Ben Decides To Go Out Like A Cunt

[Bud]

Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.

And you go out crying like a little bitch complaining and calling names instead of posting evidence.

The only one pitiful here is you.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 5:10:14 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
> And you go out crying like a little bitch complaining and calling names instead of posting evidence.

The evidence isn`t the problem.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:33:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 9:55:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:33:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>
> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>
> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

Ben tries to lamely shift the burden once more. His empty claim that I haven`t answered the question is not the default that needs to be disproven.

If Ben wants to support his empty claim that I haven`t answered (which he never does), he should put all the responses I`ve made on the issue (paying particular attention to the points I made that he removed without ever addressing), and show how each of my responses were not answers.

But he won`t, he will continue to blow hot air.

> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Being a cunt is a choice, not an requirement and not a obligation. Pitiful.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:33:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

[Bud]

Cunt response.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:29:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Profanity is a predictable low class response when a coward can't
answer a simple evidential question.

It says nothing about me, and everything about you.

[Hank Sienzant]

What does calling someone “Chickenshit”, “Chuckles”, and “Huckster” for years say about you, Ben?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 5:10:14 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.

> And you go out *crying like a little bitch* [emphasis added] complaining and calling names instead of posting evidence.

>
> The only one pitiful here is you.

This from the same guy who wrote this:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:22:16 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Good of you to acknowledge Chickenshit's low class profanity. But
Chickenshit isn't going to like it...

But when are you going to explain why *BOTH* documents were
disseminated? Remember your silly explanation?

And when are you going to explain your refusal to answer this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

(I'll be happy to answer *YOUR* question when you begin answering
mine.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:26:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Given the chance to correct himself - as the evidence clearly shows
that the "wrong" report was actually sent out everywhere... and an FBI
memo documented EXACTLY WHAT I STATED - that the FBI was willing to
change documents... Huckster simply ran away.

HUCKSTER SIMPLY RAN AWAY!!!

He can hardly wait for Feb 22nd, when he'll have an excuse not to post
and explain his proven lies.

But nothing other than dishonest cowardice is preventing him from
explaining why his "explanation" fails to explain the known facts.

Huckster's a coward.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Bud]

Exactly what a cunt would say.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:13:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 11:17:11?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:33:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
>
> Cunt response.

Profanity is a predictable low class response when a coward can't
answer a simple evidential question.

[Bud]

Why do you say I haven`t?

> It says nothing about me, and everything about you.

Cunt response.

Being a cunt is the role you have chosen.

[BT George]

So when are is beb going to start!?!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:47:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 11:17:11?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:33:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
>
> Cunt response.

Profanity is a predictable low class response when a coward can't
answer a simple evidential question.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ball is still in your court as I explained here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0AImUcgnD3E/m/9yUg0rO5AQAJ
“Explain why. Quote the passage that you claim makes my argument “dead in the water”
Go ahead. We’ll wait.”

Still waiting!

Repeating the same claim ad infinitum is not the same thing as proving your claim. All you post are pronouncements, which you expect others to disprove. When we go through that exercise, citing the evidence and making a reasoned argument disproving your pronouncement, you delete it all and call us liars and cowards. And change the subject, or do a fringe reset. This thread is another example of exactly that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:13:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 1:30:11?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:26:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
>> contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."
>>
>> He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
>> test results in advance.
>>
>> Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:
>>
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
>>
>> ... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.
>>
>> Given the chance to correct himself - as the evidence clearly shows
>> that the "wrong" report was actually sent out everywhere... and an FBI
>> memo documented EXACTLY WHAT I STATED - that the FBI was willing to
>> change documents... Huckster simply ran away.
>>
>> HUCKSTER SIMPLY RAN AWAY!!!
>>
>> He can hardly wait for Feb 22nd, when he'll have an excuse not to post
>> and explain his proven lies.
>>
>> But nothing other than dishonest cowardice is preventing him from
>> explaining why his "explanation" fails to explain the known facts.
>>
>> Huckster's a coward.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!!!
>
>Ball is still in your court as I explained here:

Can't be.

