both were provably wrong.

That's why you're TERRIFIED of providing a scenario.


>> > On a smaller scale, the USMC just re-wrote the history of the flag
>> > raising on Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima in 1945, and the primary research
>> > was done by amateurs. This is sacred territory for the Marines. New
>> > flag raisers have been identified, a few old ones expunged, most
>> > famously Corpsman John "Doc" Bradley, father of 'Flag of our Fathers'
>> > author James Bradley, who basically had crafted a career as the son of
>> > an Iwo Jima flag raiser.
>> >
>> > Why did the USMC re-write the account? Because a BETTER positive
>> > narrative came to the attention of USMC brass and they were convinced
>> > by a POSITIVE case that flag raisers had been misidentified.
>>
>>
>> I'd be willing to bet money that you've not read Douglas Horne's five
>> volume set.
>>
>> You *CERTAINLY* have been completely unable to refute Mark Lane.
>>
>> Yet you're willing to lie about whether or not a "positive" case has
>> been made.


Puddy hasn't even read Mark Lane... he's surely completely ignorant of
Douglas Horne's writings as well.



>> > Put forward a case, and the burden is on you to defend it against
>> > the Oswald Alone narrative.
>>
>>
>> Put forward a case, and stand ready to defend it against the actual
>> evidence in this case. But you won't.
>
> Either beb has no case or he is afraid to say what it is, lurkers.

And yet, three times now *I'VE* posted one.

And stand willing and ready to do so again, in response to what any
believer will post.

But believers are TERRIFIED of posting a scenario.


> Either way is no good for him. And his desperate attempts to employ
> the "you too" fallacy (Tu quoque) doesn`t work for several reasons.
> One, Chuck saying beb hasn`t put up a case isn`t impacted by
> whether Chuck has or not.

Notice the hypocrisy here... neither Puddles nor Chuckly will dare
post a scenario, yet both of them are whining that I won't.

They're lying, and they **KNOW** they're lying. Conan found that out.


> Secondly, this is a conspiracy forum, presumably people come here
> to see the case for conspiracy made. beb`s failure to put this case
> up for the lurkers shows he has nothing to offer them.


It's proven more solidly by your abject inability to answer the
evidence.


>> > For example, it isn't enough to say JFK
>> > was shot through the windshield from the south knoll and ask someone
>> > to disprove it. You need to show the reenactments, explain why the
>> > autopsy didn't find for a shot from the front, and on and on and on.
>>
>> The autopsy didn't even *KNOW* about that wound -
>
> How could an unknown wound be mentioned in the autopsy report,
> lurkers?


Both Chuckles and YOU are using the Autopsy Report to impugn what it
cannot address.

No need to show why the autopsy didn't find a shot from the front -
THEY NEVER EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WOUND DURING THE AUTOPSY.

You can't address Chuckles lie either...


>> can you explain why
>> you think that the autopsy refutes a shot from the front?
>>
>> You won't, of course... you're a coward.

So's Puddy...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:39:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:18:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

>> >> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > What's the historically accepted case?
>> >> >

>> >> > Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.
>> >>
>> >> over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein.
>> >
>> > You think 50% of the people today have read the WCR? What the fuck are you on?
>>
>> This is what liars do all the time, they take a simple statement that
>> they cannot refute, and they change the statement being made, and
>> respond to their invention of what was said.
>
> It is just common sense to have to have read the WCR in order to
> offer an opinion about the WCR, lurkers.


You simply excuse your lie.

You couldn't even deny the fact that you took a simple statement, and
changed it, then answered the *CHANGED* statement.


>> Puddy's a DESPICABLE liar.


And not even embarrassed enough to try to deny it.


>> >> Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK.
>> >
>> > A lot of people looked at the z-film and thought it looked like
>> > Kennedy was shot from the front. They`re just wrong, that`s all.
>>
>> You're lying again... it **DOES** look like he was shot from the
>> front.
>
> Then why does his head go forward when it was struck by the bullet, lurkers?


You're lying again, Puddy.

