A Simple Challenge...

[Ben Holmes]

On 28 Apr 2020 00:29:42 -0400, "Steven M. Galbraith"
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>But they don't see any "weeds", any limits to what the conspirators could
>do. We understand the limits of human beings, of the ability of them (us)
>to control events - before, during and then afterwards for decades.
>
>They don't see these limits. When we ask how the rifle was planted the
>answer is, "They just did" or "It just was." Who did it? How? When? These
>are the "weeds" that they deny exist.
>
>Their answers is just more conspiracies, more coverups, more planted
>evidence, more coerced or coached witnesses. More and more and more weeds.
>
>It is impossible to pull off what they say happened. We understand that.
>They don't. Or can't.


Here's a simple challenge. Quote ANYTHING that I've said about this
case, and demonstrate how it is "impossible."

Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
acknowledge that he lost.

Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...

Watch!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 10:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2020 00:29:42 -0400, "Steven M. Galbraith"
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >But they don't see any "weeds", any limits to what the conspirators could
> >do. We understand the limits of human beings, of the ability of them (us)
> >to control events - before, during and then afterwards for decades.
> >
> >They don't see these limits. When we ask how the rifle was planted the
> >answer is, "They just did" or "It just was." Who did it? How? When? These
> >are the "weeds" that they deny exist.
> >
> >Their answers is just more conspiracies, more coverups, more planted
> >evidence, more coerced or coached witnesses. More and more and more weeds.
> >
> >It is impossible to pull off what they say happened. We understand that.
> >They don't. Or can't.
>
>
> Here's a simple challenge. Quote ANYTHING that I've said about this
> case, and demonstrate how it is "impossible."

This merely illustrates you don`t understand the point he is making.

Your overall take on this event is impossible. Even you know this, and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.

> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
> acknowledge that he lost.
>
> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
>
> Watch!

Another phony challenge.

State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 13:49:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 10:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2020 00:29:42 -0400, "Steven M. Galbraith"
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But they don't see any "weeds", any limits to what the conspirators could
>>>do. We understand the limits of human beings, of the ability of them (us)
>>>to control events - before, during and then afterwards for decades.
>>>
>>>They don't see these limits. When we ask how the rifle was planted the
>>>answer is, "They just did" or "It just was." Who did it? How? When? These
>>>are the "weeds" that they deny exist.
>>>
>>>Their answers is just more conspiracies, more coverups, more planted
>>>evidence, more coerced or coached witnesses. More and more and more weeds.
>>>
>>>It is impossible to pull off what they say happened. We understand that.
>>>They don't. Or can't.
>>
>> Here's a simple challenge. Quote ANYTHING that I've said about this
>> case, and demonstrate how it is "impossible."
>
> This merely illustrates you don`t understand the point he is making.

Au contraire, it proves all too well that I know EXACTLY what his
claim was.

And can refute it easily.

As I just did.

You lose!

> Your overall take on this event is impossible.

Yet you can't name even *ONE* impossible fact... and unlike you, I
have no problems going into detail about what happened.

You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.


> Even you know this,


You're lying again, Chickenshit.

> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.

Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
I cite my scenario again?

>> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
>> acknowledge that he lost.
>>
>> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
>>
>> Watch!
>
> Another phony challenge.

Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
statement, they ALWAYS run away...

> State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.

Another PERFECT prediction! Chickenshit refused, as I said he would.

Notice that he's now trying to turn the challenge back to me, without
actually attempting the challenge.

Chickenshit loses!

[Bud]

Your *overall* take on this event is impossible.

> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.

Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.

> > Even you know this,
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual beliefs, you let me know.

> > and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
> > to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
> > absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
>
>
> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
> I cite my scenario again?

No, I`m not talking about your talking about that smokescreen, that is just what you want to misdirect to, what you want to talk about. I`m talking about your true beliefs that you hide.

Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?

Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?

How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?

Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running from the Tippit murder scene?

Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?

I could come up with more, but this will be enough to make the point. You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t know. I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what form this takes I haven`t a clue.

> >> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
> >> acknowledge that he lost.
> >>
> >> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
> >>
> >> Watch!
> >
> > Another phony challenge.
>
>
> Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
> statement, they ALWAYS run away...

You haven`t shown you have a viable way of resolving the dispute. That makes the challenge phony.

> > State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.
>
>
> Another PERFECT prediction! Chickenshit refused, as I said he would.
>
> Notice that he's now trying to turn the challenge back to me, without
> actually attempting the challenge.

I`ve stated my position...

"State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it."

> Chickenshit loses!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Dead silence...

>>> Your overall take on this event is impossible.
>>
>>
>> Yet you can't name even *ONE* impossible fact... and unlike you, I
>> have no problems going into detail about what happened.
>
> Your *overall* take on this event is impossible.

In other words, you're TERRIFIED of quoting or citing *ANYTHING* that
is "impossible."

You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.

I win, you lose!

>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
>
> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.

Quite successfully too.

You're just as terrified as he is.

>>> Even you know this,
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
> beliefs, you let me know.

Begged.

>>> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
>>> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
>>> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
>> I cite my scenario again?
>

> No...


Of course not... You're TERRIFIED of my scenario...

> Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?

Why are you lying?

> Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?

She wanted to practice Russian.

> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?

He was given the information for a job opening.

> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
> from the Tippit murder scene?

He didn't. You're lying again.

> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?

Speculation.

> I could come up with more,

It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.

What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.

> but this will be enough to make the point.

Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
but refuse to answer similar questions?

Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
eyewitnesses testified to?

> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
> know.

Begged.

> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
> form this takes I haven`t a clue.

Begged.

>>>> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
>>>> acknowledge that he lost.
>>>>
>>>> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
>>>>
>>>> Watch!
>>>
>>> Another phony challenge.
>>
>> Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
>> statement, they ALWAYS run away...
>
> You haven`t shown you have a viable way of resolving the dispute.
> That makes the challenge phony.

I was quite clear. A poll. What part didn't you understand?

>>> State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.
>>
>> Another PERFECT prediction! Chickenshit refused, as I said he would.
>>
>> Notice that he's now trying to turn the challenge back to me, without
>> actually attempting the challenge.
>
> I`ve stated my position...
>
> "State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it."

