The CTs are getting boring

[John Corbett]

They really need some new material. Their posts fall into one of three categories:

1. Old turds, long since debunked, polished off and presented as if they were
fresh.

2. Incredibly silly

3. Incredibly trivial

Some are even a combination of the above. Can't you guys come up with
anything better. You would really make things more interesting for the LNs if
you could. If this is the best you can do after 58 years, maybe it is time for you
to close up shop.

[Bud]

The hobby is in it`s death throes. It never went anywhere because there was never anywhere for it to go.

It isn`t even LNer versus CTer anymore, it is a competition among CTers over who has created the most appealing construction. Some here are pissed that they aren`t allowed into the clubhouses where other CTers display their creations. In the next decade this hobby will be a memory.

[John Corbett]

I hope I'm still alive and capable of remembering it.

[Scrum Drum]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...

Wow. You really think that?

Obviously, that's based on wishful thinking and not a lot else.

Name the shooter(s). Name where they shot from. And name the mastermind(s) behind the plot.

Oh, and don't skimp on the evidence establishing this strong case of yours.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:

> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Now that's funny.

Oh, wait. Were you being serious?

That's even funnier.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison".

"Strong case" meaning: Via a CTer's imagination and speculation.

Just for the laughs, let's review a little bit of David Lifton's "strong case" for conspiracy. Here's something Mr. Lifton said to me on a forum in 2013:

"If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David S. Lifton; May 2013

Additional Lifton treasures here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

[Steven Galbraith]

I guess they forgot to tell the guy who shot Connally in the back that he was supposed to fire from the front. This is what happens when the government awards contracts to the lowest bidder. You get amateurs trying to do things they're not qualified to do.

[David Healy]

the .john nutter girlies are dancing the night away, AGAIN.... lmfao!

[Scrum Drum]

Asking questions for perfect evidence while ignoring the evidence we already have is a Lone Nutter tactic...



It tries to make the Lone Nutter asking it appear to have high standards of proof and methodology, but its real intent is evasion of proof they know they can't honestly answer...



The threads on this website are a cataloging of Lone Nutters repeatedly offering inferior deflections in order to avoid evidence they never answer...



The most recent example is my getting Donald Willis to quit and run from our discussion of Hosty's admission that Oswald told him he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination and its context towards the Hosty Notes and their omission of Oswald telling him that...Hosty omitted that because all three witnesses to Oswald's 3pm interrogation removed that statement from their notes because it showed the true location of Oswald during the assassination...That's why all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...The entire research community is held up on this and ignoring it under idiot moderators all so one rabid delinquent jackass and research moron (Bart Kamp) can be served and his idiotic theories upheld...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > > Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...
> > Wow. You really think that?
> >
> > Obviously, that's based on wishful thinking and not a lot else.
> >
> > Name the shooter(s). Name where they shot from. And name the mastermind(s) behind the plot.
> >
> > Oh, and don't skimp on the evidence establishing this strong case of yours.
> Asking questions for perfect evidence while ignoring the evidence we already have is a Lone Nutter tactic...

Nobody asked for a perfect case. That's a straw man argument.

You claimed "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...

I therefore asked you to "Name the shooter(s). Name where they shot from. And name the mastermind(s) behind the plot.

Oh, and don't skimp on the evidence establishing this strong case of yours."

Surely you can name names and provide the evidence for this "strong case". Can't you?

You can't? What exactly then does your "strong case" establish?

>
>
>
> It tries to make the Lone Nutter asking it appear to have high standards of proof and methodology, but its real intent is evasion of proof they know they can't honestly answer...

Oswald's rifle was found and photographed on the sixth floor.

We know it was Oswald's because of the Kleins business records establishing he ordered it, paid for it via money order, and had it shipped to his PO Box. That he possessed it is supported by photographs of him taken with the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras in the world. That he possessed it is further supported by his prints on the weapon, underneath the stock, and prints on the trigger guard.

>
>
>
> The threads on this website are a cataloging of Lone Nutters repeatedly offering inferior deflections in order to avoid evidence they never answer...

Speaking of evidence never answered:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wr.htm

>
>
>
> The most recent example is my getting Donald Willis to quit and run...

Don't tell anyone, but Donald Willis believes there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy with the Dallas Police part of that. Donald also believes Oswald was framed for the Tippit killing. I believe Donald will affirm those beliefs if you ask him nicely.

> from our discussion of Hosty's admission that Oswald told him he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination and its context towards the Hosty Notes and their omission of Oswald telling him that...Hosty omitted that because all three witnesses to Oswald's 3pm interrogation removed that statement from their notes because it showed the true location of Oswald during the assassination...

No, that's really sloppy logic on your part. It's been pointed out before. At best, granting for the sake of argument Oswald said it, all it would establish is Oswald said it, not that it's "the true location of Oswald during the assassination". You're assuming people in custody always tell the truth (or at a minimum, Oswald is) but that's an invalid assumption. We know both innocent and guilty people might lie in custody.