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

Back and to the left...

> http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
>
> With careful examination you can determine that it looks like he
> was struck from behind, because he was.


With careful examination you can determine that everyone in the limo
was struck from behind.

Watch as Puddy ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to refute that statement.

Because he *KNOWS* that everyone in the limo moved forward...


>> You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
>> he was shot from he front.
>
> Just did, lurkers,


No stupid, you didn't.

You offered NO EXPLANATION AT ALL for the **FACT** that his "back and
to the left" movement indicates a shot from the front.

You've simply changed the topic to a different movement that wasn't
seen by anyone, and can only be seen by a frame by frame examination
of the extant Z-film.


> although the main consideration is that the people seeing the
> z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown
> violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is
> entertainment.


So you acknowledge that it looks like he was shot from the front.

Why the lies, Puddy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:14:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:23:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:04:18 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:00:58 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 8:08:52 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>> > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 6:40:36 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>> > > > > Where do you see his signature “Boris”? It’s not at the link you earlier provided.
>> > > >
>> > > > When you go to the bottom of Young`s letter a bar appears on the bottom that lets you go to the next page. Now Boris berates you for not knowing this, but if he would have done the same with the Oral History page and read through the 114 pages of telephonic interviews he would have fared much better in these discussions.
>> > >
>> > > Bud, from the hyperlinked words (I put in asterisks) in this paragraph of the "Who.What.Why" link that "Boris" had linked to:
>> > >
>> > > “After that I found the earlier piece *Navy Medicine and the Kennedy Assassination* which contained the dynamite about the bullet…
>> > >
>> > > ...I found the context of these statements in the excerpted version of "What Price a Rose? from the Nave Medicine Live article. See below link:
>> > >
>> > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/dk6dwvzn6yq2ukd/NM%20and%20the%20Kennedy%20Assassination.pdf?dl=0
>> > >
>> > > Reading most of this, seems to indicate---though very confusingly worded---that Young actually *did* go to Bethesda and witness most of the autopsy after all.
>> >
>> > Yes, I found that Yesterday. Strange that he would say that he was at the White House at 5, puts the autopsy at 5, but then writes in the letter that he was at the autopsy from start to finish. But not that big a deal.
>> >
>> > > It also seems to indicate that his WPAR memoir (apparently originally written in 1963) directly mentions this slug as well as the skull fragments. Maybe I am missing something, but this is pretty strong evidence that this claim of a bullet being in the envelop with fragments, represents Young's actual and early recollections.
>> > >
>> > > Now that does not mean he was correct that there was an actual bullet in the envelope. (It's not clear from the memoir that he personally saw the contents, but may have been relating what he had been told.) Also, there must be caution, because the only witness to "corroborate" Chief Petty Officer Mills, merely stated he remembered the event, but apparently did not *specifically* affirm the bullet story. (The article linked to for this assertion, noted merely that he did not repudiate the claim.)
>> > >
>> > > At any rate, unless I am missing something in the 114 pages that you found and I never have,
>> >
>> > Put you pointer on the bottom of the "oral history" page, it will appear at the bottom. I breezed through it, it is four (I think) long telephone interviews with Young.
>> >
>> > > this appears to be yet another strange---but legit---early report of events that we cannot now take anywhere, because there is no compelling evidence to confirm it. Nor even to confirm with 100% certainty that Young actually saw the bullet, or was simply going from something he was told or misremebered by conflating it with various things he heard that day/night.
>> >
>> > I breezed through some of the 114 pages last night, and one thing struck me as interesting. The two corpsmen were named, and one was dead (Martinell) and the other (Mills) was still alive. Young looked up Mills on his own, and he says Mills confirmed his recollections (this is on page 54). Young gave the interviewer the information to contact Mills. On page 56, the interviewer said he contacted Mills, and they had set up time for an interview. On page 111 they talk about the interviewer speaking with Mills. The interviewer says that Mills said he "remembered it", but wouldn`t discuss it. I`d like to see the transcript of that discussion to see what Mills said in context.
>> >
>> > The two things I see as making the least amount of sense in the story are on both ends, the garage and the autopsy. In the garage the SS and FBI had control of the limo, they were processing it for evidence, two medical guys waltz in, remove evidence, *ballistic* evidence, and they allow this? What does the autopsy team need with a spent round? Where is the paperwork for this removed evidence (notice how quickly a chain of evidence is deemed a non-issue). Where are the account of people there that saw these corpsmen? Just nothing is offered putting them in the garage. And if there were skull fragments found there the evidence should be tagged "found in limo".
>> >
>> > At the autopsy the account is just as strange, the corpsmen arrive with an envelope. Presumably Humes opens it and what? Shows the bullet to no one, not even the ballistic expert on the team, Finck? If he showed no one how did Young see it?
>>
>> This is the closest a LNer will ever get to an apology, lurkers.
>
> For what? I never heard a Young a few days ago (if I did I don`t remember)

