Will Huckster Or Davy Help Out Poor Chickenshit?

[Ben Holmes]

Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
the throat wound.

I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
Chickenshit.

I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
"refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)

What about it cowards???

Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?

[Bud]

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
> the throat wound.

Ben is simply lying.

> I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
> Chickenshit.

Begged.

> I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
> website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
> "refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)
>
> What about it cowards???
>
> Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?

Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?

Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck muscles without dissection?

Of course not, all you can do is blow hot air and run.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
>> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
>> the throat wound.
>
> Ben is simply lying.

*Now* you're trying to deny it, and get out of it... but I've already
saved it.

******************************************************
> >>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
> >>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.

Why do you say they didn`t?
******************************************************
and
******************************************************
I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t
dissected. Clearly it was.
******************************************************

You can run and lie, Chickenshit... but you quite clearly argued for a
number of posts that the prosectors dissected the throat and the track
of the bullet.

Clearly you've taken the time to look up the citation I kept referring
to, and you've learned that all this time you've been arguing a lie.

So now you pretend you never said it.

>> I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
>> Chickenshit.
>
> Begged.

Not begged until he actually posts.

>> I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
>> website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
>> "refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)
>>
>> What about it cowards???
>>
>> Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?
>
> Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?

Don't need to - you already argued that it has.

> Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck
> muscles without dissection?

There you go again, arguing for a dissection that never happened.

[Bud]

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
> >> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
> >> the throat wound.
> >
> > Ben is simply lying.
> *Now* you're trying to deny it, and get out of it... but I've already
> saved it.
>
> ******************************************************
> > >>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
> > >>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>
> Why do you say they didn`t?

That isn`t me taking a position, it is me asking you about yours.

> ******************************************************
> and
> ******************************************************
> I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t
> dissected. Clearly it was.
> ******************************************************

And clearly it was.

> You can run and lie, Chickenshit... but you quite clearly argued for a
> number of posts that the prosectors dissected the throat and the track
> of the bullet.

You claimed that what a dissection tracking of the bullet track entailed was a dissection. I showed a dissection took place. Your criteria was met.

> Clearly you've taken the time to look up the citation I kept referring
> to, and you've learned that all this time you've been arguing a lie.

No lie there.

> So now you pretend you never said it.

I said what I said. What you said I had said was a lie.

> >> I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
> >> Chickenshit.
> >
> > Begged.
> Not begged until he actually posts.

It is begged that I am the one who is incorrect.

> >> I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
> >> website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
> >> "refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)
> >>
> >> What about it cowards???
> >>
> >> Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?
> >
> > Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?
> Don't need to - you already argued that it has.

Non sequitur.

I`ll have to start a post asking your fellow CTers to help you out with these questions you keep running from.

> > Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck
> > muscles without dissection?
> There you go again, arguing for a dissection that never happened.

Where did you support the idea that it never happened?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
>>>> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
>>>> the throat wound.
>>>
>>> Ben is simply lying.
>>
>> *Now* you're trying to deny it, and get out of it... but I've already
>> saved it.
>>
>> ******************************************************
>>>>>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
>>>>>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>>
>> Why do you say they didn`t?
>
> That isn`t me taking a position, it is me asking you about yours.

Then you cited, attempting to prove the opposite. You can't get out
of this, Chickenshit - you CLEARLY tried to argue that dissections
were done of the bullet track and the neck.

You lied.

I just QUOTED YOU lying.

>> ******************************************************
>> and
>> ******************************************************
>> I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t
>> dissected. Clearly it was.
>> ******************************************************
>
> And clearly it was.

You're lying again, Chickenshit. Here again is an AFFIRMATIVE
assertion by you - you're not merely questioning mine, you are CLEARLY
arguing here that the throat wound was dissected.

Amusingly, you're STILL refusing to explain the sworn testimony that
clearly says it was not.