> That's why all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...The entire research community is held up on this and ignoring it under idiot moderators all so one rabid delinquent jackass and research moron (Bart Kamp) can be served and his idiotic theories upheld...

So even other CTs aren't sufficiently impressed with your "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently..." claim you made? Are you sure you wanted to finish up with a point that destroys your entire argument to date?

[Scrum Drum]

You're just making the same totally dishonest McAdams school of denial sophistry argument over again...Oswald wasn't lying 1) Because we have repeated independent sources all repeating the same thing... 2) His being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room was witnessed by ALL the witnesses... 3) We now have evidence of the authorities trying to cover it up (which is a sure sign of guilt)... 4) No witness witnessed him upstairs or on the front steps...


You use the Lone Nutter denial method of offering a wholly disingenuous answer like you do here but it doesn't really answer all the evidence that was shown...You dishonestly use your Lone Nutter McAdams method of dishonest debate to reduce it to your denial point but the evidence I showed in total cannot be credibly answered with such a flimsy dodge...What you will do is answer the rest of the evidence I posted here with similar piecemeal contrivances and sophist devices one by one but your dishonest dodge conspicuously fails to live up to the total evidence and total argument I offer...


You cannot answer why no one went to Hosty and asked him "Why in God's name did you not mention Oswald saying he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination in your notes?"...You would think that would be an important thing for the record?...


You're dodging here Hank...You are conspicuously avoiding answering the clear evidence that there is a gaping hole in all three sets of notes of the 3pm interrogation where Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty all deleted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...The reason Hosty did not calibrate Oswald's being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room to the Lunch Room Encounter like Fritz did is because he was smart enough to realize it would show he started his notes 90 seconds after the shots...Which in turn proves he intentionally omitted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...We know this is true because Hosty has Oswald going outside after eating on the 1st floor...But for Oswald to be eating Lunch in the 1st floor Lunch Room during the assassination and then go outside from there is contradicted by Truly & Baker encountering Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room at that time...You have failed to answer that this proves Fritz's notes are the accurate ones and therefore all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter and therefore omit Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the assassination...This is PROOF!...And it proves the witnesses to the 3pm interrogation removed exonerating evidence from their notes of that interrogation...

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, that's really sloppy logic on your part. It's been pointed out before. At best, granting for the sake of argument Oswald said it, all it would establish is Oswald said it, not that it's "the true location of Oswald during the assassination". You're assuming people in custody always tell the truth (or at a minimum, Oswald is) but that's an invalid assumption. We know both innocent and guilty people might lie in custody.
>
>
> > > That's why all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...The entire research community is held up on this and ignoring it under idiot moderators all so one rabid delinquent jackass and research moron (Bart Kamp) can be served and his idiotic theories upheld...
>
>
> > So even other CTs aren't sufficiently impressed with your "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently..." claim you made? Are you sure you wanted to finish up with a point that destroys your entire argument to date?
> You're just making the same totally dishonest McAdams school of denial sophistry argument over again...Oswald wasn't lying 1) Because we have repeated independent sources all repeating the same thing... 2) His being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room was witnessed by ALL the witnesses... 3) We now have evidence of the authorities trying to cover it up (which is a sure sign of guilt)... 4) No witness witnessed him upstairs or on the front steps...
>
>
> You use the Lone Nutter denial method of offering a wholly disingenuous answer like you do here but it doesn't really answer all the evidence that was shown...You dishonestly use your Lone Nutter McAdams method of dishonest debate to reduce it to your denial point but the evidence I showed in total cannot be credibly answered with such a flimsy dodge...What you will do is answer the rest of the evidence I posted here with similar piecemeal contrivances and sophist devices one by one but your dishonest dodge conspicuously fails to live up to the total evidence and total argument I offer...

Your total argument is the same as every other conspiracy argument, one fantastic assertion piled onto another until the whole thing collapses under it`s own weight.

> You cannot answer why no one went to Hosty and asked him "Why in God's name did you not mention Oswald saying he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination in your notes?"...You would think that would be an important thing for the record?...

And this is a typical conspiracy hobbyist sophistry argument that tries to present one possibility as being too fantastic to contemplate while trying to insert another possibility that is much more fantastic.

> You're dodging here Hank...You are conspicuously avoiding answering the clear evidence that there is a gaping hole in all three sets of notes of the 3pm interrogation where Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty all deleted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...

How could he know this?

>The reason Hosty did not calibrate Oswald's being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room to the Lunch Room Encounter like Fritz did is because he was smart enough to realize it would show he started his notes 90 seconds after the shots...Which in turn proves he intentionally omitted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...

It not being there proves it was there. Your expectations are not evidence.

>We know this is true because Hosty has Oswald going outside after eating on the 1st floor...

Hosty doesn`t have that at all, he wasn`t there. What you have are notes that Hosty wrote to remind him of things Oswald said.

>But for Oswald to be eating Lunch in the 1st floor Lunch Room during the assassination and then go outside from there is contradicted by Truly & Baker encountering Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room at that time...You have failed to answer that this proves Fritz's notes are the accurate ones and therefore all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter and therefore omit Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the assassination...This is PROOF!...And it proves the witnesses to the 3pm interrogation removed exonerating evidence from their notes of that interrogation...