I've detailed the problem - AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS RUN AWAY!!!

Just as you do all the time. You're a coward Huckster - and you simply
*cannot* answer what I post.

TELL US WHY BOTH DOCUMENTS WERE SENT OUT!

Or run again...

As you do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

No, you cited a link, and essentially claimed the disproof is in there somewhere. No details, despite my repeated requests for you to quote the specific passage that disproves my argument.

In other words, despite your denials, the ball is still in your court as I explained here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0AImUcgnD3E/m/9yUg0rO5AQAJ
“Explain why. Quote the passage that you claim makes my argument “dead in the water”
Go ahead. We’ll wait.”

Still waiting!

Repeating the same claim ad infinitum is not the same thing as proving your claim. All you post are pronouncements, which you expect others to disprove. When we go through that exercise, citing the evidence and making a reasoned argument disproving your pronouncement, you delete it all and call us liars and cowards. And change the subject, or do a fringe reset. This thread is another example of exactly that.

> AND ALL YOU CAN DO IS RUN AWAY!!!
>
> Just as you do all the time. You're a coward Huckster - and you simply
> *cannot* answer what I post.

You post assertions and delete the bulk of my response, ignoring everything you find inconvenient and then proceed to me names.

Like you did above, quoting only this: “Ball is still in your court as I explained here:”

When I actually posted this: “Ball is still in your court as I explained here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0AImUcgnD3E/m/9yUg0rO5AQAJ
“Explain why. Quote the passage that you claim makes my argument “dead in the water”
Go ahead. We’ll wait.”

Still waiting!

Repeating the same claim ad infinitum is not the same thing as proving your claim. All you post are pronouncements, which you expect others to disprove. When we go through that exercise, citing the evidence and making a reasoned argument disproving your pronouncement, you delete it all and call us liars and cowards. And change the subject, or do a fringe reset. This thread is another example of exactly that.”

>
> TELL US WHY BOTH DOCUMENTS WERE SENT OUT!

Asked and answered. The wrong one was sent in error, and then the correction issued. That’s exactly what the documentation establishes.

>
> Or run again...
>
> As you do.
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!!!

You’re still running from making an argument and still asking me to disprove your conventions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:34:32 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:

>No...

Yes. Here it is again for you to run from:

Given the chance to correct himself - as the evidence clearly shows
that the "wrong" report was actually sent out everywhere... and an FBI
memo documented EXACTLY WHAT I STATED - that the FBI was willing to
change documents... Huckster simply ran away.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Bud]

Who says I haven`t?

> It says nothing about me, and everything about you.

You chose to be a cunt, I have no control over it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 1:26:11 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> This from the same guy who wrote this:
> “ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ

That's right, "an eye for an eye". I treat people the way they treat me and others.

Your bias never ceases to amaze me.

On the one hand, you have no problem calling me out for using insults, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
It's wrong for me to tell Bud he's acting like a crying little bitch, but it's OK for him to call Ben a cunt.
It's wrong for me to call Bud pitiful, but it's OK for him to call Ben pitiful.

You have no problem calling me out for using logical fallicies, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
Do as we say, not as we do. Pretty hypocritical, Hank.

You're the master of the double-standard, quick to judge his opponents on anything they post
and not so quick to judge his allies for the same perceived shortcomings.

But then again, you people have always been a group of unreasonable hypocrites, unable or unwilling to deal with both sides of an issue.
For example, when the prosecution's case is presented against Oswald, you convict without ever hearing from the defense.
How anyone could consider themselves reasonable and at the same time refuse to hear both sides of a murder case is beyond me.

How could a case be fairly ajudicated without hearing from the defense ? How could anyone consider this "Case Closed" ?
I've presented evidence in this case over the years that some of you are scared shitless to even look at.
You call that reasonable ? Is that how a reasonable and prudent person reacts ?