You're TERRIFIED of labeling Dr. Finck a liar, but he absolutely
*MUST* be a liar if you are telling the truth.

>> You can run and lie, Chickenshit... but you quite clearly argued for a
>> number of posts that the prosectors dissected the throat and the track
>> of the bullet.
>
> You claimed that what a dissection tracking of the bullet track
> entailed was a dissection.

Yep... tis true. Can't "dissect" without "dissecting."

> I showed a dissection took place. Your criteria was met.

No moron, it was not. A standard 'Y' incision (or "dissection" -
should you prefer that word) is not a dissection of the track of the
bullet.

Nobody stuck a rifle in JFK's belly and shot upward.

Nobody stuck a rifle in his neck and shot straight downward.

You're a liar to suggest that I was merely saying that no dissection
had taken place... an autopsy isn't possible without dissection. I
was very specfic in stating what was not done.

You've lied repeatedly on this issue, and **STILL** haven't cited
anything that says the bullet track or the neck wound was dissected.

AND DESPITE ME SAYING THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN - YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE
TO ADDRESS THE SWORN TESTIMONY THAT *DIRECTLY* AGREES WITH ME, THAT NO
DISSECTION OF THE NECK OR BULLET TRACK TOOK PLACE.

This *constant* refusal on your part simply shows your inherent
cowardice and dishonesty.

And neither Huckster nor Davy have stepped up to support you.

But keep it up... I'm saving your lies for future use.

>> Clearly you've taken the time to look up the citation I kept referring
>> to, and you've learned that all this time you've been arguing a lie.
>
> No lie there.

You're lying again.

>> So now you pretend you never said it.
>
> I said what I said. What you said I had said was a lie.

Nope. By denying what I stated was the truth, and in your attempt to
provide a cite that doesn't say what you claim it says - YOU WERE
TRYING TO DENY THAT THERE WAS NO DISSECTION OF EITHER THE TRACK OF THE
BULLET, OR THE NECK.

And ... of course... you've evaded the sworn testimony that no such
dissection ever took place.

>>>> I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
>>>> Chickenshit.
>>>
>>> Begged.
>>
>> Not begged until he actually posts.
>
> It is begged that I am the one who is incorrect.

Nope. You've certainly not cited for your claim. And I've referenced
a citation that you *STILL* refuse to address.

You *ABSOLUTELY* CANNOT do anything other than to label Dr. Finck a
liar. Because he DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOU in sworn testimony.

So tell us coward, why are you refusing to PUBLICLY label Dr. Finck a
liar?

>>>> I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
>>>> website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
>>>> "refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)
>>>>
>>>> What about it cowards???
>>>>
>>>> Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?
>>>
>>> Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?
>>
>> Don't need to - you already argued that it has.
>
> Non sequitur.

If you say the sun is shining, then turn and ask me "Is the sun
shining?" - I would say the same thing... why are you asking me what
you've already asserted is true?

Nor is there ever a need to "prove" what you already believe to be
true.

You know the rules... just lie, and make the assertion that no-one has
ever thought to dissect the track of a bullet, and I'll be happy to
spank you with citations.

But unless you're willing to lie, no effort on my part to "prove" what
you already believe is necessary.

> I`ll have to start a post asking your fellow CTers to help you out
> with these questions you keep running from.

By all means... go for it.

Unfortunately for you - (and unlike you), I'll have the support of
others. Because I'm telling historical and CITABLE truth.

>>> Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck
>>> muscles without dissection?
>>
>> There you go again, arguing for a dissection that never happened.
>
> Where did you support the idea that it never happened?

Don't need to. It's historical fact. This probably explains why
Huckster and Davy are silent.

You *STILL* haven't supported your affirmative claim. Where's the
citation that deals with a dissection OF THE BULLET TRACK, or a
citation that deals with the dissection OF THE NECK WOUND?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 06:27:26 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
>that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
>the throat wound.
>
>I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
>Chickenshit.
>
>I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
>website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
>"refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)

Chickenshit has remained silent... he *NEEDS* to call Davy Von Peiny a
liar, but he refuses to do so... why is that?