You ran... as I predicted you would. You ran again, despite me
pointing out your cowardice.


>> Chickenshit loses!

[Bud]

Read for comprehension...

"Your *overall* take on this event is impossible."

> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
>
> I win, you lose!
>
>
>
> >> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
> >
> > Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
>
>
> Quite successfully too.

Hot air.

> You're just as terrified as he is.
>
>
>
> >>> Even you know this,
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> >
> > If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
> > beliefs, you let me know.
>
>
> Begged.

We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.

> >>> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
> >>> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
> >>> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
> >> I cite my scenario again?
> >
> > No...
>
>
> Of course not... You're TERRIFIED of my scenario...

You were terrified by my response, that is why you removed it.

> > Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
>
>
> Why are you lying?
>
>
> > Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
>
>
> She wanted to practice Russian.

Really? Nothing else? Good, now I know. You don`t think there was suspicious or more than meets the eye, it was just a mutually beneficial arrangement.

> > How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>
>
> He was given the information for a job opening.

Non responsive to the question. Was him getting the job happenstance or orchestrated?

> > Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
> > from the Tippit murder scene?
>
>
> He didn't. You're lying again.

People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...

https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg

> > Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>
>
> Speculation.

It is speculation that he said this?

> > I could come up with more,
>
>
> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
>
> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.

I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your beliefs with your objections and evasions.

> > but this will be enough to make the point.
>
>
> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
> but refuse to answer similar questions?

My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.

> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
> eyewitnesses testified to?

How so?

> > You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
> > *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
> > know.
>
>
> Begged.

Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.

> > I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
> > than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
> > form this takes I haven`t a clue.
>
>
> Begged.

Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?

> >>>> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
> >>>> acknowledge that he lost.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
> >>>>
> >>>> Watch!
> >>>
> >>> Another phony challenge.
> >>
> >> Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
> >> statement, they ALWAYS run away...
> >
> > You haven`t shown you have a viable way of resolving the dispute.
> > That makes the challenge phony.
>
>
> I was quite clear. A poll. What part didn't you understand?

So you equate saying the word "poll" with showing you have a viable way of resolving the dispute.

> >>> State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.
> >>
> >> Another PERFECT prediction! Chickenshit refused, as I said he would.
> >>
> >> Notice that he's now trying to turn the challenge back to me, without
> >> actually attempting the challenge.
> >
> > I`ve stated my position...
> >
> > "State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it."
>
>
> You ran... as I predicted you would. You ran again, despite me
> pointing out your cowardice.

I don`t see you stating specifically how this would work, and I don`t see you shutting the fuck up about it.

>
> >> Chickenshit loses!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Read for comprehension: In other words, you're TERRIFIED of quoting or

citing *ANYTHING* that is "impossible."

You can't.

It would quickly be refuted.

So you resort to hot air.

>> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
>>
>> I win, you lose!

Indeed! Still true.

>>>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
>>>
>>> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
>>
>> Quite successfully too.
>
> Hot air.

You've been COMPLETELY unable to refute what I stated.

>> You're just as terrified as he is.
>>
>>>>> Even you know this,
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>
>>> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
>>> beliefs, you let me know.
>>
>> Begged.
>
> We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.

What everyone can see is that I've provided my scenario.

You haven't.

And continue to refuse to do so.

>>>>> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
>>>>> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
>>>>> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
>>>> I cite my scenario again?
>>>
>>> No...
>>
>> Of course not... You're TERRIFIED of my scenario...
>

> You ..


Won.



Yes.

>>> Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
>>
>> Why are you lying?

Amusingly, Chickenshit refused to deny that he lied... and refuses to
quote Brennan's testimony saying this.

This proves that Chickenshit hides his true beliefs...

>>> Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
>>
>>
>> She wanted to practice Russian.
>
> Really?

That's what she said. Are you calling her a liar?

Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
the answer, and CITE for your answer?

>>> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>>
>> He was given the information for a job opening.
>
> Non responsive to the question.

No reason to select *YOUR* words... I gave the answer. It was
"orchestrated" in the sense that someone gave him the information for
a job opening.

Clearly, you have some belief here that you're hiding. What is it,
Chickenshit? Why can't you come clean and tell everyone what you
really think?

>>> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
>>> from the Tippit murder scene?
>>
>> He didn't. You're lying again.
>
> People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...
>
> https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg

You don't get to pick and choose. If it's not in his WC testimony,
then you're lying.

Here we see that you *DO* believe it's legitimate to pick statements
from DECADES later that weren't in his WC testimony.

So you've revealed that anything that helps your case, even from
decades later is fair game.

I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
earliest statements are the most credible statements.

>>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>>
>> Speculation.
>
> It is speculation that he said this?

Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.

Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
everyone what you think, Chickenshit?

>>> I could come up with more,
>>
>>
>> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
>>
>> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.
>
> I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your
> beliefs with your objections and evasions.

To who's satisfaction?

It's clear that you've done precisely the opposite. I've answered ALL
of your questions, and you duck and run from ALL of mine.

Who's the coward hiding what they think around here?

>>> but this will be enough to make the point.
>>
>> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
>> but refuse to answer similar questions?
>
> My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

I've answered everything, and you've run from everything. All you've
proven is that you're a dishonest coward.

>> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
>> eyewitnesses testified to?
>
> How so?

Start with the first one... Brennan. Cite the evidence for the lie you
told.

Or be proven yet again a liar.

>>> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
>>> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
>>> know.
>>
>> Begged.
>
> Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five
> things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.

But I *couldn't* do so. Even some of your questions are outright lies.

The only answer *I* would give is that you're lying. I can't make up
lies you would tell.

>>> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
>>> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
>>> form this takes I haven`t a clue.
>>
>> Begged.
>
> Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?

You *aren't* forced to guess. I answer every question you pose, and I
can CITE for every answer I give.

You refuse to answer the questions I raise, and you RARELY cite for
the claims you make.

>>>>>> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
>>>>>> acknowledge that he lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch!
>>>>>
>>>>> Another phony challenge.
>>>>
>>>> Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
>>>> statement, they ALWAYS run away...
>>>
>>> You haven`t shown you have a viable way of resolving the dispute.
>>> That makes the challenge phony.
>>
>>
>> I was quite clear. A poll. What part didn't you understand?
>
> So you equate saying the word "poll" with showing you have a
> viable way of resolving the dispute.