The irony here is that some of you people have come into this newsgroup with the intent to make fools out of those damned "conspiracy theorists",
and in the process, the only ones you've made fools out of are yourselves. While the others are stuck in 1964, you yourself seem to be stuck in 1978,
oblivious to the testimony and documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

Testimony and documents that raise serious questions as to the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

Many of your associates admit they've never read the 26 volumes. That ignorance of the subject matter has resulted in their making statements that were provably false
time and time again. And while their lies were exposed by Ben and myself, you stood by knowing they were lies and remained silent, unwilling to call them out on it.

You people live in your own world. You have your own truth. You're "believers" in your own faith.
And your double-standards are just another part of that world.

The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all is the fool who will argue with him.
You people think you know it all, thanks to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.
But you don't know the WHOLE story, only what you were told.

I'm happy to say that starting tomorrow, my years of arguing with you people are finally over.
Even if you stay, I won't see your posts.
Thank God.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 5:55:31 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 1:26:11 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > This from the same guy who wrote this:
> > “ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ
> That's right, "an eye for an eye". I treat people the way they treat me and others.

That’s the logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.

With “others” in your response above meaning “Ben Holmes”. But you ignore how Ben Holmes has been treating others for years, if not *decades*. He constantly calls me a liar and a coward, deleting my arguments and the evidence I post, then repeats his claims.

>
> Your bias never ceases to amaze me.

This from the same guy who wrote this:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “


>

> On the one hand, you have no problem calling me out for using insults, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.

That’s your job, isn’t it?

> It's wrong for me to tell Bud he's acting like a crying little bitch, but it's OK for him to call Ben a cunt.

When you attempt to take the moral high ground one day with this remark:

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

Then turn around and call names, yes. A little consistency in your stance would be appreciated. In other words, you’re accusing me of being hypocritical, but I’m establishing your double-standard.

> It's wrong for me to call Bud pitiful, but it's OK for him to call Ben pitiful.

After you post this, yes:

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

Does calling names establish one is an “asshole”? Or does it depend on who is doing the name-calling?

>
> You have no problem calling me out for using logical fallicies, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.

That’s your job.

> Do as we say, not as we do. Pretty hypocritical, Hank.

Ben’s been calling people critical of conspiracy theories names for years. But if Bud responds in a like manner, you take umbrage.

>
> You're the master of the double-standard, quick to judge his opponents on anything they post
> and not so quick to judge his allies for the same perceived shortcomings.

Gee, Gil, didn’t I just establish - using your own words - that’s exactly what you’re doing?

>
> But then again, you people have always been a group of unreasonable hypocrites, unable or unwilling to deal with both sides of an issue.

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

> For example, when the prosecution's case is presented against Oswald, you convict without ever hearing from the defense.
> How anyone could consider themselves reasonable and at the same time refuse to hear both sides of a murder case is beyond me.

I’ve heard both sides, more from the conspiracy side, for the past 60 years.

I’ve read all 26 volumes - cover to cover, twice - and read over 500 books on the assassination - with nine in ten in favor of conspiracy - over the past six decades.

I was a conspiracy theorist for the first 20 years or so. I was you for those two decades. Then I purchased the Commission volumes from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP and the HSCA volumes from the Government Printing office and read it all. I saw where the conspiracy authors were getting their quotes, and what they were leaving out, and/or ignoring. I saw behind the curtain.

>
> How could a case be fairly ajudicated without hearing from the defense ? How could anyone consider this "Case Closed" ?

It’s been 60 years, Gil. How long should the jury remain out, in your view?

> I've presented evidence in this case over the years that some of you are scared shitless to even look at.

There is nothing you’ve raised that I can’t show is taken out of context or misunderstood. All that you’ve done is present a disjointed defense of Oswald that wouldn’t convince a jury — they’d be wondering why you’re wasting their time talking about evidence forms that you can’t show were even in existence in 1963, for one example.

> You call that reasonable ? Is that how a reasonable and prudent person reacts ?