>What about it cowards???
>
>Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?

Well, the answer seems clear... neither Huckster nor Davy will step up
and help out a fellow believer.

This goes for Steven Galbraith, and Caeruleo, and all the other
cowards and trolls too.

No-one wants to face the actual evidence.

They'd rather allow Chickenshit to blatantly lie about it.

[Bud]

On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:58:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
> >>>> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
> >>>> the throat wound.
> >>>
> >>> Ben is simply lying.
> >>
> >> *Now* you're trying to deny it, and get out of it... but I've already
> >> saved it.
> >>
> >> ******************************************************
> >>>>>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
> >>>>>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
> >>
> >> Why do you say they didn`t?
> >
> > That isn`t me taking a position, it is me asking you about yours.
> Then you cited, attempting to prove the opposite.

What did I claim what I cited showed?

"I`m seeing dissecting and I`m seeing neck."

>You can't get out
> of this, Chickenshit - you CLEARLY tried to argue that dissections
> were done of the bullet track and the neck.

You made *two* distinctly different claims, stupid. What was the last one? If I was addressing the the first claim I would have inserted the cite after that claim.

> You lied.
>
> I just QUOTED YOU lying.

You exposed your own stupidity, is all.

> >> ******************************************************
> >> and
> >> ******************************************************
> >> I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t
> >> dissected. Clearly it was.
> >> ******************************************************
> >
> > And clearly it was.
> You're lying again, Chickenshit. Here again is an AFFIRMATIVE
> assertion by you - you're not merely questioning mine, you are CLEARLY
> arguing here that the throat wound was dissected.

I supported that the neck was dissected. Successfully.

> Amusingly, you're STILL refusing to explain the sworn testimony that
> clearly says it was not.

You`ve produced no such testimony.

> You're TERRIFIED of labeling Dr. Finck a liar, but he absolutely
> *MUST* be a liar if you are telling the truth.

You are too much of a coward to come right out and say anything, you are a mealy mouthed cunt. All you do is vaguely allude to things and then cry if someone argues against what you seem to be saying.

I`m sorry but you are going to have to try to be a man and show what it is you are referring to.

> >> You can run and lie, Chickenshit... but you quite clearly argued for a
> >> number of posts that the prosectors dissected the throat and the track
> >> of the bullet.
> >
> > You claimed that what a dissection tracking of the bullet track
> > entailed was a dissection.
> Yep... tis true. Can't "dissect" without "dissecting."

And I`ve shown that dissecting took place.

> > I showed a dissection took place. Your criteria was met.
> No moron, it was not. A standard 'Y' incision (or "dissection" -
> should you prefer that word) is not a dissection of the track of the
> bullet.

You refuse to say what the process entails but then you think you get to say what it is not. Walk us through the process, coward.

> Nobody stuck a rifle in JFK's belly and shot upward.
>
> Nobody stuck a rifle in his neck and shot straight downward.

Oh, you mean there are other considerations? Why didn`t you say so when I was trying to get you to spell out your idea?

And where have you shown that the neck cannot be examined with a "Y" incision? That`s right, you only blow hot air, never showing anything.

Humes said...

"To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest."

Take note that he is talking about an examination of the neck. Also note he talks about reflecting the skin, presumably to gain access to what lies beneath.

Now according to this source the top flap is pulled over the deceased face...

"The first cut known as the 'Y' incision, is made. The arms of the Y extend from the front of each shoulder to the bottom end of the breastbone. The tail of the Y extends from the sternum to the pubic bone and typically deviates to avoid the navel.

The incision is very deep, extending to the rib cage on the chest, and completely through the abdominal wall below that. The skin from this cut is peeled back, with the top flap pulled over the face."

https://australian.museum/learn/teachers/learning/virtual-autopsy/

I think that might expose the neck.

