Paul Landis...

[Ben Holmes]

Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
road."

[Bud]

Lurkers, so Paul Landis felt the shots came from the front. Based on what is not supplied by Ben, which makes it difficult to decide how much weight to give to Landis`s feelings.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You're lying again, "Dud."

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben is big on meaningless claims.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:16:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:15:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017 16:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
>> >> that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
>> >> anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
>> >> road."
>> >
>> > Lurkers, so Paul Landis felt the shots came from the front. Based
>> > on what is not supplied by Ben, which makes it difficult to decide how
>> > much weight to give to Landis`s feelings.
>>
>> You're lying again, "Dud."
>
> Lurkers, Ben is big on meaningless claims.

What "meaningless" claim?

You've made it very clear that all that needs to be done is quote the
witness. I've quoted the witness. You're now trying to debate what the
witness obviously said.

You do so on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

So you're lying. It's as simple as that.

[Bud]

Lurkers, the important information is missing. What made him feel the shot came from the front? Without that what weight can be given to it?

> You do so on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

Lurkers, he may have felt the shot came from the front for any number of reasons. Without knowing which one you can`t judge the reliability of his impression. He might have gotten the impression from the movements of someone up front.

> So you're lying. It's as simple as that.

Lurkers, Ben just resists an honest appraisal of the information the witnesses supplied. The key is what led the witness to think this was so.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

Lurkers, can Ben tell us what this witness based his idea that the shots came from the front of the limo on? Of course not, it didn`t even occur to him that that information was missing. This is why these stumps shouldn`t even be looking into this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:55:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Lurkers, can Ben tell us what this witness...

Ate for lunch?

Nope.

But "Dud" has previously asserted that there's nothing wrong with
posting an eyewitness affidavit or statement with no other context or
background material...

Seems he got caught lying...

[Bud]

Lurkers, here is the point I made, the one that Ben is running from...

"Lurkers, can Ben tell us what this witness based his idea that the shots came from the front of the limo on? Of course not, it didn`t even occur to him that that information was missing. This is why these stumps shouldn`t even be looking into this case."

> Nope.
>
> But "Dud" has previously asserted that there's nothing wrong with
> posting an eyewitness affidavit or statement with no other context or
> background material...

<snicker> Lurkers, what a stump this guy is! Of course there is nothing wrong with it. But when it comes to weighing the information a witnesses supplied it helps when the witness provides what is necessary to do so.

> Seems he got caught lying...

Seems Ben is retarded, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 14:09:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

In other words, you simply don't believe these witnesses.

Yet you blatantly lied, and pretended to believe them - using
misleading words...

But the truth is, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE EYEWITNESSES.

[Bud]

<snicker> Isn`t Ben funny, lurkers? He cuts out my actual words, runs from my actual points and then wants to erect a strawman to address instead.

> Yet you blatantly lied, and pretended to believe them - using
> misleading words...

Lurkers, Ben`s retard figuring can`t help him.

> But the truth is, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE EYEWITNESSES.

Lurkers, is this witnesses representing that that he had knowledge of where the shots came from? No. Does it appear in Ben`s quote anything that can tell you why he thought the shots came forward of the limo? No.

> It's as simple as that.

Lurkers, it is simple, these retards look at the wrong things and then look at those wrong things incorrectly. Ben started all these posts with quotes, but he can`t take the information these witnesses supplied anywhere, he can`t make a valid argument how this information gives insight into the assassination. He merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:39:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ah! But it's *NOT* a strawman, is it?

I do indeed snip a great majority of your nonsense. You're simply not
that important...

[Bud]

Lurkers, of course it is. Why would Ben address "other words" when he cuts and runs from the words I used?

> I do indeed snip a great majority of your nonsense. You're simply not
> that important...

Lurkers, Ben runs from the points I make because he is an intellectual coward. He brings up these issues and when they are explored, he runs. Every time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 10:07:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

Lurkers, note that Ben snipped and ran from my explanation why it was a strawman.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 14:20:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> as a strawman.

Lurkers, note that "Dud" is lying again. He claims "important
information is missing" - yet when I demonstrated that important
information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
claimed it didn't matter.

"Dud" has now been proven a liar... which of course, was my intention
when I started posting all these affidavits & statements.

[Bud]

Lurkers, if you were trying to determine what caused this witness to think the shots came from in front of the limo the relevant information was not included.

>yet when I demonstrated that important
> information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
> claimed it didn't matter.

Lurkers, Ben is misrepresenting the argument. I never made a comment about the content of the McWatter affidavit in that recent discussion with Ben where I pointed out he was addressing a strawman.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

********************************************************
>> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>>
>> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
>> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
>>
>> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
>
> Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
*******************************************************

Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination

of where the shots came from?

When another believer posted an affidavit that implied that McWattters
had positively identified Oswald - it wasn't true. And it *PROVABLY*
wasn't true.

Yet now you're desperately trying to impugn evidence that you CANNOT
prove is not true.

Why are you so afraid of the evidence?

>>yet when I demonstrated that important
>> information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
>> claimed it didn't matter.
>
> Lurkers, Ben is misrepresenting the argument. I never made a
> comment about the content of the McWatter affidavit in that recent
> discussion with Ben where I pointed out he was addressing a strawman.