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “


>

> The irony here is that some of you people have come into this newsgroup with the intent to make fools out of those damned "conspiracy theorists",
> and in the process, the only ones you've made fools out of are yourselves.

In your view. But you’re the guy who said this,

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

And then trampled all over that point, calling others names.

> While the others are stuck in 1964, you yourself seem to be stuck in 1978,
> oblivious to the testimony and documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

The ARRB itself recognized that 30-year-old recollections are worthless. That’s what conspiracy theorists data-mine for little tidbids that they believe establish a conspiracy, but only establish recollections are not trustworthy.

>
> Testimony and documents that raise serious questions as to the authenticity of the evidence in this case.

There is no problems with the evidence in this case. You (and other CTs) wish to throw out all the evidence because it points to Oswald.

>
> Many of your associates admit they've never read the 26 volumes. That ignorance of the subject matter has resulted in their making statements that were provably false
> time and time again. And while their lies were exposed by Ben and myself, you stood by knowing they were lies and remained silent, unwilling to call them out on it.

You have an inflated opinion of yourself, it appears. You think you are judge, defense counsel, and jury, and also a mind-reader, claiming that I know “they are lies”. No, the truth of the matter is I am you, 40-ish years ago. Then I read all the evidence available at that time, and understood what the CT authors were misrepresenting.

>
> You people live in your own world. You have your own truth. You're "believers" in your own faith.
> And your double-standards are just another part of that world.

You are the one claiming:

“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

Then calling names.

You’re the one ignoring all the venom Ben spews.

Let’s not talk about double-standards until you figure out what exactly you wish to argue for, shall we?

>
> The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all is the fool who will argue with him.
> You people think you know it all, thanks to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

I’ve read a boatload, and remain unconvinced by conspiracy arguments. Because I know what they are leaving out.

> But you don't know the WHOLE story, only what you were told.

And is it any coincidence that you are repeating the criticisms from conspiracy books from five or more decades ago?

Or is it that you only know what you were told?

I don’t believe you are getting the full story by only reading conspiracy books, Gil.

I also don’t believe you read enough true crime books, so you don’t have the depth and breadth of knowledge about how real crimes are tried and adjudicated, so you think your objections to the evidence are valid.

I’ve read extensively in the field of true crime. I’m currently reading about the Edgar Smith case, the book is COUNTERPOINT, by Ronald E. Calissi. Edgar Smith convinced William Buckley (FIRING LINE) that he was innocent of killing 15-year-old Vickie Zielinski, but the truth eventually came out. Smith was a sociopath.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Smith_(murderer)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAinL2XY0E
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6LfLk1fhQNc

>
> I'm happy to say that starting tomorrow, my years of arguing with you people are finally over.
> Even if you stay, I won't see your posts.
> Thank God.

Nobody was holding a gun to your head and making you respond. You opted to do so. You’ll miss “us people” when we’re gone. And this place will be an echo chamber.

This may be my final post on this board, so I bid adieu to all, and note for the record it’s been fun discussing the case with you as both Joe Zircon (in the late 1990s and early 2000s on John McAdams moderated board (alt.assassination.net) and prior to that, on Prodigy and AOL boards, as well as Amazon’s board and elsewhere.

I may post on the International Skeptics forum on occasion, but will definitely take a step back. When I started posting in the early 1990’s, I felt people could be convinced if they heard both sides of the story. I have learned since that some people are so wedded to their beliefs that no amount of evidence and argument pointing out the flaws in those beliefs will convince them otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 06:41:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:45:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 11:17:11?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:33:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
>
> Cunt response.

Profanity is a predictable low class response when a coward can't
answer a simple evidential question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 06:35:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 5:55:31?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 1:26:11?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > This from the same guy who wrote this:
>> > “ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ
>> That's right, "an eye for an eye". I treat people the way they treat me and others.
>
>That’s the logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.
>
> With “others” in your response above meaning “Ben Holmes”. But you
> ignore how Ben Holmes has been treating others for years, if not

> *decades*. He constantly calls me a liar and a coward...


You have contantly lied and ran from facts & evidence.

