Ben, Our Resident Troll-Like Creature...

[Bud]

... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 12:47:49 -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.

[BT George]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 2:47:51 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> ... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.

OK, but "like" is a little generous. (Both in stature and character.)

[Bud]

...doesn`t know the difference between a name and a nickname.

[Bud]

..doesn`t know the difference between a measured wound and a wound where the size is estimated.

[Bud]

...doesn`t know the difference between a known, established time and an estimated time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>...doesn`t know the...

Answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>..doesn`t know the...

Answer

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>...doesn`t know the...

[Bud]

...doesn`t know the difference between a witness saying the information they are providing is as best as they can recall and a witness asserting information they knew to be true.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:56:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>...doesn`t know the ...

Answer.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:24:15 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

> ..doesn`t know the difference between a measured wound and a wound where the size is estimated.

...doesn't even know for certain whether or not JFK was the assassination target.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:47:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> ... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.

The only trolls here are the ones who post .....

No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos

They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

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

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

They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper
way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper
way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a
prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
And yet they'll argue and insult those of us who are knowledgeable of such things.

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

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

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

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

But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they
responded when the shooting started.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1652/evidence-witness-intimidation-tampering

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

Their response ? "You're not looking at the evidence correctly".
But they fail to reveal how many ways there are to look at evidence or which one is the right way.

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

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

And in here lies the proof of Oswald's innocence: the conduct of the Dallas Police and FBI.
How the handled Oswald.
How they handled the evidence.
How they handled the witnesses.

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

And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know
they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and
their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass
themselves.

They admittedly come in here for their own entertanment. Like the internet bullies they are,
they come in here to laugh at people they believe are below them.

You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:38:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 5:24:15?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>
>> ..doesn`t know the difference between a measured wound and a wound where the size is estimated.
>
>
>...doesn't even know for certain whether or not JFK was the assassination target.

Molesting Chickenshit's grandmother again, eh Chuckles?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 08:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well stated. (And something that every believer will run from)

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:45:24 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:47:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > ... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.

> The only trolls here are the ones who post .....
>
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos

You're delusional. Everyone here has posted links to citations, documents, testimony, exhibits, and videos. Everyone. This includes Oswald Aloners and CTs.

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

The term "research" as you use it is subjective.

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Also subjective.

>
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
> doesn't work ) insults.

Welcome to the unmoderated, uncensored alt.conspriacy.jfk Google Groups. You don't throw insults around? Ben doesn't throw insults around? Pot. Kettle.

>They see themselves as guardians of the truth

Or just having fun discussing a rapidly fading historical event.

> against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

You don't have a conspiracy theory, remember? Paraphrasing you from the other day, but you wrote that your focus is showing that if Oswald had gone to trial and you had been his attorney, the evidence against him would've been tossed, and your boy Oswald would've walked out with a smirk and gone his merry way, probably back home to administer more beatings to Marina. The world would've collectively been left scratching their heads and shrugging their shoulders, as all of the "evidence" was ruled inadmissible thanks to the fine work of Gil "Johnny Cochrane" Jesus. Dunning, call Kruger.

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

Um, no. We argue that one side has presented a fully formed case, and that the other side--Team Oswald--hasn't even settled on anything. Your pal Ben leaves the door open just a crack and recently opined that he's not 100% sure JFK was even the target on 11/22/63.

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

Man, we just covered this. Why the constant need to repeat your screeds?

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unsolved-killings-record-high

Literally NO ONE at this board believes that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered. Such silliness, Gil. Stop it.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper
> way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper
> way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a
> prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
> And yet they'll argue and insult those of us who are knowledgeable of such things.

Argument from Authority, if, in fact, you actually are an "expert" in these fields.

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

I'd say everyone here on both sides is very knowledgeable about the actual report, the supporting volumes, etc. A silly statement. It's all online, and most of us are extremely familiar with the case, the CEs, the CDs, the testimony, and on and on.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in
> the 1960s.

Strawman argument.

>How innocent black men never made it to trial and how
> all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men who killed them ( like
> Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

More straw.

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

All Presidents have powerful enemies.

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

I linked to Adlai Stevenson's Dallas visit prior to JFK's assassination the last time we copied and pasted this. We're all familiar with the "atmosphere" in Dallas in 1963.

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

You just begged the question by claiming all of "these people" knew "Oswald" was going to kill JFK.

>
> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
> casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.

Discussed. Oswald is historically guilty. He is not criminally guilty, although in MY OPINION, he would've been found guilty if he hadn't confessed his guilt (a small possibility of that Ruby eliminated) by trial.

Fringe reset and a Gish Gallop. All covered endlessly, yet never to your standard. What a shock.

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

Begging the question.

>
> And in here lies the proof of Oswald's innocence: the conduct of the Dallas Police and FBI.

Begging the question.

> How the handled Oswald.
> How they handled the evidence.
> How they handled the witnesses.