Worthless "this must mean this" declarations. Conspiracy hobbyist assertions are the worst.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > > Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...
> > Wow. You really think that?
> >
> > Obviously, that's based on wishful thinking and not a lot else.
> >
> > Name the shooter(s). Name where they shot from. And name the mastermind(s) behind the plot.
> >
> > Oh, and don't skimp on the evidence establishing this strong case of yours.
> Asking questions for perfect evidence while ignoring the evidence we already have is a Lone Nutter tactic...
>

CTs have been ignoring the evidence for 58 years. It all points to Oswald and most of them
don't want to believe Oswald did it.

>
>
> It tries to make the Lone Nutter asking it appear to have high standards of proof and methodology, but its real intent is evasion of proof they know they can't honestly answer...
>

The CTs haven't raised any objections to the conclusions of the WC that haven't been
asked and answered countless times.

>
>
> The threads on this website are a cataloging of Lone Nutters repeatedly offering inferior deflections in order to avoid evidence they never answer...

You don't present evidence. You make things up and then tell us they are obvious.

>
>
>
> The most recent example is my getting Donald Willis to quit and run from our discussion of Hosty's admission that Oswald told him he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination and its context towards the Hosty Notes and their omission of Oswald telling him that...Hosty omitted that because all three witnesses to Oswald's 3pm interrogation removed that statement from their notes because it showed the true location of Oswald during the assassination...

To remove them from their notes, they would have first had to put that in their notes which seems to be something you are presuming. They already knew Oswald was the assassin based on the evidence they had gathered within hours of the assassination. Why would they put a statement by Oswald in their notes that they knew was a lie?

> That's why all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...

This is an example of one of your presumptions. We don't know how long after the shots the encounter took place. We can only estimate it based on recreations.

> The entire research community is held up on this and ignoring it under idiot moderators all so one rabid delinquent jackass and research moron (Bart Kamp) can be served and his idiotic theories upheld...

Arguing about which CTs have the most idiotic theories is like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, that's really sloppy logic on your part. It's been pointed out before. At best, granting for the sake of argument Oswald said it, all it would establish is Oswald said it, not that it's "the true location of Oswald during the assassination". You're assuming people in custody always tell the truth (or at a minimum, Oswald is) but that's an invalid assumption. We know both innocent and guilty people might lie in custody.
>
>
> > > That's why all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...The entire research community is held up on this and ignoring it under idiot moderators all so one rabid delinquent jackass and research moron (Bart Kamp) can be served and his idiotic theories upheld...
>
>
> > So even other CTs aren't sufficiently impressed with your "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently..." claim you made? Are you sure you wanted to finish up with a point that destroys your entire argument to date?
> You're just making the same totally dishonest McAdams school of denial sophistry argument over again...Oswald wasn't lying 1) Because we have repeated independent sources all repeating the same thing...

Really. Tell us which witness(es) said they saw Oswald in the lunchroom when the shots were fired.

> 2) His being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room was witnessed by ALL the witnesses...

Not when the shots were fired.

> 3) We now have evidence of the authorities trying to cover it up (which is a sure sign of guilt)...

There was nothing to cover up. Oswald was lying and they knew it.

> 4) No witness witnessed him upstairs or on the front steps...

Howard Brennan witnessed him on the 6th floor and that identification is confirmed by the fact the man he IDed left his fingerprints at the location where Brennan saw the rifleman, left spent shells at the same location that could only have been fired by that man's rifle, and left
his rifle on the same floor Brennan saw the man firing from. That man Brennan IDed was Oswald. You are right that no one saw him on the front steps because he wasn't there when the shots were fired.

>
>
> You use the Lone Nutter denial method of offering a wholly disingenuous answer like you do here but it doesn't really answer all the evidence that was shown...You dishonestly use your Lone Nutter McAdams method of dishonest debate to reduce it to your denial point but the evidence I showed in total cannot be credibly answered with such a flimsy dodge...What you will do is answer the rest of the evidence I posted here with similar piecemeal contrivances and sophist devices one by one but your dishonest dodge conspicuously fails to live up to the total evidence and total argument I offer...

You have a strange idea of what constitutes evidence. You add 2 + 2 and come up with 69 and claim that is evidence that 2 + 2 = 69.

>
>
> You cannot answer why no one went to Hosty and asked him "Why in God's name did you not mention Oswald saying he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination in your notes?"...You would think that would be an important thing for the record?...

Why would anyone, other than you, think that was important?

>
>
> You're dodging here Hank...You are conspicuously avoiding answering the clear evidence that there is a gaping hole in all three sets of notes of the 3pm interrogation where Fritz, Bookhout, and Hosty all deleted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...The reason Hosty did not calibrate Oswald's being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room to the Lunch Room Encounter like Fritz did is because he was smart enough to realize it would show he started his notes 90 seconds after the shots...