>> Your bias never ceases to amaze me.
>

>This from the same guy...


Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> On the one hand, you have no problem calling me out for using insults, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
>
>That’s your job, isn’t it?

Hypocrite, aren't you?

>> It's wrong for me to tell Bud he's acting like a crying little bitch, but it's OK for him to call Ben a cunt.
>

>When...


Which logical fallacy would this one be?

>> It's wrong for me to call Bud pitiful, but it's OK for him to call Ben pitiful.
>

>After...


Name the fallacy...

>> You have no problem calling me out for using logical fallicies, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.
>
>That’s your job.

Yet you complain when I point out your lying and cowardice.

Gil has you pegged.

>> Do as we say, not as we do. Pretty hypocritical, Hank.
>
> Ben’s been calling people critical of conspiracy theories names for
> years. But if Bud responds in a like manner, you take umbrage.

That's my job. You asserted that it is. Why do you whine when I do
my job?

>> You're the master of the double-standard, quick to judge his opponents on anything they post
>> and not so quick to judge his allies for the same perceived shortcomings.
>
>Gee, Gil, didn’t I just establish - using your own words - that’s exactly what you’re doing?

Nope.

>> But then again, you people have always been a group of unreasonable hypocrites, unable or unwilling to deal with both sides of an issue.
>
>“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “

Gil is doing his job. Stop crying...

>> For example, when the prosecution's case is presented against Oswald, you convict without ever hearing from the defense.
>> How anyone could consider themselves reasonable and at the same time refuse to hear both sides of a murder case is beyond me.
>
> I’ve heard both sides, more from the conspiracy side, for the past 60 years.
>
> I’ve read all 26 volumes - cover to cover, twice - and read over
> 500 books on the assassination - with nine in ten in favor of conspiracy
> - over the past six decades.
>
> I was a conspiracy theorist for the first 20 years or so. I was you
> for those two decades. Then I purchased the Commission volumes from
> THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP and the HSCA volumes from the Government
> Printing office and read it all. I saw where the conspiracy authors
> were getting their quotes, and what they were leaving out, and/or
> ignoring. I saw behind the curtain.

Amusingly, out of all the evidence & FACTS you've read, you refuse to
accept even one of them

Nor have you **EVER** documented your claim.

I posted nearly the entire "Rush to Judgment" for example, and you RAN
FROM NEARLY EVERY POST.

>> How could a case be fairly ajudicated without hearing from the defense ? How could anyone consider this "Case Closed" ?
>
>It’s been 60 years, Gil. How long should the jury remain out, in your view?

Polling has shown the decision of the American people. You lost.

>> I've presented evidence in this case over the years that some of you are scared shitless to even look at.
>
> There is nothing you’ve raised that I can’t show is taken out of
> context or misunderstood.

You're lying again, moron.

Here's the proof:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

> All that you’ve done is present a disjointed defense of Oswald that

> wouldn’t convince a jury ...


Pulling a jury from the American people, the people have already been
convinced.

>> You call that reasonable ? Is that how a reasonable and prudent person reacts ?

Logical fallacy deleted. Huckster couldn't address the topic.

>> The irony here is that some of you people have come into this newsgroup with the intent to make fools out of those damned "conspiracy theorists",
>> and in the process, the only ones you've made fools out of are yourselves.
>

>In your view...


No moron, some of you have bragged that this is what you're doing.

>> While the others are stuck in 1964, you yourself seem to be stuck in 1978,
>> oblivious to the testimony and documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.
>
>The ARRB itself recognized that 30-year-old recollections are worthless.

You'll never cite for this lie.

And that fact tells the tale.

>> Testimony and documents that raise serious questions as to the authenticity of the evidence in this case.
>

>There is no problems with the evidence in this case. ...


You see? You're lying again.

>> Many of your associates admit they've never read the 26 volumes. That ignorance of the subject matter has resulted in their making statements that were provably false
>> time and time again. And while their lies were exposed by Ben and myself, you stood by knowing they were lies and remained silent, unwilling to call them out on it.