I asked you what part you didn't understand. And yet again, you evade
the question.

Why are you hiding what you think, Chickenshit?

>>>>> State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it.
>>>>
>>>> Another PERFECT prediction! Chickenshit refused, as I said he would.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that he's now trying to turn the challenge back to me, without
>>>> actually attempting the challenge.
>>>
>>> I`ve stated my position...
>>>
>>> "State specifically how you see this working or STFU about it."
>>
>> You ran... as I predicted you would. You ran again, despite me
>> pointing out your cowardice.

[Obscenity removed.]


>>>> Chickenshit loses!

[Bud]

Trying to talk over what I wrote isn`t addressing it...

"Your *overall* take on this event is impossible."

Contest the idea or don`t, but that is the idea.

> You can't.
>
> It would quickly be refuted.
>
> So you resort to hot air.
>
>
> >> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
> >>
> >> I win, you lose!
>
>
> Indeed! Still true.
>
>
> >>>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
> >>>
> >>> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
> >>
> >> Quite successfully too.
> >
> > Hot air.
>
>
> You've been COMPLETELY unable to refute what I stated.

How do you refute hot air?

> >> You're just as terrified as he is.
> >>
> >>>>> Even you know this,
> >>>>
> >>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> >>>
> >>> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
> >>> beliefs, you let me know.
> >>
> >> Begged.
> >
> > We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.
>
>
> What everyone can see is that I've provided my scenario.

Which is also evidence that you hide your beliefs.

> You haven't.
>
> And continue to refuse to do so.
>
>
>
> >>>>> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
> >>>>> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
> >>>>> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
> >>>> I cite my scenario again?
> >>>
> >>> No...
> >>
> >> Of course not... You're TERRIFIED of my scenario...
> >
> > You ..
>
>
> Won.

You admit defeat when you remove the points I make.

> Yes.
>
>
>
> >>> Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
> >>
> >> Why are you lying?
>
>
> Amusingly, Chickenshit refused to deny that he lied... and refuses to
> quote Brennan's testimony saying this.
>
> This proves that Chickenshit hides his true beliefs...

Now you choose to obscurate the issue to hide you beliefs.

> >>> Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
> >>
> >>
> >> She wanted to practice Russian.
> >
> > Really?
>
>
> That's what she said.

I didn`t ask you what she said. Why do I get the feeling you are hiding your true beliefs about how Marina came to stay with Mrs Paine?

> Are you calling her a liar?
>
> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
> the answer, and CITE for your answer?
>
>
> >>> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
> >>
> >> He was given the information for a job opening.
> >
> > Non responsive to the question.
>
>
> No reason to select *YOUR* words... I gave the answer. It was
> "orchestrated" in the sense that someone gave him the information for
> a job opening.

Parsed words and semantic arguments, that is to be expected from someone trying to hide their true beliefs about how Oswald came to work in the TSBD.

> Clearly, you have some belief here that you're hiding. What is it,
> Chickenshit? Why can't you come clean and tell everyone what you
> really think?
>
>
>
> >>> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
> >>> from the Tippit murder scene?
> >>
> >> He didn't. You're lying again.
> >
> > People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg
>
>
> You don't get to pick and choose.

No, you don`t. He said it and I showed he said it. It was chosen mainly for it`s visual impact, so the few observers could readily tell you lied when you called me a liar.

Now answer the question.

> If it's not in his WC testimony,
> then you're lying.

<snicker> You like to make up your own crooked rules as you go along, don`t you?

> Here we see that you *DO* believe it's legitimate to pick statements
> from DECADES later that weren't in his WC testimony.

Did he say it? Did I show he said it?

You have to lie to call me a lair. I don`t have to lie to call you one.

> So you've revealed that anything that helps your case, even from
> decades later is fair game.

You haven`t shown any conflict with anything he said previously.

> I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
> earliest statements are the most credible statements.

No doubt you will take it out of context and misrepresent the issue.

> >>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
> >>
> >> Speculation.
> >
> > It is speculation that he said this?
>
>
> Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.

Thanks for you help in supporting my contention that you hide your true beliefs. Five simple questions and you are like a hooked bass.

> Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
> everyone what you think, Chickenshit?

I have no problem telling people what I believe in regards to these five questions.

> >>> I could come up with more,
> >>
> >>
> >> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
> >>
> >> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.
> >
> > I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your
> > beliefs with your objections and evasions.
>
>
> To who's satisfaction?

Certainly I am satisfied with your performance.

> It's clear that you've done precisely the opposite. I've answered ALL
> of your questions, and you duck and run from ALL of mine.

The purpose of this exercise was to expose your dishonesty, and i see it as mission accomplished.

For the record, I tried to choose questions that I thought were uncontested evidential facts. I didn`t think anyone would contest that Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot from the TSBD, there are scads of posts here dedicated to discrediting Brennan for doing just that, but when you have a dishonest person trapped he will chew off his own leg rather than be honest. I didn`t think anyone would contest that Brewer said he saw Oswald outside his store acting strange (they might contest that he actually *did*, but not that he said he did), but Ben declared it "speculation".

Anyway, I think the point was well made.

> Who's the coward hiding what they think around here?
>
>
> >>> but this will be enough to make the point.
> >>
> >> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
> >> but refuse to answer similar questions?
> >
> > My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>
> I've answered everything,

And the way you answered proved my point.

> and you've run from everything. All you've
> proven is that you're a dishonest coward.
>
>
> >> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
> >> eyewitnesses testified to?
> >
> > How so?
>
>
> Start with the first one... Brennan. Cite the evidence for the lie you
> told.

You can say that Brennan wasn`t referring to Oswald in his testimony, but you can`t make that argument honestly.

> Or be proven yet again a liar.
>
>
> >>> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
> >>> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
> >>> know.
> >>
> >> Begged.
> >
> > Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five
> > things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.
>
>
> But I *couldn't* do so. Even some of your questions are outright lies.
>
> The only answer *I* would give is that you're lying. I can't make up
> lies you would tell.