Hosty took his notes long before reenactments estimated it would have taken Oswald about 90 seconds to reach the lunchroom.

> Which in turn proves he intentionally omitted Oswald's telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...

This is an example of adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 69.

> We know this is true because Hosty has Oswald going outside after eating on the 1st floor...

Hosty doesn't have that. Hosty wasn't in the TSBD when the shots were fired so he has no first hand knowledge of where Oswald was and what he did. He sat in on some of Oswald's interrogation so he would have heard some of Oswald's lies.

> But for Oswald to be eating Lunch in the 1st floor Lunch Room during the assassination and then go outside from there is contradicted by Truly & Baker encountering Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room at that time...

Which establishes that if Oswald claimed to be in the first floor lunchroom when he shots were fired, he was lying just as he was lying when he claimed to be in the second floor lunchroom. It's quite common for suspects who are lying to give different versions of their alibis because they can't remember which lies the have told previously.

> You have failed to answer that this proves Fritz's notes are the accurate ones and therefore all three sets of notes start at the Lunch Room Encounter and therefore omit Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the assassination...This is PROOF!...

Proof of what?

> And it proves the witnesses to the 3pm interrogation removed exonerating evidence from their notes of that interrogation...

Why would you think Oswald's lies exonerate him?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

If you have all the answers, then why do you waste your time ?

[John Corbett]

Trust me, I've asked myself the same question numerous times. I'm retired and have lots of time on my hands and nothing better to do. It's either this or collecting stamps. The former is slightly more interesting.

Even without the conspiracy hobby, the subject of the assassination is a fascinating one with lots of sub plots. The problem is people want to read more into the sub plots that is there, like fixating on Oswald's Mexico trip. Even the WC seemed to make more of it than
is justified. All it showed was he still was driven by anti-American feelings even after his
disillusionment with the Soviet Union.

[Scrum Drum]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 8:31:30 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:02:34 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 3:54:48 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 12:49:09 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:





> > 2) His being in the 2nd floor Lunch Room was witnessed by ALL the witnesses...

> Not when the shots were fired.

You're making excuses...ALL the witnesses witnessed Oswald in or near the 2nd floor Lunch Room...Sarah Stanton, Carolyn Arnold, Jack Dougherty, and Truly & Baker all witnessed Oswald in or near the 2nd floor Lunch Room at the time of the assassination...When Carolyn Arnold said Oswald was eating lunch that means she saw the partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple Buell Frazier was told of...The fact Frazier can't name who told him is purely incriminating because it shows he is hiding someone who witnessed exonerating evidence and didn't come forward...Your McAdams hen-pecking isn't valid and does not serve as any counter to this more than obvious evidence...If Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald at 12:25 and Truly & Baker saw him 6 minutes later at 12:31, then the partly-eaten cheese sandwich tells you he was there in between and that is all you need to know...You are trolling and failing to answer for the impossibility of Oswald running up to the Sniper's Nest, shooting JFK, and then running back down to the Lunch Room, not out of breath, in order to be there for Truly & Baker...You offer a perfect example of applied singular deflections failing to answer the greater evidence...Your argument fails by its form scientifically...

> > And it proves the witnesses to the 3pm interrogation removed exonerating evidence from their notes of that interrogation...

> Why would you think Oswald's lies exonerate him?

Because of everything I've written above that you are trollishly ignoring...


A credible debate moderator would not let you get away with that...


Both Oswald and Fritz were not lying when they said Oswald was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 06:03:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

When all you have is speculation and logical fallacies, you won't
convince anyone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 15:55:06 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
>> Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison".
>
>"Strong case" meaning: Via a CTer's imagination and speculation.
>

>Just for the laughs...

The one who't being laughed at is you. *YOU* are the coward who runs
away everytime one of your lies is pointed out.

[John Corbett]

Benny epitomizes everything he accuses others of, just as he has done here.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

I made an observation stupid, I wasn`t trying to convince anyone.

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > > Translation: "CT-ers have developed such a strong case recently that the Lone Nutter denials look bad in comparison"...
> > Wow. You really think that?
> >
> > Obviously, that's based on wishful thinking and not a lot else.
> >
> > Name the shooter(s). Name where they shot from. And name the mastermind(s) behind the plot.
> >
> > Oh, and don't skimp on the evidence establishing this strong case of yours.
> Asking questions for perfect evidence while ignoring the evidence we already have is a Lone Nutter tactic...
>
>
>
> It tries to make the Lone Nutter asking it appear to have high standards of proof and methodology, but its real intent is evasion of proof they know they can't honestly answer...
>
>
>
> The threads on this website are a cataloging of Lone Nutters repeatedly offering inferior deflections in order to avoid evidence they never answer...
>
>
>
> The most recent example is my getting Donald Willis

I'm a Lone Nutter?? Please.

to quit and run

Didn't quit & run. Just got tired of your mumbo-jumbo.

[David Healy]

suck-it-up puddin' - live can get difficult when you enter the geriatric ward... Ya need to give up, remove yourself from that state of deNILE...