Blatant logical fallacy deleted.

>> You people live in your own world. You have your own truth. You're "believers" in your own faith.
>> And your double-standards are just another part of that world.

Another blatant logical fallacy deleted.

>> The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all is the fool who will argue with him.
>> You people think you know it all, thanks to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.
>
>I’ve read a boatload, and remain unconvinced by conspiracy arguments. Because I know what they are leaving out.

Prove that.

But you won't... you never have.

>> But you don't know the WHOLE story, only what you were told.
>
>And is it any coincidence that you are repeating the criticisms from conspiracy books from five or more decades ago?

You mean for five or more decades, you've been unable to refute them?!

>> I'm happy to say that starting tomorrow, my years of arguing with you people are finally over.
>> Even if you stay, I won't see your posts.
>> Thank God.
>

>This may be my final post on this board...

Good riddance... cowards & liars we don't need.

[Bud]

Predictably Ben has decided to stick to hiding behind rote response like a cunt.

He hasn`t tried to advance an assassination related idea since he had his ass handed to him in the "Lady in the Yellow Pants" threads.

> It says nothing about me, and everything about you.

It says everything about you being a cunt.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 5:55:31 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 1:26:11 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > This from the same guy who wrote this:
> > “ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ
> That's right, "an eye for an eye". I treat people the way they treat me and others.
>
> Your bias never ceases to amaze me.
>
> On the one hand, you have no problem calling me out for using insults, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.

He calls you out in discussions he is having with you. Usually I`m not taking part in those discussions.

> It's wrong for me to tell Bud he's acting like a crying little bitch, but it's OK for him to call Ben a cunt.

Where did Hank take this position? You imagine stuff and try to hold people accountable for the things you imagine.

> It's wrong for me to call Bud pitiful, but it's OK for him to call Ben pitiful.

See above.

> You have no problem calling me out for using logical fallicies, but when those on your side of the aisle use them, you remain silent.

When have you or Ben ever named and correctly applied a logical fallacy?

> Do as we say, not as we do. Pretty hypocritical, Hank.
>
> You're the master of the double-standard, quick to judge his opponents on anything they post
> and not so quick to judge his allies for the same perceived shortcomings.

It is rare that Hank or I will comment on each others posts. Or any other LN poster. We are all doing our own thing, you imagine "teams".

> But then again, you people have always been a group of unreasonable hypocrites, unable or unwilling to deal with both sides of an issue.

It is dealt with daily here. We point out the problems in your thinking and methodology and you ignore it. Rinse and repeat.

> For example, when the prosecution's case is presented against Oswald, you convict without ever hearing from the defense.

He is here listening to your ideas and pointing out the flaws often, yet you are unaware this occurs. There is nothing more futile than trying to convince a delusional person that they are delusional. You have yourself deluded you are Oswald`s lawyer. Who is the judge making the legal judgment calls, you? Who decides when evidence in discredited, and when it is allowed, you again? You play these things out in your mind, and that is the only place they exist.

For instance, it seems likely that none of the opinions of any of the Parkland doctors about whether the throat wound was an exit would be allowed in court, as they weren`t experts in making that sort and determination, they performed no examination with the purpose of making that determination and they have no training to make that determination. But in the trial in your mind this is good, solid stuff.

> How anyone could consider themselves reasonable and at the same time refuse to hear both sides of a murder case is beyond me.

He listened to what you say. It doesn`t stand to scrutiny. Your approach lacks sense and reasoning. If anything, he gave your ideas way more attention then they ever deserved.

> How could a case be fairly ajudicated without hearing from the defense ? How could anyone consider this "Case Closed" ?

We`ve listened to your ideas. They don`t hold water.

> I've presented evidence in this case over the years that some of you are scared shitless to even look at.

You`ve played silly games with information like a child.

> You call that reasonable ? Is that how a reasonable and prudent person reacts ?