This is, sadly, typical for believers...

They simply have no clue, and are ignorant of the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:17:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:24:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
>> >
>> >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
>> >
>> >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
>>
>>
>> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
>> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
>
> Funny that beb thinks the Marines give Sharpshooter badges to poor shooters, lurkers.

I've *never* stated that. (nor did I say that above.)

That means that you're a *STUPID* liar, because you'll never be able
to support your blatant lie.

I've stated several times that "Sharpshooter" is the middle of the
bell curve, and merely *average* shooting for Marines.

Here's one example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/opnbOOgf3WQ/iefePpN3AAAJ

Here's another:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/82DIiA251No/n9xdlyMMEXsJ

Despite the fact that I've just CITED for your lie, you'll refuse to
retract it, or even try to support it... you'll just move on as if you
hadn't been caught blatantly lying.

[BT George]

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

>
> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> Back and to the left...
>

That was a whole torso for many Z frames and for much longer, not just a head for a brief 2/18 of a second or so.

BTW, why does beb believe the Z film is accurate when he *likes* what it shows, but disbelieve it when he doesn't?

> > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
> >
> > With careful examination you can determine that it looks like he
> > was struck from behind, because he was.
>
>
> With careful examination you can determine that everyone in the limo
> was struck from behind.
>
> Watch as Puddy ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to refute that statement.
>
> Because he *KNOWS* that everyone in the limo moved forward...
>

Lurkers:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844017331882

>
> >> You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
> >> he was shot from he front.
> >
> > Just did, lurkers,
>
>
> No stupid, you didn't.
>

Lurkers you've read the constant stream of illogic and lies from beb. How credible is this statement then?

> You offered NO EXPLANATION AT ALL for the **FACT** that his "back and
> to the left" movement indicates a shot from the front.
>

Actually the explanation has been offered many times and persuasively. As well as why a bullet cannot move an entire torso dramatically like in Hollywood "blow away" fantasis. beb just doesn't like messy realities.

> You've simply changed the topic to a different movement that wasn't
> seen by anyone, and can only be seen by a frame by frame examination
> of the extant Z-film.
>

And analyzed scientifically at the link I just provided Lurkers.

>
> > although the main consideration is that the people seeing the
> > z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown
> > violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is
> > entertainment.
>
>
> So you acknowledge that it looks like he was shot from the front.
>

Bud acknowledged that beb and others only *think* this makes it look like he was struck from the front, because they have seen too many Hollywood presentations of the cinematically entertaining, but factually inaccurate "blown away" phenomenon. This has been both scientifically and empirically disproved many times.

> Why the lies, Puddy?

beb is quite distorted Lurkers. He thinks the truth is a lie and vice-versa. Just like his hero Mark Lane.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 8:11:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:17:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:24:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> >> >
> >> >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> >> >
> >> >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
> >>
> >>
> >> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> >> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
> >
> > Funny that beb thinks the Marines give Sharpshooter badges to poor shooters, lurkers.
>
>
> I've *never* stated that. (nor did I say that above.)

Sure he did, lurkers. "poorly" means...