You're lying again, "Dud." Here it is again:

********************************************************
>> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>>
>> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
>> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
>>
>> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
>
> Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
*******************************************************

You clearly *DID* make a comment about the content - YOU IMPLIED THAT
IT WAS ACCURATE EVIDENCE.

You asserted that I was afraid of it.

>> "Dud" has now been proven a liar... which of course, was my intention
>> when I started posting all these affidavits & statements.

And, as is clear... "Dud" has been proven a hypocrite as well...

[Bud]

Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.

> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
> >>
> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
> >
> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
> *******************************************************
>
> Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination
> of where the shots came from?

It was the pattern of the selected content.

> When another believer posted an affidavit that implied that McWattters
> had positively identified Oswald - it wasn't true. And it *PROVABLY*
> wasn't true.

Is Ben saying that McWatters wasn`t a busdriver? That on 11-22-63 he wasn`t driving the Marsalis Bus No. 1213? Why idea did the original poster say he was advancing by producing the affidavit?

> Yet now you're desperately trying to impugn evidence that you CANNOT
> prove is not true.

Lurkers, can Ben prove that which cannot be proven to be untrue?

> Why are you so afraid of the evidence?

Lurkers, the retards try to wrap themselves with the protective cloak of the word "evidence". But what they really mean is their retarded reading of the evidence.

> >>yet when I demonstrated that important
> >> information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
> >> claimed it didn't matter.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben is misrepresenting the argument. I never made a
> > comment about the content of the McWatter affidavit in that recent
> > discussion with Ben where I pointed out he was addressing a strawman.
>
> You're lying again, "Dud." Here it is again:
>
> ********************************************************
> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
> >>
> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
> >>
> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
> >
> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
> *******************************************************
>
> You clearly *DID* make a comment about the content - YOU IMPLIED THAT
> IT WAS ACCURATE EVIDENCE.

Lurkers, I implied it was the information the witness provided because it was in fact the information the witness provided.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:

...

>> ********************************************************
>> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>
> Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.

You've demonstrated yet again that you know you lost with your use of
ad honinem instead of actual evidence & logical argument.

Your inability to note that McWatters claims to have identified Oswald
simply goes to your lack of intelligence, nothing more.

>> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
>> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
>> >>
>> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
>> >
>> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
>> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination
>> of where the shots came from?
>
> It was the pattern of the selected content.

No, it wasn't.

It was an illustration that you're too dishonest and hypocritical to
be able to debate the actual evidence.

I *knew*... I **KNEW** that you would treat affidavits and statements
that opposed the WCR differently than you did the affidavit of someone
who apparently supported the WCR.

If you were honest, this wouldn't be the case.

>> When another believer posted an affidavit that implied that McWattters
>> had positively identified Oswald - it wasn't true. And it *PROVABLY*
>> wasn't true.
>
> Is Ben saying that McWatters wasn`t a busdriver?

Are you a moron?

Are you really *this* stupid?

I told you PRECISELY what I said, and you manage to miss the clear
meaning of my statement?

And pretend that I was saying something totally unrelated???

Your stupidity is truly AMAZING!!!

> That on 11-22-63 he wasn`t driving the Marsalis Bus No. 1213? Why
> idea did the original poster say he was advancing by producing the
> affidavit?

Are you too stupid to recognize that the affidavit, which was QUOTED,
makes a claim that the testimony, which was only cited, contradicts?

>> Yet now you're desperately trying to impugn evidence that you CANNOT
>> prove is not true.
>
> Lurkers, can Ben prove that which cannot be proven to be untrue?

Feel free, moron... go ahead and *PROVE* that there were no shots from
the Grassy Knoll.

Despite the mass of evidence showing that there were shots from there.

>> Why are you so afraid of the evidence?
>
> Lurkers, the retards try to wrap themselves with the protective
> cloak of the word "evidence". But what they really mean is their
> retarded reading of the evidence.

Did McWatters identify Oswald?

>> >>yet when I demonstrated that important
>> >> information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
>> >> claimed it didn't matter.
>> >
>> > Lurkers, Ben is misrepresenting the argument. I never made a
>> > comment about the content of the McWatter affidavit in that recent
>> > discussion with Ben where I pointed out he was addressing a strawman.
>>
>> You're lying again, "Dud." Here it is again:
>>
>> ********************************************************
>> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>> >>
>> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
>> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
>> >>
>> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
>> >
>> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
>> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
>> *******************************************************
>>
>> You clearly *DID* make a comment about the content - YOU IMPLIED THAT
>> IT WAS ACCURATE EVIDENCE.
>
> Lurkers, I implied it was the information the witness provided
> because it was in fact the information the witness provided.

Good. Then all the affidavits & statements *I* provided are equally
information that an eyewitness provided.

[Jason Burke]

On 9/13/2017 3:34 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>> wrote:
>

> ....

No wrestling with little girls today, Bennie-Boy?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> ********************************************************
> >> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
> >> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
> >
> > Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.
>
> You've demonstrated yet again that you know you lost with your use of
> ad honinem instead of actual evidence & logical argument.

Lurkers, it was a good a way as any to address a meaningless pronouncement.

> Your inability to note that McWatters claims to have identified Oswald
> simply goes to your lack of intelligence, nothing more.