Why do you assume any of your ideas are valid? Whenever the absurdity of your ideas is exposed, you go silent as if nothing was said.

> The irony here is that some of you people have come into this newsgroup with the intent to make fools out of those damned "conspiracy theorists",

You guys make fools of yourselves. We merely point it out.

> and in the process, the only ones you've made fools out of are yourselves. While the others are stuck in 1964, you yourself seem to be stuck in 1978,
> oblivious to the testimony and documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.
>
> Testimony and documents that raise serious questions as to the authenticity of the evidence in this case.
>
> Many of your associates admit they've never read the 26 volumes. That ignorance of the subject matter has resulted in their making statements that were provably false
> time and time again. And while their lies were exposed by Ben and myself, you stood by knowing they were lies and remained silent, unwilling to call them out on it.
>
> You people live in your own world. You have your own truth. You're "believers" in your own faith.
> And your double-standards are just another part of that world.

The reality is that there in one explanation for this event on the table for consideration. This is never going to change, when you are dead and gone it will still be true.

> The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all is the fool who will argue with him.
> You people think you know it all, thanks to the Warren Commission and the HSCA.
> But you don't know the WHOLE story, only what you were told.

You have had every opportunity to tell the whole story. You can`t string your ideas into a cohesive package. You can`t even say what you think happened at 10th and Patton. It is quite obvious by now that you have nothing.

> I'm happy to say that starting tomorrow, my years of arguing with you people are finally over.
> Even if you stay, I won't see your posts.
> Thank God.

Preach to an empty auditorium if you like, it`s a free country.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:41:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 11:17:11?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:33:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Removing what people write, changing what people write, rote replies. Pitiful.
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
>
> Cunt response.

Profanity is a predictable low class response when a coward can't
answer a simple evidential question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 09:55:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> See above.

See below:

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 9:35:04 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> There is nothing you’ve raised that I can’t show is taken out of context or misunderstood.

You're a Goddamned liar, Hank.

Every link I've posted here or highlighted on my website includes the FULL PAGE of testimony, with the volume number and page if anyone wants to double check it.
I post documents and exhibits as FULL PAGES and include the volume number and page in red. I have no problem with people double checking my work.
I only post FULL PAGES. And because of that, NOTHING can be taken out of context.

Unlike me, you copy and paste testimony from the McAdams' website. You're in control of what you copy and paste. If anybody has had the opportunity to take anything out of context, IT'S YOU, not me.
You never cite the volume and page of the testimony you've stolen from a dead man. I never liked McAdams, but I'm sure he put a lot of work into getting that testimony online.
You don't even have the decency to give the guy any credit for his work by posting a link to his website or even the testimony.
That's really pathetic. And it says a lot about your character.

I post FULL PAGES. You copy and paste.
Don't say I take things out of context, because that's a flat out lie.
I don't give myself that opportunity. YOU DO.

There are two kinds of people you can't trust, a thief and a liar.
And you're both.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:26:28 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

And, let's not forget, a coward too.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 6:26:29 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 9:35:04 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > There is nothing you’ve raised that I can’t show is taken out of context or misunderstood.
> You're a Goddamned liar, Hank.
>
> Every link I've posted here or highlighted on my website includes the FULL PAGE of testimony, with the volume number and page if anyone wants to double check it.
> I post documents and exhibits as FULL PAGES and include the volume number and page in red. I have no problem with people double checking my work.
> I only post FULL PAGES. And because of that, NOTHING can be taken out of context.

<snicker> I notice you aren`t touching "misunderstood".

And you do cherry pick out of context here all the time. You bring up Whaley`s manifest and then ignore that he said the times weren`t accurate.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:44:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> And you do cherry pick out of context ...

Is *this* an example of "cherry pick out of context?":

[Bud]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2024 at 6:53:26 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:44:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > And you do cherry pick out of context ...
>
> Is *this* an example of "cherry pick out of context?":

Once a cunt, always a cunt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 15:58:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

> And you do cherry pick out of context ...

Is *this* an example of "cherry pick out of context?":