[John Corbett]

HICCUP!!! BBBBBBBEEEEELLLLLLCCCCCCHHHHH!!!

[David Healy]

there ya go.... suspect you shit your pants also? Gorgeous Georgie will be you to a CR meeting, there's help for folks like you... just ask....

[John Corbett]

I see coherence isn't your strong suit.

[David Healy]

shit dude, I wipe my ass with your "advanced" degrees...

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 10:48:17 PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 4:44:31 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 3:40:21 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:




>
> Didn't quit & run. Just got tired of your mumbo-jumbo.

Yes you did...You failed to credibly answer how Hosty's admission to Nigel Turner that Oswald told them he was in the Lunch Room during the assassination proves that all three sets of notes of the 3pm interrogation started at the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots and therefore omitted Oswald saying he was in the Lunch Room during the shots...


Hosty tried to cheat in his notes and cover this up by making the getting of the Coca Cola before the assassination...Hosty then tried to make Oswald go to the 1st floor during the assassination and then go outside to watch the Presidential Parade after the assassination...However I proved this couldn't be true because Truly & Baker witnessed Oswald in the 2nd floor Lunch Room at the time Hosty's notes sent Oswald out front...So if you ask which set of notes was accurate it has to be Fritz's because Fritz's Notes named the 2nd floor Lunch Room as the place Oswald got the Coca Cola WHEN OFFICER CAME IN...Fritz calibrated all three sets of notes by doing that so therefore the time that Oswald is in the 2nd floor Lunch Room in Hosty's notes is during the Lunch Room Encounter 90 seconds after the shots...Oswald then goes down to the 1st floor to eat lunch after the Lunch Room Encounter exactly as Fritz's notes do...And then both Fritz's notes and Hosty's send Oswald out front many minutes after the shots...


What you are avoiding honestly answering is the fact this synchronicity therefore calibrates all three sets of notes from the 3pm interrogation and has all three start 90 seconds after the shots with the Lunch Room Encounter...That in turn forces us to realize that all three sets of notes avoided what came before that and deliberately omitted Oswald telling them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room where 5 witnesses had seen him...It is simply not believable that the three main interrogators during that interview would forget to ask Oswald where he was during the assassination so we can therefore assume this was done deliberately because it exonerated Oswald and showed he could not have shot Kennedy...This proves the 3 interrogators altered their notes and removed the part where Oswald told them he was in the 2nd floor Lunch Room during the shots...

[BT George]

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:03:12 AM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

> > They really need some new material. Their posts fall into one of three categories:
> >
> > 1. Old turds, long since debunked, polished off and presented as if they were
> > fresh.
> >
> > 2. Incredibly silly
> >
> > 3. Incredibly trivial
> >
> > Some are even a combination of the above. Can't you guys come up with
> > anything better. You would really make things more interesting for the LNs if
> > you could. If this is the best you can do after 58 years, maybe it is time for you
> > to close up shop.
> The hobby is in it`s death throes. It never went anywhere because there was never anywhere for it to go.
>

Unfortunately not quite. If you go on some of the FaceBook groups you will see a new generation, spouting as if fresh the same old *disproven* myths and becoming ever more detached from a realistic approach to the case. A particularly depressing site is Matt Douthit's "JFK: Nothing but the Truth". (Which should really be, "JFK: Nothing but Deslusions.")

[John Corbett]

There will always be myth believers. We still have people who think FDR knew Pearl Harbor
was going to be attacked and allowed it to happen to give him the excuse to join the war. That is silly because for FDR to know that, somebody would have had to tell him and that
person would also have allowed it to happen. Of course there would have been a lot of people up and down the chain of command who knew that and they would have all had to conspire to allow the attack to happen and then keep quiet about it all of these years. Kind of like the silliness of the JFK conspiracy hobby. It strains credulity.

What is going to happen, the niche is going to keep getting smaller and smaller. With each succeeding generation there will be fewer and fewer people who take part in what is and has always been a silly hobby. And yes, I confess to taking part in this silly hobby for reasons even I don't fully understand.

[BT George]

Yes, I am often afraid to ask why I *really* still do this. ...Especially since any initial delusions of making progress or educating sceptics were smashed. I can honestly say in now nearly 10 years on various boards I have only seen a handful of persons who ever learned anything and *none* who were the mainstay of such exchanges from the CT standpoint, being as how they aren't interested in truth.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:47:21 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:56:40 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:03:12 AM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > They really need some new material. Their posts fall into one of three categories:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Old turds, long since debunked, polished off and presented as if they were
> > > > fresh.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Incredibly silly
> > > >
> > > > 3. Incredibly trivial
> > > >
> > > > Some are even a combination of the above. Can't you guys come up with
> > > > anything better. You would really make things more interesting for the LNs if
> > > > you could. If this is the best you can do after 58 years, maybe it is time for you
> > > > to close up shop.
> > > The hobby is in it`s death throes. It never went anywhere because there was never anywhere for it to go.
> > >
> > Unfortunately not quite. If you go on some of the FaceBook groups you will see a new generation, spouting as if fresh the same old *disproven* myths and becoming ever more detached from a realistic approach to the case. A particularly depressing site is Matt Douthit's "JFK: Nothing but the Truth". (Which should really be, "JFK: Nothing but Deslusions.")
> > > It isn`t even LNer versus CTer anymore, it is a competition among CTers over who has created the most appealing construction. Some here are pissed that they aren`t allowed into the clubhouses where other CTers display their creations. In the next decade this hobby will be a memory.
> There will always be myth believers.