Lurkers, Ben is still fighting strawmen. Neither myself or the original poster made any point regarding McWatters identification of Oswald.

> >> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
> >> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
> >> >>
> >> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> >> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> >> Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination
> >> of where the shots came from?
> >
> > It was the pattern of the selected content.
>
> No, it wasn't.

Lurkers, Ben`s fingers apparently prevent him from writing anything true. There was a clear pattern to the quotes Ben produced.

> It was an illustration that you're too dishonest and hypocritical to
> be able to debate the actual evidence.

Lurkers, I addressed those quotes head on, and Ben did what he always does. He ran from every point I made.

> I *knew*... I **KNEW** that you would treat affidavits and statements
> that opposed the WCR differently than you did the affidavit of someone
> who apparently supported the WCR.

Lurkers, this speaks to the fact that Ben is playing silly games with the deaths of these men. He see the witnesses as "theirs" and "ours", when actually they are just human beings relating information.

I don`t treat them different, I treat them the same. I weigh the information the witnesses provide. This is some mysterious process to Ben, he is a stump with no business looking into this case at all.

> If you were honest, this wouldn't be the case.

If Ben wasn`t a stump I wouldn`t have to explain these obvious things to him.

> >> When another believer posted an affidavit that implied that McWattters
> >> had positively identified Oswald - it wasn't true. And it *PROVABLY*
> >> wasn't true.
> >
> > Is Ben saying that McWatters wasn`t a busdriver?
>
> Are you a moron?

I think I`m showing Ben to be one, lurkers.

> Are you really *this* stupid?

We know who the stump is, don`t we lurkers?

> I told you PRECISELY what I said, and you manage to miss the clear
> meaning of my statement?

Lurkers, this might be meaningful in a world where it matters what the fuck Ben Holmes says. The fact is the original poster just posted the affidavit. He stated no argument. Ben *choose* that to be his argument. This is known as a strawman argument.

> And pretend that I was saying something totally unrelated???
>
> Your stupidity is truly AMAZING!!!

Lurkers, my point was clear. The affidavit contains several sentences. Ben selected one as being the posters point, construed a argument and argued against it.

Lurkers, I while back in "discussion" with Ben I tried get him to quote a witness in support of a claim. He wouldn`t do it, he would only offer "Sibert's ARRB testimony, page 50." I didn`t even go to the page because since I`m not retarded and the information was likely viewed through a retard filter I likely wouldn`t recognize what Ben was referring to as satisfying the claim. It is the same thing here, if the original poster had taken a single line from McWatters affidavit, then this could be construed as making an argument or advancing an idea. Just posting the whole thing is not making an argument.

> > That on 11-22-63 he wasn`t driving the Marsalis Bus No. 1213? Why
> > idea did the original poster say he was advancing by producing the
> > affidavit?
>
>
> Are you too stupid to recognize that the affidavit, which was QUOTED,
> makes a claim that the testimony, which was only cited, contradicts?

Lurkers, did McWatter contradict that he was a busdriver? Because the original poster made an argument about that as anything else.

> >> Yet now you're desperately trying to impugn evidence that you CANNOT
> >> prove is not true.
> >
> > Lurkers, can Ben prove that which cannot be proven to be untrue?
>
>
> Feel free, moron... go ahead and *PROVE* that there were no shots from
> the Grassy Knoll.

Lurkers, this is called being challenged to prove a negative.

> Despite the mass of evidence showing that there were shots from there.

Lurkers, sound is invisible, sound reflects off of surfaces. Once again reality interferes with the silly games conspiracy retards play with the deaths of these men.

> >> Why are you so afraid of the evidence?
> >
> > Lurkers, the retards try to wrap themselves with the protective
> > cloak of the word "evidence". But what they really mean is their
> > retarded reading of the evidence.
>
>
> Did McWatters identify Oswald?

Lurkers, what does this have to do with anything?

>
>
> >> >>yet when I demonstrated that important
> >> >> information *WAS* provably missing from McWatter's affidavit, "Dud"
> >> >> claimed it didn't matter.
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers, Ben is misrepresenting the argument. I never made a
> >> > comment about the content of the McWatter affidavit in that recent
> >> > discussion with Ben where I pointed out he was addressing a strawman.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, "Dud." Here it is again:
> >>
> >> ********************************************************
> >> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
> >> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
> >> >>
> >> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
> >> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
> >> >>
> >> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> >> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
> >> *******************************************************
> >>
> >> You clearly *DID* make a comment about the content - YOU IMPLIED THAT
> >> IT WAS ACCURATE EVIDENCE.
> >
> > Lurkers, I implied it was the information the witness provided
> > because it was in fact the information the witness provided.
>
>
> Good. Then all the affidavits & statements *I* provided are equally
> information that an eyewitness provided.

<snickers> Who said it wasn`t, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> ********************************************************
>> >> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> >> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>> >
>> > Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.
>>
>> You've demonstrated yet again that you know you lost with your use of
>> ad honinem instead of actual evidence & logical argument.
>
> Lurkers, it was a good a way as any to address a meaningless
> pronouncement.

Pointing out an obvious truth... if it's not supportive of the WCR, is
always considered "meaningless" to true believers.

I've proven "Dud's" hypocrisy by merely providing affidavits and
statements that DID NOT support the WCR's theory, and his attitude was
completely different.