Begging the question. You make the claim without proposing a counter narrative that is as detailed as the WCR and has fewer holes. This is your burden to carry. Carry it. Your "schtick" is to smugly announce you are concerned only with the evidence a judge would've dismissed that would've sprung Oswald. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. He's as HISTORICALLY guilty of killing JFK as OJ Simpson is of killing his ex and the poor waiter.

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

So you leave no room at all that people can come to an honestly held opinion different than you opinion that on 11/22/63, some people did something? We're all sheeple programmed to believe what the USG shoves at us? Such silliness.

>
> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know
> they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and
> their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass
> themselves.

Okay, you answered my question above. There is no room for disagreement with your claim that on 11/22/63, some people did something. Something else happened, somehow.

>
> They admittedly come in here for their own entertanment. Like the internet bullies they are,
> they come in here to laugh at people they believe are below them.

Awww...we're "internet bullies," while you make all sorts of incredible claims that others were involved in the killing of the POTUS without offering a case to back up your assertions. Shame on you. Clay Shaw had his life turned upside down and his savings drained to defend himself from Garrison. Fair game in your book?

>
> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

You mean YOU will gain no knowledge from the posts of your critics.

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

Ironic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 09:25:24 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:45:24?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:47:51?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> ... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.
>
>> The only trolls here are the ones who post .....
>>
>> No citations
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>
> You're delusional. Everyone here has posted links to citations,
> documents, testimony, exhibits, and videos. Everyone. This includes
> Oswald Aloners and CTs.

Notice folks, Chuckles proves Gil right...

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

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
>> doesn't work ) insults.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>They see themselves as guardians of the truth

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>
>You don't have a conspiracy theory, remember?

You refuse to offer one, remember?

>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none
>> existed.
>
>Um, no.

Um, yes.

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

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper
>> way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper
>> way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a
>> prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
>> And yet they'll argue and insult those of us who are knowledgeable of such things.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and
>> exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even
>> read them.
>
> I'd say everyone here on both sides is very knowledgeable about the
> actual report, the supporting volumes, etc.

Then when you refuse to answer, you're acknowledging that the critic
has the truth.

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

Your answer: dead silence.

>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in
>> the 1960s.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>How innocent black men never made it to trial and how
>> all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men who killed them ( like
>> Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>>

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

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

>I linked...

But failed to acknowledge.

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

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
>> casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.
>
>Discussed. Oswald is historically guilty.

You've been repeatedly corrected on this lie.

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

>> And in here lies the proof of Oswald's innocence: the conduct of the Dallas Police and FBI.
>>

>> How the handled Oswald.
>> How they handled the evidence.
>> How they handled the witnesses.
>>

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

>> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know
>> they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and
>> their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass
>> themselves.
>>

>> They admittedly come in here for their own entertanment. Like the internet bullies they are,
>> they come in here to laugh at people they believe are below them.
>>

>> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.
>>

[Chuck Schuyler]

Write the National Archives, Ben. To understand the JFK assassination, the NA links to the WCR.

https://www.archives.gov

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

Notice folks, that Chuckles immediately proves Gil right yet again by
refusing to answer a question.

>>>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in
>>>> the 1960s.
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>How innocent black men never made it to trial and how
>>>> all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men who killed them ( like
>>>> Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>>>>
>>>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy
>>>> Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal
>>>> behavior and his political policies.
>>>>
>>>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of
>>>> Dallas at the time of the assassination.
>>>
>>>I linked...
>>
>> But failed to acknowledge.
>>>> not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there, begs the question,
>>>> "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill
>>>> the President" ?
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
>>>> casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.
>>>
>>>Discussed. Oswald is historically guilty.
>
>> You've been repeatedly corrected on this lie.
>
>Write the National Archives, Ben.

How are they going to refute the truth?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Non sequitur.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:45:24 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:47:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > ... doesn`t know a clipboard from a rifle.
> The only trolls here are the ones who post .....
>
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos

All available online.

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

I could have figured out these easily figured out crimes had the WC never been formed. You can`t figure them out with their help.

I was able to figure out that OJ killed his ex-wife and a waiter without doing any research at all, I`m just that good.

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

You`re a stump, Gil, you gain no knowledge from anything. I`m surprised you managed to live as long as you have with such limited intellectual faculties.

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

You are just never right about anything. The truth is available to anyone who wants it, even you. The lengths you guys go to to avoid the truth is comical, bizarre, what have you. We observe your behavior and remark upon it. Stop acting like children who won`t eat their carrots and we will start treating you guys like adults.

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

Only a stump would think that. We argue that you haven`t been able to show a conspiracy. We argue that the things you suggest are not even implausible, they are impossible. Write a list of all the people you have "in on it", people who gave information to implicate Oswald, people who knew one thing to be true, but said something different. You could fill a stadium. You ideas collapse under the weight you thrust upon them, they can`t possibly bear the weight of the amazing and fantastic things you constantly pile on. And this is why no conspiracy hobbyist will outline their ideas, they would be so ludicrous they could be dismissed out of hand.