I suppose there will always be idiots who come across Stone`s "JFK" and think they are watching a documentary. I also wonder what the numbers would look like if the asked the current generation who JFK was.

There are Titanic enthusiasts and Jack the Ripper enthusiasts, different niche hard core groups that devour anything on their pet topic, but these all dwindle over time, even if they never completely die out.

[John Corbett]

30 years ago after Stone's movie came out and internet discussion groups were still in their infancy, I think you could reach many more people through such groups. The movie reignited interest in the subject and people flocked to the internet to put in their two cents worth. Now, this group has at most of few dozen regulars and we seem to lose a few every year. I suspect it is the same in the other online groups as well. A few dozen people kicking the same dead horse. The public has moved on from the assassination. Stone's movie came out 28 years after the assassination. It's now been over 30 years since his movie came out. Whatever renewed interest there was in the assassination as a result of the movie has long since waned. Nothing is being accomplished here by either side. Nobody's minds are changing. History will continue to record Oswald as the assassin of JFK and skeptics will always reject that conclusions. The skeptics will continue to decline in number as there will
not be enough new ones to replace the ones that are dying off. I doubt I will live to see the day the CTs are in the minority but I expect their percentage of the population to continue to
decline. The last poll I saw put their number at 61%. It speaks volumes that it's been years since I saw that poll. Nobody thinks it's even important enough to conduct a poll anymore.

[Alan Johnstone]

>>> We still have people who think FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked and allowed it to happen to give him the excuse to join the war.

Very much like the current Ukraine situation with sanctions it was no conspiracy that FDR was forcing Japan into a corner that was very likely to escalate and bring Japan to retaliate.

I have written on this

https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2012/12/americas-good-war-part-two-japan.html

One couple of quotes stand out from that article

" ...FDR’s Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s noted: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”... "

"...On November 15th, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall briefed the media on something we do not remember as “the Marshall Plan.” In fact, we don’t remember it at all. "We are preparing an offensive war against Japan,” ..."

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:40:29 PM UTC-6, John Corbett wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:04:51 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:47:21 AM UTC-6, John Corbett wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 4:56:40 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:03:12 AM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > > > > > They really need some new material. Their posts fall into one of three categories:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Old turds, long since debunked, polished off and presented as if they were
> > > > > > fresh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Incredibly silly
> > > > > >

>/11 anyone?) > > > > > 3. Incredibly trivial

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some are even a combination of the above. Can't you guys come up with
> > > > > > anything better. You would really make things more interesting for the LNs if
> > > > > > you could. If this is the best you can do after 58 years, maybe it is time for you
> > > > > > to close up shop.
> > > > > The hobby is in it`s death throes. It never went anywhere because there was never anywhere for it to go.
> > > > >
> > > > Unfortunately not quite. If you go on some of the FaceBook groups you will see a new generation, spouting as if fresh the same old *disproven* myths and becoming ever more detached from a realistic approach to the case. A particularly depressing site is Matt Douthit's "JFK: Nothing but the Truth". (Which should really be, "JFK: Nothing but Deslusions.")
> > > > > It isn`t even LNer versus CTer anymore, it is a competition among CTers over who has created the most appealing construction. Some here are pissed that they aren`t allowed into the clubhouses where other CTers display their creations. In the next decade this hobby will be a memory.
> > > There will always be myth believers. We still have people who think FDR knew Pearl Harbor
> > > was going to be attacked and allowed it to happen to give him the excuse to join the war. That is silly because for FDR to know that, somebody would have had to tell him and that
> > > person would also have allowed it to happen. Of course there would have been a lot of people up and down the chain of command who knew that and they would have all had to conspire to allow the attack to happen and then keep quiet about it all of these years. Kind of like the silliness of the JFK conspiracy hobby. It strains credulity.
> > >
> > > What is going to happen, the niche is going to keep getting smaller and smaller. With each succeeding generation there will be fewer and fewer people who take part in what is and has always been a silly hobby. And yes, I confess to taking part in this silly hobby for reasons even I don't fully understand.
> > Yes, I am often afraid to ask why I *really* still do this. ...Especially since any initial delusions of making progress or educating sceptics were smashed. I can honestly say in now nearly 10 years on various boards I have only seen a handful of persons who ever learned anything and *none* who were the mainstay of such exchanges from the CT standpoint, being as how they aren't interested in truth.
> 30 years ago after Stone's movie came out and internet discussion groups were still in their infancy, I think you could reach many more people through such groups. The movie reignited interest in the subject and people flocked to the internet to put in their two cents worth. Now, this group has at most of few dozen regulars and we seem to lose a few every year. I suspect it is the same in the other online groups as well. A few dozen people kicking the same dead horse. The public has moved on from the assassination. Stone's movie came out 28 years after the assassination. It's now been over 30 years since his movie came out. Whatever renewed interest there was in the assassination as a result of the movie has long since waned. Nothing is being accomplished here by either side. Nobody's minds are changing. History will continue to record Oswald as the assassin of JFK and skeptics will always reject that conclusions. The skeptics will continue to decline in number as there will
> not be enough new ones to replace the ones that are dying off. I doubt I will live to see the day the CTs are in the minority but I expect their percentage of the population to continue to
> decline. The last poll I saw put their number at 61%. It speaks volumes that it's been years since I saw that poll. Nobody thinks it's even important enough to conduct a poll anymore.