Your whole shtick is "liar, liar".

> >>> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
> >>> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
> >>> form this takes I haven`t a clue.
> >>
> >> Begged.
> >
> > Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?
>
>
> You *aren't* forced to guess. I answer every question you pose, and I
> can CITE for every answer I give.

How can you cite for your beliefs? Do all conspiracy believers believe the same things?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Evading my challenge isn't answering it.

>> You can't.
>>
>> It would quickly be refuted.
>>
>> So you resort to hot air.
>>
>>
>>>> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
>>>>
>>>> I win, you lose!
>>
>>
>> Indeed! Still true.
>>
>>
>>>>>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
>>>>
>>>> Quite successfully too.
>>>
>>> Hot air.
>>
>> You've been COMPLETELY unable to refute what I stated.
>>

>>>> You're just as terrified as he is.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Even you know this,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
>>>>> beliefs, you let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Begged.
>>>
>>> We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.
>>
>> What everyone can see is that I've provided my scenario.
>
> Which is also evidence that you hide your beliefs.

Hot air.

>> You haven't.
>>
>> And continue to refuse to do so.
>>
>>>>>>> and this is why you will never spell out what you believe in regards
>>>>>>> to this event, because you know it is impossible. It would be so
>>>>>>> absurd that it could be dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Untrue. You *will*, however... run from it. You already have... Shall
>>>>>> I cite my scenario again?
>>>>>
>>>>> No...
>>>>
>>>> Of course not... You're TERRIFIED of my scenario...
>>>
>>> You ..
>>
>> Won.
>>

>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you lying?
>>
>>
>> Amusingly, Chickenshit refused to deny that he lied... and refuses to
>> quote Brennan's testimony saying this.
>>
>> This proves that Chickenshit hides his true beliefs...
>
> Now you choose to obscurate the issue to hide you beliefs.

Hot air.

>>>>> Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She wanted to practice Russian.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> That's what she said.
>
> I didn`t ask you what she said.

You just challenged my correct answer. I supported it.

>> Are you calling her a liar?
>>
>> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
>> the answer, and CITE for your answer?

Dead silence...

>>>>> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>>>>
>>>> He was given the information for a job opening.
>>>
>>> Non responsive to the question.
>>
>> No reason to select *YOUR* words... I gave the answer. It was
>> "orchestrated" in the sense that someone gave him the information for
>> a job opening.
>

> Parsed words and semantic arguments...


Hot air.

>> Clearly, you have some belief here that you're hiding. What is it,
>> Chickenshit? Why can't you come clean and tell everyone what you
>> really think?

Again, dead silence... Chickenshit is clearly hiding what he
believes...

>>>>> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
>>>>> from the Tippit murder scene?
>>>>
>>>> He didn't. You're lying again.
>>>
>>> People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg
>>
>> You don't get to pick and choose.
>
> No, you don`t.

Yet you're allowed to?

How silly!

Your claim is contrary to the earliest evidence.

>> If it's not in his WC testimony,
>> then you're lying.
>
> <snicker> You like to make up your own crooked rules as you go along, don`t you?

Actually, I'm following the same rules that believers have long
asserted.

>> Here we see that you *DO* believe it's legitimate to pick statements
>> from DECADES later that weren't in his WC testimony.
>
> Did he say it? Did I show he said it?

I've saved your acceptance of decades later statements that contradict
the earliest testimony.

> You have to lie to call me a lair.

I've never called you a lair in my life.

> I don`t have to lie to call you one.

Begged.

>> So you've revealed that anything that helps your case, even from
>> decades later is fair game.
>
> You haven`t shown any conflict with anything he said previously.

Then all you have to do is cite his WC testimony.

Why are you terrified of doing so?

>> I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
>> earliest statements are the most credible statements.
>
> No doubt you will take it out of context and misrepresent the issue.

Nope. I quote your EXACT words, along with any relevant context.

>>>>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>>>>
>>>> Speculation.
>>>
>>> It is speculation that he said this?
>>
>> Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.
>
> Thanks for you help in supporting my contention that you hide your
> true beliefs. Five simple questions and you are like a hooked bass.

Begged.

>> Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
>> everyone what you think, Chickenshit?
>
> I have no problem telling people what I believe in regards to these five questions.

Hot air.

>>>>> I could come up with more,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
>>>>
>>>> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.
>>>
>>> I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your
>>> beliefs with your objections and evasions.
>>
>>
>> To who's satisfaction?
>
> Certainly I am satisfied with your performance.

Crooked.

>> It's clear that you've done precisely the opposite. I've answered ALL
>> of your questions, and you duck and run from ALL of mine.
>
> The purpose of this exercise was to expose your dishonesty, and i
> see it as mission accomplished.

Begged.

> For the record, I tried to choose questions that I thought were
> uncontested evidential facts. I didn`t think anyone would contest that
> Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot from the TSBD,

Begged.

>> Who's the coward hiding what they think around here?
>>
>>
>>>>> but this will be enough to make the point.
>>>>
>>>> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
>>>> but refuse to answer similar questions?
>>>
>>> My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>
>> I've answered everything,
>
> And the way you answered proved my point.

Hot air.

>> and you've run from everything. All you've
>> proven is that you're a dishonest coward.
>>
>>
>>>> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
>>>> eyewitnesses testified to?
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> Start with the first one... Brennan. Cite the evidence for the lie you
>> told.
>
> You can say that Brennan wasn`t referring to Oswald in his
> testimony, but you can`t make that argument honestly.

I asked you to CITE the evidence for your lie... and you ran.

That cowardice tells the tale...

>> Or be proven yet again a liar.

Clearly, everyone can see you're a proven liar.

>>>>> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
>>>>> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Begged.
>>>
>>> Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five
>>> things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.
>>
>>
>> But I *couldn't* do so. Even some of your questions are outright lies.
>>
>> The only answer *I* would give is that you're lying. I can't make up
>> lies you would tell.
>
> Your whole shtick is "liar, liar".

Learn how to tell the supportable, citable truth.