1. in a way or at a level that is considered inadequate.

So he is claiming that the Marines gave a sharpshooter medal to a Marine whose shooting was inadequate.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 8:11:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:39:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 9:49:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 14:18:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 5:05:58 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 11:57:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Bud isn't challenging the historically accepted case against Oswald. You are.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > What's the historically accepted case?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy.
> >> >>
> >> >> over 50% of todays folks queried about the 1964 WCR disagree Einstein.
> >> >
> >> > You think 50% of the people today have read the WCR? What the fuck are you on?
> >>
> >> This is what liars do all the time, they take a simple statement that
> >> they cannot refute, and they change the statement being made, and
> >> respond to their invention of what was said.
> >
> > It is just common sense to have to have read the WCR in order to
> > offer an opinion about the WCR, lurkers.
>
>
> You simply excuse your lie.

beb simply ignores the point made, lurkers. He does this a lot, when he has no answer to the point made he merely talks over it.

> You couldn't even deny the fact that you took a simple statement, and
> changed it, then answered the *CHANGED* statement.

beb can`t explain how people who have never read the WCR can offer an opinion on it, lurkers.

>
> >> Puddy's a DESPICABLE liar.
>
>
> And not even embarrassed enough to try to deny it.

I don`t need to respond to all of beb`s meaningless hot air, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Over 70% of 1070 folks believed as do todays folks a conspiracy took the life of JFK.
> >> >
> >> > A lot of people looked at the z-film and thought it looked like
> >> > Kennedy was shot from the front. They`re just wrong, that`s all.
> >>
> >> You're lying again... it **DOES** look like he was shot from the
> >> front.
> >
> > Then why does his head go forward when it was struck by the bullet, lurkers?
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

The evidence shows otherwise, lurkers.

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...
>
> Back and to the left...

When the bullet struck Kennedy`s head, his head went forward, lurkers...

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

> > http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet
> >
> > With careful examination you can determine that it looks like he
> > was struck from behind, because he was.
>
>
> With careful examination you can determine that everyone in the limo
> was struck from behind.

Let beb make the case that other people were struck by bullets at that time, lurkers. JFK *was* struck by a bullet in the head, and when his head *was* struck by a bullet it went forward...

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

> Watch as Puddy ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to refute that statement.
>
> Because he *KNOWS* that everyone in the limo moved forward...

Good to see bebby admit that when JFK was struck by a bullet he went forward, lurkers. So what was all that "back and to the left..." nonsense about?

>
> >> You'll offer *NOTHING* to support your claim that it doesn't look like
> >> he was shot from he front.
> >
> > Just did, lurkers,
>
>
> No stupid, you didn't.

Lurkers...

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm#Sommet

beb can play his "evidence, I don`t see no evidence" games all he likes, I am providing you lurkers with what you need to know to determine where Kennedy was shot from.

> You offered NO EXPLANATION AT ALL for the **FACT** that his "back and
> to the left" movement indicates a shot from the front.

How so, lurkers? Let beb make the case and not just make the empty claim that it is FACT.

> You've simply changed the topic to a different movement that wasn't
> seen by anyone,

Anyone looking at the clip I linked to can see it, lurkers.

>and can only be seen by a frame by frame examination
> of the extant Z-film.

<snicker> Why is beb whining about an examination of the evidence, lurkers?

> > although the main consideration is that the people seeing the
> > z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown
> > violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is
> > entertainment.
>
>
> So you acknowledge that it looks like he was shot from the front.

It might look that way to people ignorant of the physics involved, lurkers, but of what use is the opinions of ignorant people?

> Why the lies, Puddy?

[Bud]

Bump for bebby, I don`t want him to miss out on all this reasoning.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:50:21 PM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 3:39:17 PM UTC-6, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> >
> > Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> >
>
> As "Boris" begs the question, he has never been able to clearly underscore with solid evidence.
>
> > >
> > > Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> >
> > If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
> >
>
> LN's believe a metal jacketed military round can easily go through multiple bodies. It's you goofs that seem to struggle with that. Maybe you, beb, and Healy should line up and let someone try for a triple crown.