> You're a liar to suggest that I was merely saying that no dissection
> had taken place...

That isn`t what I said, stupid. What I said that that was the only criteria I could drag out of you. What I produced satisfies that criteria.

> an autopsy isn't possible without dissection. I
> was very specfic in stating what was not done.

You never outlined what dissecting a bullet track entailed and you never will. You don`t get to say what it is *not* without being specific about what it *is*.

> You've lied repeatedly on this issue, and **STILL** haven't cited
> anything that says the bullet track or the neck wound was dissected.

You haven`t shown this is something that *ever* occurs in an autopsy. Why do I need to argue against a concept when you can`t even say what the concept is?

> AND DESPITE ME SAYING THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN - YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE
> TO ADDRESS THE SWORN TESTIMONY THAT *DIRECTLY* AGREES WITH ME, THAT NO
> DISSECTION OF THE NECK OR BULLET TRACK TOOK PLACE.

The testimony you haven`t produced?

> This *constant* refusal on your part simply shows your inherent
> cowardice and dishonesty.

<snicker> Every discussion with you shows your dishonesty.

> And neither Huckster nor Davy have stepped up to support you.

You were hoping they would, then you could play another crooked game where you misrepresent what I said to Hank and then misrepresent what he replies in order to create knots that we have to untie, correcting your misrepresentations.

> But keep it up... I'm saving your lies for future use.

Googles saves yours for me.

> >> Clearly you've taken the time to look up the citation I kept referring
> >> to, and you've learned that all this time you've been arguing a lie.
> >
> > No lie there.
> You're lying again.

The truth look that way to a dishonest person like yourself.

> >> So now you pretend you never said it.
> >
> > I said what I said. What you said I had said was a lie.
> Nope. By denying what I stated was the truth, and in your attempt to
> provide a cite that doesn't say what you claim it says - YOU WERE
> TRYING TO DENY THAT THERE WAS NO DISSECTION OF EITHER THE TRACK OF THE
> BULLET, OR THE NECK.

Wrong.

> And ... of course... you've evaded the sworn testimony that no such
> dissection ever took place.

The testimony you haven`t produced?

> >>>> I say that Huckster Sienzant knows better, and simply won't correct
> >>>> Chickenshit.
> >>>
> >>> Begged.
> >>
> >> Not begged until he actually posts.
> >
> > It is begged that I am the one who is incorrect.
> Nope. You've certainly not cited for your claim.

No reason to believe you would be honest enough to admit it.

>And I've referenced
> a citation that you *STILL* refuse to address.

The citation you refuse to produce?

And I don`t want I citation, I want you quoting Finck on the issue, not linking to Finck`s testimony and saying it is in there somewhere.

> You *ABSOLUTELY* CANNOT do anything other than to label Dr. Finck a
> liar. Because he DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED YOU in sworn testimony.

Now you are forming my arguments for me against the information you refuse to produce.

Since you are now fighting yourself let me know how it turns out, will you?

> So tell us coward, why are you refusing to PUBLICLY label Dr. Finck a
> liar?

Because I have learned enough to know not to argue against an argument you haven`t made. This is why you like Hank, he will try to move the discussion forward by trying to provide what he thinks you are alluding to. I wait and see if you ever get the balls to make the argument yourself. It is easier to show you are blowing hot air that way.

> >>>> I say Davy Peiny has ALREADY spanked Chickenshit with the truth on his
> >>>> website, but won't do so publicly here. (Chickenshit has claimed to
> >>>> "refute" this fact - but refuses to publicly deny it.)
> >>>>
> >>>> What about it cowards???
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you help a fellow believer get his head out of his ass?
> >>>
> >>> Can you show that dissecting a bullet track has ever been done during an autopsy?
> >>
> >> Don't need to - you already argued that it has.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> If you say the sun is shining, then turn and ask me "Is the sun
> shining?" - I would say the same thing... why are you asking me what
> you've already asserted is true?