We'll see another poll next year for the 60th year anniversary of his death. (Yikes!!!! 60 Years!!!!??? I started posting here around the 39th year anniversary of his death and it seemed like ancient history then.) Of course, there will be a book or two (they come less frequently now) for someone to peddle on Good Morning America to have a five minute "happy talk" segment about the event while plugging the book, and there will no doubt be scattered mentions in the media and so on, but yes, the world has moved on. Except for all of us, which is okay. Everyone needs an outlet.

When I was a kid, Pearl Harbor was still a big deal and I recall more mentions of the event on the news and in school. It was always mentioned that we must remember the event and never again be taken by surprise by our enemies. (In fact, I have a friend whose father served on the USS Ward that sank the Japanese midget sub that morning, and he spoke about his experiences at various grade schools in early December each school year.) And then there was 9/11.

Pearl Harbor Day gets very few mentions anywhere. You may recall me noting at this board that I helped "teach" my kids US history due to the woefully inadequate job the public schools do with history. WW2 is no longer mentioned in some of the Minnesota HS history textbooks, or it is a paragraph or two. (There was not one mention of JFK's presidency or assassination in my son's HS textbooks.) Any in-depth discussion of WW2 in public schools focuses on the racism of interring Japanese Americans on the West coast or the inhumanity of dropping the A Bomb on people of color. It's actually DISGUSTING and boils my blood to see that this is what is taught as the focal point of US HISTORY in our schools. But I digress.

Ben used to ask me why I post here. "Because it's fun," I truthfully told him. "I just can't believe that otherwise sane grown men believe stuff like JFK's body being snatched en route to Bethesda, or that a sniper team fired a bullet through the front of JFK's limo windshield and expected to pin it on a guy from behind, or that the Z film was altered to hide evidence it stopped." I've in turn asked Ben why he posts here. His answer? "To get the truth out."

No chat board has given me more laughs than this place, but yeah, it's much more boring that it was a decade ago. Even Ben's posting frequency is down since I caught him lying about being a FIDE rated tournament chess player.

[Chuck Schuyler]

The USG leaders knew the shoe was going to drop but thought the attacks would be in the Philippines. FDR, Marshall, and others KNEW war was on the way (we were technically fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic Ocean the summer of 41 against German U-Boats) but the American public was still apathetic about getting involved in an overseas war. In fact, the US had fewer than 200,000 Army troops in uniform as late at 1939, which gave the US an army smaller than that of Portugal. December 7, 1941 changed all of that. I confess that I still can get goosebumps when I listen to FDR declaring war on Japan with his distinctive upper-crust New York accent: "Yesterday...Decembuh 7th...1941...a date which will live in INFAMY." America wasn't a militarily powerful nation barely 80 years ago. Pearl Harbor changed that forever. The rest is, as they say, history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEvFj74Dg38

I get similar goosebumps when I listen to Winston Churchill's "We Shall Fight on the Beaches," speech. Zalenskyy's "I don't need a ride, I need ammo" quip isn't as stirring, but it was the right line for the moment.

[John Corbett]

People forget that the US actually fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor when it sank the midget sub trying to sneak into the harbor. Little did we know other midget subs had already gotten in. The kill wasn't confirmed until a few years ago when the sub was found on the ocean floor. The Ward's cannon had put a hole in the conning tower and when the sub submerged, it would have flooded. We dropped a few depth charges for good measure.

I first heard about Pearl Harbor when watching the movie The Bombadier on a local station's late night movie broadcast. I'm guessing that would have been around 1960. A short time later we learned about it in history class. That just had its 80th anniversary. It barely gets mentioned any more, even when the date rolls around. I've made it a practice to watch Tora, Tora, Tora each anniversary. To me it is one of the most underrated war movies of all time. It does an excellent job of presenting the attack from both the US and Japanese perspectives.
I like that they used Japanese actors speaking in their native tongue and a Japanese director to tell the latter. The movie Midway came out a few years afterward and was almost a sequel. It used English speaking actors of Japanese descent. It too was a good movie but not quite the equal of Tora, Tora, Tora. Both were much better than the more
recent movies Pearl Harbor and Midway.