WHAT A DISHONEST HYPOCRITE!

>> Your inability to note that McWatters claims to have identified Oswald
>> simply goes to your lack of intelligence, nothing more.
>
> Lurkers, Ben is still fighting strawmen. Neither myself or the
> original poster made any point regarding McWatters identification of
> Oswald.

You can't even admit that what was *quoted* was refuted by what was
merely cited.

Then start whining when I do.

>> >> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
>> >> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
>> >> >
>> >> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
>> >> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
>> >> *******************************************************
>> >>
>> >> Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination
>> >> of where the shots came from?
>> >
>> > It was the pattern of the selected content.
>>
>> No, it wasn't.
>
> Lurkers, Ben`s fingers apparently prevent him from writing
> anything true. There was a clear pattern to the quotes Ben produced.

Indeed... the pattern was simply *OPPOSITE* to that of McWatters...
rather than supporting the WCR - they all contradicted the WCR.

The difference in how "Dud" treated them has proven his hypocrisy.

It shows who's concerned with the truth, and who's concerned with
their faith.

>> It was an illustration that you're too dishonest and hypocritical to
>> be able to debate the actual evidence.
>
> Lurkers, I addressed those quotes head on, and Ben did what he
> always does. He ran from every point I made.

You're lying again, "Dud."

>> I *knew*... I **KNEW** that you would treat affidavits and statements
>> that opposed the WCR differently than you did the affidavit of someone
>> who apparently supported the WCR.
>
> Lurkers, this speaks to the fact that Ben is playing silly games
> with the deaths of these men. He see the witnesses as "theirs" and
> "ours", when actually they are just human beings relating information.
>
> I don`t treat them different

You're not even honest enough to admit that you PROVABLY treated these
differently...

What a LIAR you are!

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >> ********************************************************
> >> >> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
> >> >> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
> >> >
> >> > Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.
> >>
> >> You've demonstrated yet again that you know you lost with your use of
> >> ad honinem instead of actual evidence & logical argument.
> >
> > Lurkers, it was a good a way as any to address a meaningless
> > pronouncement.
>
>
> Pointing out an obvious truth... if it's not supportive of the WCR, is
> always considered "meaningless" to true believers.

Lurkers, it is only Ben`s retard figuring that this was the original poster argument, lurkers.

> I've proven "Dud's" hypocrisy by merely providing affidavits and
> statements that DID NOT support the WCR's theory, and his attitude was
> completely different.
>
> WHAT A DISHONEST HYPOCRITE!

As explained, lurkers, had Ben produced only the affidavits of those witnesses he quoted I would have merely asked what his point was. That Ben doesn`t understand this is not my problem.

>
> >> Your inability to note that McWatters claims to have identified Oswald
> >> simply goes to your lack of intelligence, nothing more.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben is still fighting strawmen. Neither myself or the
> > original poster made any point regarding McWatters identification of
> > Oswald.
>
>
> You can't even admit that what was *quoted* was refuted by what was
> merely cited.

Did Ben refute that McWatter was a busdriver, lurkers? Ben merely selected a line from the affidavit and decided to assign the original poster a position. Classic strawman.

> Then start whining when I do.
>
>
>
> >> >> >> But that's simply not true. Anyone who took the time to *READ*
> >> >> >> McWatter's testimony knows that he did *NOT* identify Oswald.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So why does this poster leave people with a false impression?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Lurkers, the poster made no comments, he merely produced evidence.
> >> >> > Ask yourselves, why is Ben so afraid of the evidence in this case?
> >> >> *******************************************************
> >> >>
> >> >> Why are you pretending that someone is trying to make a determination
> >> >> of where the shots came from?
> >> >
> >> > It was the pattern of the selected content.
> >>
> >> No, it wasn't.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben`s fingers apparently prevent him from writing
> > anything true. There was a clear pattern to the quotes Ben produced.
>
>
> Indeed... the pattern was simply *OPPOSITE* to that of McWatters...
> rather than supporting the WCR - they all contradicted the WCR.

Lurkers, they all provided information as human beings are wont to do, thats all.

> The difference in how "Dud" treated them has proven his hypocrisy.

Nonsense lurkers, Ben is desperate. I treat all the witnesses the same, I weigh the information they supply. This process has Ben baffled.

> It shows who's concerned with the truth, and who's concerned with
> their faith.

Where these witnesses thought the shots came from does not contradict where the WC concluded they had come from, lurkers. These witnesses were offering their impressions, they weren`t representing the information as factual.

> >> It was an illustration that you're too dishonest and hypocritical to
> >> be able to debate the actual evidence.
> >
> > Lurkers, I addressed those quotes head on, and Ben did what he
> > always does. He ran from every point I made.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Dud."

And still running, lurkers.

>
> >> I *knew*... I **KNEW** that you would treat affidavits and statements
> >> that opposed the WCR differently than you did the affidavit of someone
> >> who apparently supported the WCR.
> >
> > Lurkers, this speaks to the fact that Ben is playing silly games
> > with the deaths of these men. He see the witnesses as "theirs" and
> > "ours", when actually they are just human beings relating information.
> >
> > I don`t treat them different
>
> You're not even honest enough to admit that you PROVABLY treated these
> differently...