>>>>> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
>>>>> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
>>>>> form this takes I haven`t a clue.
>>>>
>>>> Begged.
>>>
>>> Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?
>>
>> You *aren't* forced to guess. I answer every question you pose, and I
>> can CITE for every answer I give.
>
> How can you cite for your beliefs?

Because my "beliefs" on the evidence in this case are citable.

>> You refuse to answer the questions I raise, and you RARELY cite for
>> the claims you make.

Still an undisputed fact.

>>>>>>>> Any disagreements will be put to a poll, and the loser will publicly
>>>>>>>> acknowledge that he lost.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve will refuse to do so... Chickenshit will *ALSO* refuse...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Watch!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another phony challenge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believers like to spout off, but when challenged to back up their
>>>>>> statement, they ALWAYS run away...
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven`t shown you have a viable way of resolving the dispute.
>>>>> That makes the challenge phony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was quite clear. A poll. What part didn't you understand?
>>>
>>> So you equate saying the word "poll" with showing you have a
>>> viable way of resolving the dispute.
>>
>>
>> I asked you what part you didn't understand. And yet again, you evade
>> the question.
>>
>> Why are you hiding what you think, Chickenshit?

Dead silence...

[Bud]

Your challenge doesn`t speak to what Steve wrote.

> >> You can't.
> >>
> >> It would quickly be refuted.
> >>
> >> So you resort to hot air.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
> >>>>
> >>>> I win, you lose!
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed! Still true.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Quite successfully too.
> >>>
> >>> Hot air.
> >>
> >> You've been COMPLETELY unable to refute what I stated.
> >>
> >>>> You're just as terrified as he is.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Even you know this,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
> >>>>> beliefs, you let me know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Begged.
> >>>
> >>> We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.
> >>
> >> What everyone can see is that I've provided my scenario.
> >
> > Which is also evidence that you hide your beliefs.
>
>
> Hot air.

Those are just the things you are willing to talk about, complaints against the WC and such. Not your true beliefs, which if you were to divulge would show you to be a crackpot.

Why do I feel you are hiding your true beliefs about how Marina came to stay with Mrs Paine. I believe you think there is more than meets the eye than Mrs Paine merely wanting to learn Russian.

And I think the dishonest way in which you choose to answer shows this.

> >> Are you calling her a liar?
> >>
> >> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
> >> the answer, and CITE for your answer?
>
>
> Dead silence...

You are wasting your time, I`m not trying to debate you on these issues, I`m merely trying to find out what your beliefs are. The way you twist and turn helps make my point.

> >>>>> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
> >>>>
> >>>> He was given the information for a job opening.
> >>>
> >>> Non responsive to the question.
> >>
> >> No reason to select *YOUR* words... I gave the answer. It was
> >> "orchestrated" in the sense that someone gave him the information for
> >> a job opening.
> >
> > Parsed words and semantic arguments...
>
>
> Hot air.

This all helps my argument that you are embarrassed to say what you believe.

> >> Clearly, you have some belief here that you're hiding. What is it,
> >> Chickenshit? Why can't you come clean and tell everyone what you
> >> really think?
>
>
> Again, dead silence... Chickenshit is clearly hiding what he
> believes...
>
>
>
> >>>>> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
> >>>>> from the Tippit murder scene?
> >>>>
> >>>> He didn't. You're lying again.
> >>>
> >>> People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg
> >>
> >> You don't get to pick and choose.
> >
> > No, you don`t.
>
>
> Yet you're allowed to?

What I produced satisfied what I said. It showed Callaway saying he saw Oswald leaving the Tippit murder scene with a gun.

>
> How silly!
>
> Your claim is contrary to the earliest evidence.

If you want to claim that Callaway never said he saw Oswald leave the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun, go right ahead.

> >> If it's not in his WC testimony,
> >> then you're lying.
> >
> > <snicker> You like to make up your own crooked rules as you go along, don`t you?
>
>
> Actually, I'm following the same rules that believers have long
> asserted.

Hot air.

> >> Here we see that you *DO* believe it's legitimate to pick statements
> >> from DECADES later that weren't in his WC testimony.
> >
> > Did he say it? Did I show he said it?
>
>
> I've saved your acceptance of decades later statements that contradict
> the earliest testimony.

But won`t acknowledge that it shows him saying exactly what I said he had.

> > You have to lie to call me a lair.
>
>
> I've never called you a lair in my life.
>
>
> > I don`t have to lie to call you one.
>
>
> Begged.
>
>
> >> So you've revealed that anything that helps your case, even from
> >> decades later is fair game.
> >
> > You haven`t shown any conflict with anything he said previously.
>
>
> Then all you have to do is cite his WC testimony.
>
> Why are you terrified of doing so?

Because I`m not debating the issue. What I was trying to achieve has already been achieved.

> >> I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
> >> earliest statements are the most credible statements.
> >
> > No doubt you will take it out of context and misrepresent the issue.
>
>
> Nope. I quote your EXACT words, along with any relevant context.

<snicker> Yeah, right.

> >>>>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
> >>>>
> >>>> Speculation.
> >>>
> >>> It is speculation that he said this?
> >>
> >> Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.
> >
> > Thanks for you help in supporting my contention that you hide your
> > true beliefs. Five simple questions and you are like a hooked bass.
>
>
> Begged.

I`ll leave it to the readers to decide, do you feel Ben has been forthright in answering these questions, or do you feel he has been deceitful, trying to keep his true belief hidden?

> >> Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
> >> everyone what you think, Chickenshit?
> >
> > I have no problem telling people what I believe in regards to these five questions.

Alright, here goes...

Q: Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?

A: Because he did.

Q: Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?

A: She was being nice.

Q: How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?

A: Happenstance.

Q: Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running from the Tippit murder scene?

A: Because he did.

Q: Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?

A: Because he did.

I think any LNer would answer them just as easily. I think a CTer like Walt Cakebread would answer honestly, being honest in his convictions and not realizing his answers expose him as a crackpot. But you realize answering the question honestly would expose you as a crackpot, so you twist and turn. But that works just as well for me.

>
> Hot air.
>
>
> >>>>> I could come up with more,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.
> >>>
> >>> I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your
> >>> beliefs with your objections and evasions.
> >>
> >>
> >> To who's satisfaction?
> >
> > Certainly I am satisfied with your performance.
>
>
> Crooked.