.John madams is NOT getting his money's worth out of you, dipshit!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-8, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 1/9/2019 2:24 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> >>
> >> Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> >>
> >> If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
> >
> >
> > And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> > be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
> >
>
> A better idea would be for you to volunteer to be the target, dumbshit.

you're absolute fucking genius, but I want to be sure, is this Paul May? Or, the ever elusive Mark skid marks in his shorts Ulrik, or, Jason Burke, my brother of color in JFK research with fetishes for long dead mothers?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 2:13:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 8:11:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 15:17:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 5:24:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:39:16 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Retards put the bar so high that unless testing exactly replicate the event it is deemed a failure.
> > >> >
> > >> >Any ballistics testing can`t shed light on the event if that isn`t what occurred.
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Meanwhile they don`t have to show any of their many shooting scenarios are viable. Lets see you shoot someone in the neck, lets see what happens. Not what happened in this event, you can believe that.
> > >> >
> > >> >If Chuck and Bud wish to volunteer to be the two bodies the bullet went through perhaps we can replicate the event.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And since I never once fired as poorly as Oswald at his best, I would
> > >> be happy to volunteer to be the shooter.
> > >
> > > Funny that beb thinks the Marines give Sharpshooter badges to poor shooters, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > I've *never* stated that. (nor did I say that above.)
>
> Sure he did, lurkers. "poorly" means...
>
> 1. in a way or at a level that is considered inadequate.
>
> So he is claiming that the Marines gave a sharpshooter medal to a Marine whose shooting was inadequate.

you've finally rated it: SIT PUP!

[Jason Burke]

Took eight days for you to sober up, addict?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

can't answer a simple question, my alleged brother of color? What does Paul May think of this?

[BT George]

Thanks. That way the Cap'n can't even *pretend* he didn't see what I said. Not that he was any shame at being refuted by facts, logic, or reason.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

don't pat yourself on the back, moron! 2nd year Marquette students don't rate shit here, , nor does your hero worship -- regardless of whether you own kneepads or not.

[Jason Burke]

Not a clue what Paul May thinks of this, junkie.
How long has it been you and reality met?
Nice house you live in there, addict.

[Jason Burke]

>>>> Actually the explanation has been offered many times and persuasively.. As well as why a bullet cannot move an entire torso dramatically like in Hollywood "blow away" fantasis. beb just doesn't like messy realities.

>>>>
>>>>> You've simply changed the topic to a different movement that wasn't
>>>>> seen by anyone, and can only be seen by a frame by frame examination
>>>>> of the extant Z-film.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And analyzed scientifically at the link I just provided Lurkers.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> although the main consideration is that the people seeing the
>>>>>> z-film were brought up on TV and movies where people are thrown
>>>>>> violently away from the shooter. That isn`t science, it is
>>>>>> entertainment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you acknowledge that it looks like he was shot from the front.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bud acknowledged that beb and others only *think* this makes it look like he was struck from the front, because they have seen too many Hollywood presentations of the cinematically entertaining, but factually inaccurate "blown away" phenomenon. This has been both scientifically and empirically disproved many times.
>>>>
>>>>> Why the lies, Puddy?
>>>>
>>>> beb is quite distorted Lurkers. He thinks the truth is a lie and vice-versa. Just like his hero Mark Lane.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bump for bebby, I don`t want him to miss out on all this reasoning.
>>

>> Thanks. That way the Cap'n can't even *pretend* he didn't see what I said.. Not that he was any shame at being refuted by facts, logic, or reason.

>
> don't pat yourself on the back, moron! 2nd year Marquette students don't rate shit here, , nor does your hero worship -- regardless of whether you own kneepads or not.
>

You just wish either someone would blow you or you blow someone, eh, Healy?
Let's face it. You're too foul for anyone to get within a foot of you.
(And that's probably 9 1/2 inches away from you know, that little AA
battery you call your dick.)