Lurkers, I was able to understand what the witnesses were doing, offering impressions of where they thought the shots originated from. Ben blames me because he is too stupid to understand this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:33:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:08:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 6:34:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:50:27 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> >> ********************************************************
>> >> >> >> The one thing that seems to jump out in this *selective* quoting is
>> >> >> >> that Oswald was identified on the bus.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hows things seem to a conspiracy retard is one of the least meaningful things imaginable.
>> >>
>> >> You've demonstrated yet again that you know you lost with your use of
>> >> ad honinem instead of actual evidence & logical argument.
>> >
>> > Lurkers, it was a good a way as any to address a meaningless
>> > pronouncement.
>>
>>
>> Pointing out an obvious truth... if it's not supportive of the WCR, is
>> always considered "meaningless" to true believers.
>
> Lurkers, it is only Ben`s retard figuring that this was the
> original poster argument, lurkers.

Only a moron would think I was applying this to the original poster.

I'm CLEARLY asserting this hypocrisy ON YOUR PART.

This was the purpose of all those affidavits & statements I posted.

I proved EXACTLY what I set out to prove.

[Bud]

Follow it back, lurkers. Ben stated how what this poster produced "seemed" to mean something. I pointed out that how things seem to the retarded is immaterial. It wasn`t about me at all.

> I'm CLEARLY asserting this hypocrisy ON YOUR PART.

Empty claim, he is showing none, lurkers. If Ben posted only affidavits then I would have only asked him what his point was, I wouldn`t assign him a point and attack it like he did to the original poster.

> This was the purpose of all those affidavits & statements I posted.

What affidavit did Ben post, lurkers?

> I proved EXACTLY what I set out to prove.

Lurkers, Ben has proven he can`t tell an apple from an orange. They are both sort of roundish so he is stumped.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You'll never quote me saying that the original poster thought that
McWatter's testimony was "meaningless."

Debating morons gets boring sometimes...

[Bud]

The "meaningless pronouncement" I was referring to was Ben`s, lurkers, not the original posters or McWatter`s. Hard to imagine how Ben could have thought I was referring to something either of those two said/

> Debating morons gets boring sometimes...

I have to go back and explain everything little thing Ben misses, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> The "meaningless pronouncement"...

My prediction was, as usual, absolutely correct and on the money!

[Bud]

Was Ben`s, lurkers.

> My prediction was, as usual, absolutely correct and on the money!
>
> You'll never quote me saying that the original poster thought that
> McWatter's testimony was "meaningless."

What I said was meaningless was how Ben said it seemed to him, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

So you're lying.

[Bud]

If I was lying Ben then wouldn`t have had to cut and run from what I wrote, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:55:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> If I was lying...


Then you'd be unable to quote me.

Still no quote...

[Bud]

The point Ben snipped and ran from, lurkers...

"If I was lying Ben then wouldn`t have had to cut and run from what I wrote, lurkers."

> Still no quote...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Why are you refusing to quote me?

[Bud]

Why is Ben snipping and running from what I write, lurkers? The answer is fear.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:53:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

What issue does Ben feels requires me to quote him on, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:14:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

That's not the answer. Why are you refusing to quote me?

[Bud]

On what issue, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:11:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You've been running so long, you forgot?

[Bud]

I told Ben what I was referring to as meaningless, lurkers. It wasn`t that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

An argument Ben can`t show I ever made, lurkers. He keeps repeating it to misdirect that he was addressing a strawman.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> An argument Ben can`t show I ever made...

[Bud]

Another white flag, lurkers, a johnny one-note strawman.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Another white flag...

You only need to agree that you'll never quote me saying that the
original poster thought McWatter's testimony was "meaningless."

Or run again... who cares?

[Bud]

Where did I say Ben had, lurkers?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 09:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Where did I say ...

Tut tut tut, "Dud." Still having problems reading?

[gggg gggg]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
> that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
> anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
> road."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/witness-to-jfks-killing-changes-his-story-60-years-later

[gggg gggg]

According to this:

- Additionally, his Secret Service partner Clint Hill discouraged Landis from speaking out at the time.

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/secret-service-agent-next-jfk-during-assassination-challenges-official

[David Healy]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:07:52 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:02:02 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
> > that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
> > anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
> > road."

> Lurkers, so Paul Landis felt the shots came from the front. Based on what is not supplied by Ben, which makes it difficult to decide how much weight to give to Landis`s feelings.

you are nervous, Dudster.... at LEAST 4 shots, 2 front - 2 rear AND a spent round found on the on the top of the rear seat, by an SS eye witness less that 30' from the shooting? Oh-my... hope you got a new nitro prescription filled... this is right up there with Mark Lane data.....

[Bud]

Yes, it is probably on a par with that.

But you do realize you are replying to something I wrote six years ago, right? Playing catch up?

[gggg gggg]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
> that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
> anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
> road."

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/10/jfk-assassination-paul-landis-secret-service-theory

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 7:16:33 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Lurkers, Ben is big on meaningless claims.

The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
Let me supply it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm

[John Corbett]

All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
> to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
> sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
> photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
> believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
> that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
> floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.

More comments, no evidence to back it up.
The same old bullshit from you.

You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.

Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg

You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4

You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm

Now for the second shot:

Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif

Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4

These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.

Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 02:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:


>The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
>Let me supply it:
>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm

Ouch! Spanked again!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 04:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Spanked again!!!

Corbutt's is getting mighty red...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:50:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
>> Let me supply it:
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
>
>All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
>to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
>sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
>photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
>believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
>that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
>floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.

Notice that Landis makes clear that the supposed SBT was the first
shot.

Notice also that Corbutt simply speculates, and thinks it's evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 17:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


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.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:22:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
> > to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
> > sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
> > photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
> > believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
> > that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
> > floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
> More comments, no evidence to back it up.

Do you need me to present you with the evidence that there were 3 spent shells and a rifle
found on the 6th floor? Are you that uninformed?

> The same old bullshit from you.
>
> You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
> Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.

I never assume a witness is right or wrong. Instead I take the sensible approach of looking at
the body of evidence to determine if what a witness has said is right or wrong. The Altgens
photo doesn't require us to depend on what a witness saw, heard, or remembered. It shows us
how witnesses reacted in real time. Something caused the two agents on the right running board
to turn and look behind them to the right. This is after JFK and JBC have been hit by the
second shot. What I find curious as to why Hill and Landis only remembered two shots when
most people heard three. Jackie two only remembered two. Witness Brehm is seen in the grass
median continuing to clap his hand even as JFK is reacting to having been hit by the second
shot. We don't know why witnesses exposed to the same sights and sounds remembered them
differently. We only know that they did and are left to speculate why.

>
> Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg

Wrong. It was taken after the second shot almost two seconds after the single bullet strike
in the early 220s.

>
> You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
>
> You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot.
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm

Landis only remembered two shots. So he apparently didn't recognize one of the shots. Most
likely, he didn't recognize the first shot as a gun shot. We can only guess why. I wonder if the
motorcycles accelerating coming out of the turn drown out the crack of the rifle to the point
he and Hill didn't recognize the sound of the first shot for what it was. I don't know that for fact
is why they only remembered hearing two shots.

>
> Now for the second shot:
>
> Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif

Do you adhere to the theory that there was a fourth shot from the GK? If so, how do you explain
Landis only hearing two? What Landis thought was the second shot was actually the third. There
was no fourth shot.

>
> Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4

Again, what he thought was the second shot was actually the third.

>
> These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
> So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.

I never said all witnesses were wrong. That is your strawman argument. I know some witnesses
had to be wrong because they remembered the same event differently. They can't all be right.
It is also true that some of the witnesses were right about some things and wrong about other
things. That is to be expected not just in this case but in any case where multiple witnesses
observe the same event and remember it differently.

>
> Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.

How am I supposed to know how the WC decided which witnesses to call to testify? If you want
me to guess, I can do that.

[Chuck Schuyler]

How does Landis' recollections square with your speculation that perhaps up to eight shots were fired from at least three different locations?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:22:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
>>> to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
>>> sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
>>> photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
>>> believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
>>> that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
>>> floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
>> More comments, no evidence to back it up.
>

>Do you need me to present you with the evidence ...


YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!


How many times do we need to ask you to cite evidence???


(But you won't cite evidence... how sad...)

>> The same old bullshit from you.
>>
>> You're assuming that the witnesses were wrong while you compare apples with oranges.
>> Don't compare Altgens 6 with what the witnesses said about the SECOND shot.
>

>I never assume ...


A blatant lie...

>> Altgens 6 was taken at Z frame Z-255, between the first and second shots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/altgens-with-names.jpg
>
>Wrong.

Wrong.

>> You see Chaney turned to his left like he said after the FIRST shot.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
>>
>> You see Landis turned to his right after the FIRST shot.
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0384b.htm
>

>Landis ...


You don't believe Landis, why are you trying to use him as a witness?

>> Now for the second shot:
>>
>> Landis said the SECOND shot that exploded the Presdent's head sounded like it came from the "front, right-hand side of the road".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WH_Vol18_755-landis.gif
>

>Do you ...


Tut tut tut... deal with what was posted.

>> Chaney said after he turned left, he turned back around to see the President "struck in the face by the SECOND shot".
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/James-chaney.mp4
>

>Again...


You don't believe the eyewitnesses.

>> These witnesses knew what they were talking about and their accounts corroborate each other and in the realm of credibility that matters big time.
>> So take your argument about how all witnesses are wrong except those who prove Oswald was guilty and shove it up your ass.
>
>I never said all witnesses were wrong.

As you've repeatedly refused to name even a *SINGLE* witness you
believe completely in their testimony and contemporary statements,
this is provably a lie.

>> Now tell us why Landis and Chaney were not called to testify before the Warren Commission.
>
>How am I supposed to know how the WC decided which witnesses to call to testify? If you want
>me to guess, I can do that.

Then simply name a witness that firmly supported the WCR's theory who
was *NOT* called to testify...


You clearly can't reason...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 10:09:07?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:15:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 5:50:46?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>>>> The asshole who is afraid of links wants proof.
>>>> Let me supply it:
>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0385a.htm
>>>
>>>All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
>>>to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
>>>sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
>>>photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
>>>believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
>>>that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
>>>floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
>
>> Notice that Landis makes clear that the supposed SBT was the first
>> shot.
>>
>> Notice also that Corbutt simply speculates, and thinks it's evidence.
>

>How does Landis' recollections ...