Yes, your performance was.

>
> >> It's clear that you've done precisely the opposite. I've answered ALL
> >> of your questions, and you duck and run from ALL of mine.
> >
> > The purpose of this exercise was to expose your dishonesty, and i
> > see it as mission accomplished.
>
>
> Begged.

I am content.

>
> > For the record, I tried to choose questions that I thought were
> > uncontested evidential facts. I didn`t think anyone would contest that
> > Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot from the TSBD,
>
>
> Begged.

I`ve never seen it dispute here before this.

> >> Who's the coward hiding what they think around here?
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> but this will be enough to make the point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
> >>>> but refuse to answer similar questions?
> >>>
> >>> My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
> >>
> >> I've answered everything,
> >
> > And the way you answered proved my point.
>
>
> Hot air.

I am content. Things went exactly as I expected.

> >> and you've run from everything. All you've
> >> proven is that you're a dishonest coward.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
> >>>> eyewitnesses testified to?
> >>>
> >>> How so?
> >>
> >> Start with the first one... Brennan. Cite the evidence for the lie you
> >> told.
> >
> > You can say that Brennan wasn`t referring to Oswald in his
> > testimony, but you can`t make that argument honestly.
>
>
> I asked you to CITE the evidence for your lie... and you ran.

Are you taking the position that Brennan wasn`t referring to Oswald in his testimony as the man he saw shoot Kennedy?

> That cowardice tells the tale...
>
>
> >> Or be proven yet again a liar.
>
>
> Clearly, everyone can see you're a proven liar.
>
>
> >>>>> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
> >>>>> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
> >>>>> know.
> >>>>
> >>>> Begged.
> >>>
> >>> Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five
> >>> things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.
> >>
> >>
> >> But I *couldn't* do so. Even some of your questions are outright lies.
> >>
> >> The only answer *I* would give is that you're lying. I can't make up
> >> lies you would tell.
> >
> > Your whole shtick is "liar, liar".
>
>
> Learn how to tell the supportable, citable truth.

I get at the truth my own way. Like I did here.

Do you think you fooled anyone that you were being forthright and honest in your answers?

> >>>>> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
> >>>>> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
> >>>>> form this takes I haven`t a clue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Begged.
> >>>
> >>> Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?
> >>
> >> You *aren't* forced to guess. I answer every question you pose, and I
> >> can CITE for every answer I give.
> >
> > How can you cite for your beliefs?
>
>
> Because my "beliefs" on the evidence in this case are citable.

No, they really aren`t. You can cite the person who refused to allow Finck to examine the Kennedy`s clothing saying he did so at the behest of some conspiracy. It doesn`t exist in evidence, only your imagination.

And the same witness you hold up as support on one issue you say is lying on other issues.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:23:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Begged.

>>>> You can't.
>>>>
>>>> It would quickly be refuted.
>>>>
>>>> So you resort to hot air.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You're afraid of doing so, because you can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I win, you lose!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! Still true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're TERRIFIED of providing your scenario.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not about me. You are disputing what the OP said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite successfully too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hot air.
>>>>
>>>> You've been COMPLETELY unable to refute what I stated.
>>>>
>>>>>> You're just as terrified as he is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even you know this,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you have a better explanation for why you hide your actual
>>>>>>> beliefs, you let me know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begged.
>>>>>
>>>>> We`ll see when I get down the issues I raised.
>>>>
>>>> What everyone can see is that I've provided my scenario.
>>>
>>> Which is also evidence that you hide your beliefs.
>>
>>
>> Hot air.

[Ad hominem deleted.]

Begged.

>>>> Are you calling her a liar?
>>>>
>>>> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
>>>> the answer, and CITE for your answer?
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
>
> You are wasting your time, I`m not trying to debate you on these
> issues, I`m merely trying to find out what your beliefs are. The way
> you twist and turn helps make my point.

I answer every legitimate question, and you RUN from every legitimate
question.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

>>>>>>> How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was given the information for a job opening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non responsive to the question.
>>>>
>>>> No reason to select *YOUR* words... I gave the answer. It was
>>>> "orchestrated" in the sense that someone gave him the information for
>>>> a job opening.
>>>
>>> Parsed words and semantic arguments...
>>
>> Hot air.
>
> This all helps my argument that you are embarrassed to say what
> you believe.

Begged.

>>>> Clearly, you have some belief here that you're hiding. What is it,
>>>> Chickenshit? Why can't you come clean and tell everyone what you
>>>> really think?
>>
>>
>> Again, dead silence... Chickenshit is clearly hiding what he
>> believes...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running
>>>>>>> from the Tippit murder scene?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't. You're lying again.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can see him saying what I claimed had said at 3:222 here...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/iBN1_9VPzOg
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to pick and choose.
>>>
>>> No, you don`t.
>>
>>
>> Yet you're allowed to?
>
> What I produced satisfied what I said. It showed Callaway saying
> he saw Oswald leaving the Tippit murder scene with a gun.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, COWARD!

Stop trying to hide what you believe!

>> How silly!
>>
>> Your claim is contrary to the earliest evidence.
>
> If you want to claim that Callaway never said he saw Oswald leave
> the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun, go right ahead.

If you want to tell unsupported lies, it's on you.

Anyone notice that Chickenshit refuses to cite WC testimony?

>>>> If it's not in his WC testimony,
>>>> then you're lying.
>>>
>>> <snicker> You like to make up your own crooked rules as you go along, don`t you?
>>
>> Actually, I'm following the same rules that believers have long
>> asserted.
>
> Hot air.

Begged.

>>>> Here we see that you *DO* believe it's legitimate to pick statements
>>>> from DECADES later that weren't in his WC testimony.
>>>
>>> Did he say it? Did I show he said it?
>>
>>
>> I've saved your acceptance of decades later statements that contradict
>> the earliest testimony.
>
> But won`t acknowledge that it shows him saying exactly what I said he had.

Hot air.