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

Not even close, but how would you know, you`re a stump.

You are the one who thinks it is impossible to determine guilt if the suspect doesn`t get a trial.

> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures,

You know the DPD`s procedures better than they do?

Enlighten us, oh knowledgeable one, how did their procedures differ from what the DPD routinely did in the early sixties?

> like the proper
> way to conduct a lineup,

Show they handled this lineup differently than other cases. Show identifications made in lineups like this one not being allowed in court in Dallas at this time. Show something.

>the proper way to handle evidence,

Show the handled evidence differently in this case than other case at the time. Show evidence handled like in this case not being allowed into evidence in court cases in Dallas around this time. Show something.

> the proper
> way to interrogate a prisoner

Show the interrogation of Oswald was different than other suspects conducted by the DPD around this time. Show information collected during interrogations conducted this way not being allowed in court in Dallas around this time. Show something.

>and the proper way to protect a
> prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Show Oswald`s rights were violated.

> And yet they'll argue and insult those of us who are knowledgeable of such things.

You have zero knowledge about how the DPD routinely did these things, or whether these things ever were an issue in a legal proceeding in Dallas around this time.

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

I go to them all the time to show conspiracy folks to be misrepresenting the information contained in them.

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

Show how this helps your ideas.

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

Show how this helps your ideas.

Look, I think Biden might be the worst President ever, but I`d go public with any plot against his life and if he was killed, I`d like to see his murderer boiled in oil. I don`t think this is uncommon, I think it is actually the default. You want to start from a place where everyone is out for Kennedy`s blood because that is the world your ideas require. But you can`t show that world has ever existed, not even in Dallas in the early sixties.

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

If you could think or reason you`d know this doesn`t help you. You have people who like Kennedy getting wind of a plot to kill Kennedy. Even if they did nothing before the assassination, they should be able to point right to where they got this accurate information from (what real criminal investigators call "leads") and the plot gets exposed in a weekend. But these things developed no leads because these people were not privy to the plans of some plotters, so they had nothing to offer.

> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
> casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.

Because it is only your desperation that makes you see it as such.

That is correct.

> But they fail to reveal how many ways there are to look at evidence or which one is the right way.

I give you pointers all the time, they are wasted. You might try looking at information correctly, for what it actually is and what it isn`t. You could try developing ideas that need the least amount of fantastic assumptions and the least amount of fantastic implications (where would you hobby be if you did this?). You might consult Occam, and see if your ideas are becoming needlessly complex.

But the biggest thing you can do is stop thinking like an infant.

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

To be expected, if only one person committed the crime.

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

Luckily Oswald was so so accommodating, eh. Go to where his rifle was kept on a unusual day. Leave there carrying a long package into his work. Hightail it out of there shortly after the murder. Go home and grab a handgun.

> And in here lies the proof of Oswald's innocence: the conduct of the Dallas Police and FBI.
> How the handled Oswald.
> How they handled the evidence.
> How they handled the witnesses.

You refuse to show that they did thing differently in this case than they did in cases previously.

If you want to show that something is abnormal you have to first establish what was normal in Dallas at this time.

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

You blame other people because you are unable to put anything plausible on the table.

> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know
> they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and
> their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass
> themselves.

You are a delusional stump, you have yourself convinced you are engaged in some sort of productive activity. You are a child in a cardboard box imagining he piloting a fighter jet or driving a racecar.

You`ll die right were all CTers die, gone nowhere and done nothing.

> They admittedly come in here for their own entertanment.

Why else?

>Like the internet bullies they are,
> they come in here to laugh at people they believe are below them.

Well, yeah. I mean, if there was a cage full of monkeys nearby that had a comfy chair I could sit in and watch their antics, I might do that. I`d still come here, though.

> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

You`re proud of you inability to learn, aren`t you?

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

I certainly wouldn`t go looking for knowledge from you. You`re a stump.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

And even when it's pointed out, Chuckles shows no shame, and simply
runs again...

>>>>>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in
>>>>>> the 1960s.
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>>How innocent black men never made it to trial and how
>>>>>> all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men who killed them ( like
>>>>>> Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy
>>>>>> Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal
>>>>>> behavior and his political policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of
>>>>>> Dallas at the time of the assassination.
>>>>>
>>>>>I linked...
>>>>
>>>> But failed to acknowledge.
>>>>>> not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there, begs the question,
>>>>>> "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill
>>>>>> the President" ?
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence
>>>>>> casting doubt on Oswald's guilt, they ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Discussed. Oswald is historically guilty.
>>>
>>>> You've been repeatedly corrected on this lie.
>>>
>>>Write the National Archives, Ben.
>
>> How are they going to refute the truth?
>
>Non sequitur.

Prove it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

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