Tut tut tut, coward... address the point I made FIRST - then you can
change the topic.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:01:18 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 7:22:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 6:15:43?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >>> All this indicates is that Secret Service agents are just as human as anybody else when it comes
> >>> to determining the source of gunfire based on the sound. A whole lot of people heard the same
> >>> sounds yet had very different impressions about where the shots were coming from. The Altgens
> >>> photo shows the agents on the right side of the car turned to the rear which indicates they
> >>> believed that is where the shots came from. There is forensic evidence for only one location,
> >>> that being the 6th floor sniper's nest. Three spent shells from a rifle found elsewhere on that
> >>> floor. This matches the consensus among witnesses that there were three shots.
> >> More comments, no evidence to back it up.
> >
> >Do you need me to present you with the evidence ...
>
>
> YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!
>
>
> How many times do we need to ask you to cite evidence???

You only remove it anyway.

You are terrified of those that can. It is why you remove what they write.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 17:21:32 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[David Drummond]

Adding to this Paul Landis thread.

A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.

The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory

Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.

[Ben Holmes]

Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported
contemporaneously. I need nothing else to prove conspiracy. Read what
he originally said:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm

[gggg gggg]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 4:02:02 PM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Secret Service Agent in the motorcade: "My reaction at this time was
> that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, but I did not see
> anyone on the overpass, and looked along the right-hand side of the
> road."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaD-MbSKJc

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:41:25 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
> Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
>
> A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
>

Got any ideas how a bullet would end up in the back seat? Tell us where it could have been fired
from and who or what it could have hit. I'm not even asking you to prove it. Just tell us how it could have happened.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:03:21 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond
> <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
> >
> >A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
> >
> >The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
> >
> >https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
> >
> >Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.


> Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported
> contemporaneously.

You're happy that it was contemporaneously reported JFK was shot in the head?

Most of the early reports were of three shots fired at the motorcade. CBS, WFAA, UPI, ABC, etc.

You think up to eight shots were fired at the motorcade from three locations.

You're on the far, far fringe with Sky Throne. And you provide no proof for your hobby points.

[donald willis]

It's tantalizing. A bullet found in the back seat of the limo. A pinky-length wound in the back of JFK's body. Must have fallen out there. But did the wound end there? New information for the Bethesda pathologists: Dr. Perry says there was a throat wound. Ah!--the exit wound. And bruises over the lung & around the trachea. And: Dr. Guinn says that the "stretcher bullet matches the fragments in [Connolly's] wrist. Case closed. Though a few questions remain: Can bullet wounds seem to end, but don't, really? Can we trust Perry, Guinn & co.? Was Dr. Humes embrace of the throat wound as an exit wound a little precipitate?

And one little adjustment could still validate Landis's story: If the bullet was found in the *front* seat, then it could be the stretcher bullet. Either way, though, I'm afraid that there doesn't seem to be a case here for a 4th shot...

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

Landis didn't mention seeing a bullet for more than two decades after the assassination. His first mention was in 1988, and then it was only a fragment.

More than likely it's a false memory.

Fred Litwin covers this in detail here:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-paul-landis-really-find-a-bullet

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

More likely he's lying to increase book sales and his cash take.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 18:29:09 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:03:21?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:23 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond
>> <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Adding to this Paul Landis thread.
>>>
>>>A story came out literally just yesterday, supposed to be revelatory, that SA Paul Landis found a bullet in the back seat of the limo, a finding which alone debunks the SBT. I say "supposed" to be revelatory because a bullet was already found on a stretcher in Parkland. But I guess this is new information resurfacing now.
>>>
>>>The NY Times published the article/interview, but it's paywalled so I linked to this article instead:
>>>
>>>https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4197958-secret-service-agent-raises-questions-about-jfk-magic-bullet-theory
>>>
>>>Ben and Gil (+Don), interested in hearing your takes on this.
>
>
>> Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported
>> contemporaneously.
>
>You're happy that it was contemporaneously reported JFK was shot in the head?

ROTFMAO!!!

You actually think he wasn't????

Yes moron, I COMPLETELY accept contemporary first day witnesses that
say JFK was shot in the head. The contemporary first day medical
evidence shows he was shot twice in the head... once in the back, and
once in the throat.

>Most of the early reports were of three shots fired at the motorcade. CBS, WFAA, UPI, ABC, etc.

Is that wihat you believe? You *CAN'T* believe the early reports -
one of them was Chaney.

>You think up to eight shots were fired at the motorcade from three locations.

Yep. And based on contemporary evidence. I feel no need to rely on
"evidence" from a decade or two later...

>You're on the far, far fringe with Sky Throne. And you provide no proof for your hobby points.

Empty claims with no citations means, according to Chickenshit, that
this is simply another lie on your part.

>> I need nothing else to prove conspiracy. Read what
>> he originally said:
>> https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm

You don't believe Landis. You can't. He was an eyewitness. He saw
and heard things that contradict your faith.

Now run away like a good little coward. You've lost.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 18:23:47 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Low charge bullet struck JFK in the back, then plopped out.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 06:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


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?

[David Drummond]

I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.

The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm

His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.

Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.

Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes them superior to us.