>>> You have to lie to call me a lair.
>>
>>
>> I've never called you a lair in my life.
>>
>>
>>> I don`t have to lie to call you one.
>>
>>
>> Begged.
>>
>>
>>>> So you've revealed that anything that helps your case, even from
>>>> decades later is fair game.
>>>
>>> You haven`t shown any conflict with anything he said previously.
>>
>>
>> Then all you have to do is cite his WC testimony.
>>
>> Why are you terrified of doing so?
>
> Because I`m not debating the issue. What I was trying to achieve
> has already been achieved.

You've never debated *ANY* issue. You're a coward.

I daresay more than one person has been reminded by your posts of a
hyena.

>>>> I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
>>>> earliest statements are the most credible statements.
>>>
>>> No doubt you will take it out of context and misrepresent the issue.
>>
>>
>> Nope. I quote your EXACT words, along with any relevant context.
>
> <snicker> Yeah, right.

Hot air.

>>>>>>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is speculation that he said this?
>>>>
>>>> Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.
>>>
>>> Thanks for you help in supporting my contention that you hide your
>>> true beliefs. Five simple questions and you are like a hooked bass.
>>
>>
>> Begged.
>
> I`ll leave it to the readers to decide, do you feel Ben has been
> forthright in answering these questions, or do you feel he has been
> deceitful, trying to keep his true belief hidden?

Hot air.

>>>> Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
>>>> everyone what you think, Chickenshit?
>>>
>>> I have no problem telling people what I believe in regards to these five questions.
>
> Alright, here goes...
>
> Q: Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
>
> A: Because he did.

Begged.

> Q: Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
>
> A: She was being nice.

Begged. Contrary to the known evidence...

> Q: How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>
> A: Happenstance.

Begged. Contrary to the known evidence.

> Q: Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running from the Tippit murder scene?
>
> A: Because he did.

Outright lie.

> Q: Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>
> A: Because he did.

Begged.

> I think any LNer would answer them just as easily. I think a CTer
> like Walt Cakebread would answer honestly, being honest in his
> convictions and not realizing his answers expose him as a crackpot.
> But you realize answering the question honestly would expose you as a
> crackpot, so you twist and turn. But that works just as well for me.


Hot air.


>> Hot air.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> I could come up with more,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's easy for a liar to come up with lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you **CAN'T** do is answer my questions... as I have yours.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you have helped me make my point that you try to hide your
>>>>> beliefs with your objections and evasions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To who's satisfaction?
>>>
>>> Certainly I am satisfied with your performance.
>>
>>
>> Crooked.
>
> Yes, your performance was.

Hot air.

>>>> It's clear that you've done precisely the opposite. I've answered ALL
>>>> of your questions, and you duck and run from ALL of mine.
>>>
>>> The purpose of this exercise was to expose your dishonesty, and i
>>> see it as mission accomplished.
>>
>>
>> Begged.
>
> I am content.

Hot air.

>>> For the record, I tried to choose questions that I thought were
>>> uncontested evidential facts. I didn`t think anyone would contest that
>>> Brennan said he saw Oswald shoot from the TSBD,
>>
>>
>> Begged.
>
> I`ve never seen it dispute here before this.

Still begged.

>>>> Who's the coward hiding what they think around here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> but this will be enough to make the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your point that I can answer anything you can ask about this case,
>>>>>> but refuse to answer similar questions?
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was that you hide your beliefs. Thanks for your help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>>>
>>>> I've answered everything,
>>>
>>> And the way you answered proved my point.
>>
>>
>> Hot air.
>
> I am content. Things went exactly as I expected.

Hot air.

>>>> and you've run from everything. All you've
>>>> proven is that you're a dishonest coward.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Is your point that you're willing to flagrantly lie about what
>>>>>> eyewitnesses testified to?
>>>>>
>>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>>> Start with the first one... Brennan. Cite the evidence for the lie you
>>>> told.
>>>
>>> You can say that Brennan wasn`t referring to Oswald in his
>>> testimony, but you can`t make that argument honestly.
>>
>>
>> I asked you to CITE the evidence for your lie... and you ran.
>
> Are you taking the position that Brennan wasn`t referring to
> Oswald in his testimony as the man he saw shoot Kennedy?


I asked you to CITE the evidence for your lie... and you ran.

You ran again...


How many more times will you prove your cowardice?

>> That cowardice tells the tale...
>>
>>
>>>> Or be proven yet again a liar.
>>
>>
>> Clearly, everyone can see you're a proven liar.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> You could answer these questions as well as I could as to what
>>>>>>> *I* believe, but I couldn`t answer what you believe, I really don`t
>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it. Say what you think my answer would be to those five
>>>>> things. I think you would go five for five with an honest attempt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I *couldn't* do so. Even some of your questions are outright lies.
>>>>
>>>> The only answer *I* would give is that you're lying. I can't make up
>>>> lies you would tell.
>>>
>>> Your whole shtick is "liar, liar".
>>
>>
>> Learn how to tell the supportable, citable truth.
>
> I get at the truth my own way. Like I did here.

Hot air.

> Do you think you fooled anyone that you were being forthright and
> honest in your answers?

Begged.

>>>>>>> I think your *true* beliefs might be there is something more
>>>>>>> than meets the eye in all, or most of these things, but exactly what
>>>>>>> form this takes I haven`t a clue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I forced to guess, why are you not forthright?
>>>>
>>>> You *aren't* forced to guess. I answer every question you pose, and I
>>>> can CITE for every answer I give.
>>>
>>> How can you cite for your beliefs?
>>
>> Because my "beliefs" on the evidence in this case are citable.
>
> No, they really aren`t.

Begged.

> You can cite the person who refused to allow Finck to examine the
> Kennedy`s clothing saying he did so at the behest of some conspiracy.
> It doesn`t exist in evidence, only your imagination.

Hot air.

> And the same witness you hold up as support on one issue you say
> is lying on other issues.

More hot air. Amusing, too, as you've refused time and time again to
name **ANY** eyewitness you completely believe.

That makes you a hot air hypocrite.

[Ben Holmes]

Chickenshit has now responded a total of five times... each time
refusing my simple challenge.

WHAT A COWARD!

[Bud]

Show how you challenge pertains to what Steve wrote.

I`ll leave it to the lurkers.