What you wrote was a non sequitur to what I wrote, it didn`t speak to showing that dissecting a bullet track is ever done during an autopsy.

> Nor is there ever a need to "prove" what you already believe to be
> true.
>
> You know the rules... just lie, and make the assertion that no-one has
> ever thought to dissect the track of a bullet, and I'll be happy to
> spank you with citations.

So you admit you haven`t shown any significance for the bullet track not being dissected.

> But unless you're willing to lie, no effort on my part to "prove" what
> you already believe is necessary.
> > I`ll have to start a post asking your fellow CTers to help you out
> > with these questions you keep running from.
> By all means... go for it.

Have you seen the other CTers?

> Unfortunately for you - (and unlike you), I'll have the support of
> others. Because I'm telling historical and CITABLE truth.

Then show the history of dissecting bullet tracks in autopsies. Or tell the TRUTH about how the condition of the neck muscles in Kennedy`s neck could be described without dissection.

You have neither history or the truth on your side.

> >>> Can you explain how Humes could describe the condition of the neck
> >>> muscles without dissection?
> >>
> >> There you go again, arguing for a dissection that never happened.
> >
> > Where did you support the idea that it never happened?
> Don't need to.

You don`t feel the need to support anything you say or any position you take. You are an intellectual coward. You could argue ideas to save your life, at least not honestly.

>It's historical fact. This probably explains why
> Huckster and Davy are silent.
>
> You *STILL* haven't supported your affirmative claim. Where's the
> citation that deals with a dissection OF THE BULLET TRACK,

You refuse to explain this concept of yours, so how can we know whether it occurred or not?

> or a
> citation that deals with the dissection OF THE NECK WOUND?

You are simply lying, I quoted Humes on the subject. Again in this very post, which you will likely remove, being a coward and all.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

there you go son, a simple answer: you gonna get your head out of DVP's ass or what? yes or no... A tome isn't necessary for a simple question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:58:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:32:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 6:14:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:27:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> Chickenshit has asserted (and posted a citation he says supports it)
>>>>>> that the prosectors dissected the track of the bullet, and dissected
>>>>>> the throat wound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben is simply lying.
>>>>
>>>> *Now* you're trying to deny it, and get out of it... but I've already
>>>> saved it.
>>>>
>>>> ******************************************************
>>>>>>>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
>>>>>>>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say they didn`t?
>>>
>>> That isn`t me taking a position, it is me asking you about yours.
>>
>> Then you cited, attempting to prove the opposite.
>
> What did I claim what I cited showed?

That my statement was untrue.

>> You can't get out of this, Chickenshit - you CLEARLY tried to
>> argue that dissections were done of the bullet track and the neck.
>

> You made *two* distinctly different claims...


And you responded to BOTH of them.

One of them by implication, and one of them quite explicitly.

>> You lied.
>>
>> I just QUOTED YOU lying.
>>

>>>> ******************************************************
>>>> and
>>>> ******************************************************
>>>> I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t
>>>> dissected. Clearly it was.
>>>> ******************************************************
>>>
>>> And clearly it was.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit. Here again is an AFFIRMATIVE
>> assertion by you - you're not merely questioning mine, you are CLEARLY
>> arguing here that the throat wound was dissected.
>
> I supported that the neck was dissected. Successfully.

And yet, the historical fact is that it was not.

>> Amusingly, you're STILL refusing to explain the sworn testimony that
>> clearly says it was not.
>
> You`ve produced no such testimony.

End of the line, Chickenshit.

I've REPEATEDLY challenged you to answer that testimony.

You're a liar if you deny knowing PRECISELY what testimony I'm
speaking of.

So when you lie this blatantly for so long - you've lost any right to
a response from me.

So I've deleted without reading the rest of your lies.