[Ben Holmes]

Don't know why they'd do that... they're missing a bullet, you'd think
they'd be HAPPY to find it.

[Chuck Schuyler]

You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.

Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."

[David Drummond]

>
> You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
>
> Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."

Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:40:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:32:40?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:27:41 -0700 (PDT), David Drummond
>> <borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
>>>
>>>The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
>>>
>>>https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
>>>
>>>His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
>>>
>>>Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
>>>
>>>Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes them superior to us.
>> Don't know why they'd do that... they're missing a bullet, you'd think
>> they'd be HAPPY to find it.
>

>You're satisfied...

With laughing at you... yes.

You're clearly too stupid to be able to read what I post, and
understand it.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Most likely because there wasn't an extra bullet or fragment he "found" in addition to the evidence we've known about and discussed all of these years.

[Hank Sienzant]

Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?

Please advise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:48:41?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
>>>
>>> You're satisfied with the contemporaneous account from Landis? Boris points out that his initial account doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about an "extra" bullet.
>>>
>>> Ben: "Unlike many believers, I'm quite happy with what was reported contemporaneously."
>
>> Landis failing to mention a bullet in his original statement is not proof that no bullet was found. It only proves he didn't mention it. I only said I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned.
>

>Most likely ...

Sounds like more speculation headed our way.

Deleted, as we don't need more speculation.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:27:43 PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
> I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.

Hi David,

False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”. There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.

>
> The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
>
> https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
>
> His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
>
> Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.

“Easily forgetful” is not the charge.

"Misremembering" is closer. But in the scientific literature, it’s called false memories.

>
> Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes them superior to us.

There was no extra bullet, it's something that Landis only started talking about 25 years after the fact. And originally, it was only a fragment.

What wound would this correspond to?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:06:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

Landis failing to mention a bullet is not proof there was a bullet found either. Did he simply *forget* to mention this important piece of physical evidence in his memorandum for the record? As you note, “His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.”

Yet he didn't… and what happened to this supposed bullet?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:10:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

This is PROOF of your cowardice...

[Hank Sienzant]

Why are you running away from discussion of what memories Landis recovered 25 -years after the fact, and attempting to change the subject?

[John Corbett]

I hadn't thought of the possibility Landis recovered a fragment and later developed a false
memory that it was a whole bullet. If it was a fragment, it would almost certainly be from the
head shot. I still find that unlikely. What doesn't make sense is his claim that he put the bullet
on JFK's gurney. I know the Secret Service protection detail probably didn't have a lot of
experience as crime scene investigators (note the washing of the blood splatter evidence), but
still, that makes no sense. He would have to know that would be a very key piece of evidence.
Why would he simply have placed it on JFK's gurney where it could easily have been lost. His
story just doesn't make any sense.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:17:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:29:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:06:08?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:27:43?PM UTC-4, David Drummond wrote:
>>> I see Henry has returned with the flaccid "misremembering" whitewash that he applies to all undesirable witnesses, and the rest of the LNers don't even try to be anything other than hornets at a picnic.
>> Hi David,
>>
>> False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
>> Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”. There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.
>>>
>>> The part I'm having trouble with is Landis did not seem to mention anything like this in his original statement:
>>>
>>> https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm
>>>
>>> His statement is very detailed, at least detailed enough that one would think he'd have mentioned something that consequential.
>>>
>>> Certainly also detailed enough that to characterize such a man as easily forgetful or "misremembering" is simply irresponsible.
>> “Easily forgetful” is not the charge.
>>
>> "Misremembering" is closer. But in the scientific literature, it’s called false memories.
>>>
>>> Also, in the desperation of their apologia it sounds like the LNers are trying to claim that IF there was a bullet in the limo, that it was somehow the same bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland. One of many absurdities they believe which makes them superior to us.
>> There was no extra bullet, it's something that Landis only started talking about 25 years after the fact. And originally, it was only a fragment.
>>
>> What wound would this correspond to?
>
>I hadn't thought of the possibility Landis recovered a fragment and later developed a false

>memory ...

You don't believe what he asserted contemporaneously, why are you
worried about this???

[David Drummond]

>
> Why would anyone shoot their intended murder victim with a less-powerful bullet than normal?
> Why wasn't this bullet part of the known evidence?
>
> Please advise.

This is the part where Henry agrees that the magic bullet is "less powerful" than the head shot bullet because one exploded and one remained intact.

This is also the part where Henry conveniently forgets his own counterarguments that bullets act differently.

[David Drummond]

>
>
> False memory is a verifiable issue. See anything by Elizabeth Loftus.
> Or what happened to the McMartins, for one example of people inventing memories and getting people sent to jail. Or many accusations of child sex abuse first brought forth against parents decades later by grown children having “recovered memories”. There's nothing ‘flaccid’ about it.

What's flaccid is your attribution of false memories to anyone in the vicinity of ANY shooting (JFK, Tippett, Walker, Oswald) who even begin to approach to hint at a memory with even the vaugest discrepancy to the WCR. Suspiciously enough, the false memory phenomenon manages to elude everyone who tows the official narrative to the exact letter. I wonder what Elizabeth Loftus would think about that.

[Bud]

The crackpots think reasoning is speculation.

[Bud]

Do you guys really need another issue you can go nowhere with?