>
> >>>> Are you calling her a liar?
> >>>>
> >>>> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
> >>>> the answer, and CITE for your answer?
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence...
> >
> > You are wasting your time, I`m not trying to debate you on these
> > issues, I`m merely trying to find out what your beliefs are. The way
> > you twist and turn helps make my point.
>
>
> I answer every legitimate question,

Honestly? I think not, I think you twist and turn trying to hide your true beliefs. I think you demonstrated that here.

> and you RUN from every legitimate
> question.
>
> Do you think you're fooling anyone?

Ironic you ask me that.

What I produced supported exactly what I said. Whether you are honest enough to acknowledge that is beyond my control.

> >> How silly!
> >>
> >> Your claim is contrary to the earliest evidence.
> >
> > If you want to claim that Callaway never said he saw Oswald leave
> > the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun, go right ahead.
>
>
> If you want to tell unsupported lies, it's on you.
>
> Anyone notice that Chickenshit refuses to cite WC testimony?

I am content that the people who might read here know the basic facts of the case, and know that Callaway said he saw Oswald leaving the Tippit murder scene with a gun.

I actually like that you contest this, disputing common knowledge can only harm your credibility.

Here? I don`t even know what that would look like.

> You're a coward.
>
> I daresay more than one person has been reminded by your posts of a
> hyena.

They are welcome to their opinions.

> >>>> I'll keep this post as a reminder that you don't believe that the
> >>>> earliest statements are the most credible statements.
> >>>
> >>> No doubt you will take it out of context and misrepresent the issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nope. I quote your EXACT words, along with any relevant context.
> >
> > <snicker> Yeah, right.
>
>
> Hot air.
>
>
> >>>>>>> Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Speculation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is speculation that he said this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Never feel the need to expand on a perfectly corrrect answer.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for you help in supporting my contention that you hide your
> >>> true beliefs. Five simple questions and you are like a hooked bass.
> >>
> >>
> >> Begged.
> >
> > I`ll leave it to the readers to decide, do you feel Ben has been
> > forthright in answering these questions, or do you feel he has been
> > deceitful, trying to keep his true belief hidden?
>
>
> Hot air.
>
>
> >>>> Clearly you think something different... why are you afraid to tell
> >>>> everyone what you think, Chickenshit?
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem telling people what I believe in regards to these five questions.
> >
> > Alright, here goes...
> >
> > Q: Why do you believe Brennan told the WC that he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy?
> >
> > A: Because he did.
>
> Begged.

It wasn`t an argument.

> > Q: Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
> >
> > A: She was being nice.
>
>
> Begged.

It wasn`t an argument.

> Contrary to the known evidence...

What evidence is that?

> > Q: How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
> >
> > A: Happenstance.
>
>
> Begged.

It wasn`t an argument.

> Contrary to the known evidence.

What evidence is that?

> > Q: Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running from the Tippit murder scene?
> >
> > A: Because he did.
>
>
> Outright lie.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339021/m1/1/?q=callaway

The number two man in the lineup was Oswald.

> > Q: Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
> >
> > A: Because he did.
>
>
> Begged.

It wasn`t an argument.

I guess all that hate directed at Brennan was for nothing, Ben thinks he never said Oswald shot Kennedy at all.

[Bud]

Your responses have been all that could have hoped for in these exchanges, I did just what I set out to do. I am content.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:41:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Why do you think it is my job to educate you?

You'll lose.

>>>>>> Are you calling her a liar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you're hiding your true beliefs... why are you afraid to give
>>>>>> the answer, and CITE for your answer?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dead silence...
>>>
>>> You are wasting your time, I`m not trying to debate you on these
>>> issues, I`m merely trying to find out what your beliefs are. The way
>>> you twist and turn helps make my point.
>>
>> I answer every legitimate question,
>
> Honestly? I think not, I think you twist and turn trying to hide
> your true beliefs. I think you demonstrated that here.

Begged.

>> and you RUN from every legitimate
>> question.
>>
>> Do you think you're fooling anyone?
>
> Ironic you ask me that.

Still no answer...

Begged.

> Whether you are honest enough to acknowledge that is beyond my control.

Hot air.

>>>> How silly!
>>>>
>>>> Your claim is contrary to the earliest evidence.
>>>
>>> If you want to claim that Callaway never said he saw Oswald leave
>>> the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun, go right ahead.
>>
>> If you want to tell unsupported lies, it's on you.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Chickenshit refuses to cite WC testimony?
>

> I am content ...


To lie and evade and run?

You won't convince anyone that way...

Honesty is unknown to the dedicated liar.

>> You're a coward.
>>
>> I daresay more than one person has been reminded by your posts of a
>> hyena.
>
> They are welcome to their opinions.

Indeed.

Nor was it anything other than an unsupported opinion.

>>> Q: Why do you believe Mrs Paine let Marina stay with her?
>>>
>>> A: She was being nice.
>>
>>
>> Begged.
>
> It wasn`t an argument.

Another opinion disguised as historical fact.

>> Contrary to the known evidence...
>
> What evidence is that?

Too helpless to do a google search? Why do you think it is my job to
educate you?

>>> Q: How do you think Oswald came to work in the TSBD, happenstance or orchestrated?
>>>
>>> A: Happenstance.
>>
>> Begged.
>
> It wasn`t an argument.

Indeed... more unsupported opinion disguised as historical fact.

>> Contrary to the known evidence.
>
> What evidence is that?

Too helpless to do a google search? Why do you think it is my job to
educate you?

>>> Q: Why do you believe Callaway said he saw Oswald with a gun running from the Tippit murder scene?
>>>
>>> A: Because he did.
>>
>> Outright lie.
>
> https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339021/m1/1/?q=callaway
>
> The number two man in the lineup was Oswald.

Begged.

You've provided yet another citation proving yourself a liar.

>>> Q: Why do you believe Brewer said he saw Oswald acting funny outside his store?
>>>
>>> A: Because he did.
>>
>> Begged.
>
> It wasn`t an argument.

It wasn't much of anything at all.

> Are you taking the position ...


I'm taking the position that each time you run, you prove your
cowardice...

Undisputed, too.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Your responses ...


Have merely highlighted your cowardice and lying.

I'm content.