[John Corbett]

I just recently learned that our first casualties of WWII occurred five weeks before Pearl Harbor with the sinking of the escort destroyer the Reuben James while on convoy duty near Iceland. 100 US sailors perished with 44 being saved. It was believed the German U-boat had
fired at a merchant ship but the Reuben James steamed into the path of the torpedo which ripped off the bow of the ship, causing it to sink rapidly. Because the U-boat had not targeted
the Reuben James, it was treated as an accident of war rather than an act of war. Had FDR really wanted a pretext for entering the war, that incident would have been sufficient.

I remember the song The Good Reuben James from either the Kingston Trio or the Chad Mitchell Trio. I recently heard it while surfing the web and that got me curious to look up the background and that's when I discovered the circumstances of its sinking. Woody Guthrie composed the lyrics to the song which took the melody from the country song WIldwood Flower.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Here's a nice little article about America's naval efforts in the Atlantic after WW2 broke out in Europe, pre-Pearl Harbor:

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/11/23/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic/

FDR really was trying to "lean forward" and get the provocation needed to wake up the sleepy American public and garner the support to help out Great Britain militarily, especially after France fell. Funny, but most people do not realize (I'm sure you already know this because you know your history) that FDR's declaration of war was limited to fighting Japan. It took a few days, but Germany actually declared war against the United States on December 11th.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Tora, Tora, Tora is a great movie, and the special effects are fantastic. All pre-computer generated stuff. Real planes, etc.

The movie Midway used some special effects footage from Tora, Tora, Tora, I believe. I was enough of a snob to denigrate Midway because some of the footage showed Hellcats and not Wildcats in some of the scenes. I saw it again recently and found it enjoyable.

[John Corbett]

I believe there were two clips of the bombing of Midway that were lifted from Tora! Tora! Tora! The movie opened with the carrier takeoff scene from Thirty Seconds over Tokyo which was shot in black and white. They gave a sepia tint to it. I think the same footage was used in the miniseries War and Remembrance and maybe again in the movie Pearl
Harbor. The latter was so bad I have no interest in ever seeing it again. I have no idea why
they would extend a movie about Pearl Harbor to the Doolittle Raid. They even screwed that up. After bombing Japan, they showed the planes flying toward China with the setting sun
behind them.......TO THE EAST. I guess that is a minor error compared with turning a movie
about one of the most important events in the 20th Century into a soap opera.

[Hank Sienzant]

Actually both - and covered a number of times since.
Chad Mitchell Trio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O3dHxU0Oos
Kingston Trio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy9fKszmG5w

Others: Woody Guthrie (the author), Pete Seeger, Country Joe MacDonald, Kenny Rogers & the First Edition, Chad and Jeremy, Johnny Horton, The Weavers, and many other people and groups I never heard of.

[John Corbett]

I knew they both recorded it but I can't remember which one I remember hearing from the 1960s. We had albums from both groups in our house so it could have been either. The other big trio from that time period was the Limelighters.

Are you sure about Kenny Rogers and the First Edition? They recorded a song called Reuben James but it was about a black man named Reuben James who adopted an orphaned white child. I don't know if the choice of name was coincidental or not. Here's a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LthFi2T4Hk

[Chuck Schuyler]

I saw the trailer for the movie Pearl Harbor and knew it would be God awful, so I never saw it. Glad I wasted the time on whatever other pursuit took its place.

[Hank Sienzant]

You're right, different song. Trusted the Google results.

[John Corbett]

It's amazing that with 30 years of technological advances in movie making they produced something that wasn't have as good as Tora! Tora! Tora! There's nothing more disappointing than a movie that should be so good and is instead so bad.

I felt the same way about the History Channel miniseries The Sons of Liberty. It brought back memories of the Disney movie Johnny Tremain and the Sons of Liberty which I saw when I was very young. I saw it again about ten years ago. It was a little cheesy but held up
pretty well. Not so the History Channel miniseries. The main character in the movie was Samuel Adams who in reality was a paunchy middle aged guy and they made him a 20-something action hero. British General Thomas Gage was portrayed as a one dimensional brute when in reality his subordinate officers thought he was too lenient on the dissident colonists. John Hancock was portrayed as being light in the loafers. The acting in general was really bad. So bad in fact that I bailed after the first two installments. I couldn't take a third.

[donald willis]

"And we are the sons, yes, we are the sons, the sons of liberty!" Saw it twice when it first came out....

[Bud]

Wow, I was talking with a friend just yesterday, and he brought up this movie and how bad it was (he is a kind of a history buff, especially military history, like many of us old white guys), I suppose it is somewhat notorious. I never saw it. I did see Tora, Tora, Tora and Midway and preferred Midway. I like movies with happy endings.

[John Corbett]

I just remember this. Because of the demilitarization of Japan following the war, there were no Japanese planes or ships available for the movie. Here are some of the compromises they made:

"The carrier entering Pearl Harbor towards the end of the film was in fact the Essex-class carrier USS Kearsarge, returning to port. The "Japanese" aircraft carrier was the anti-submarine carrier USS Yorktown, fitted with a false bow to disguise the catapults. The Japanese A6M Zero fighters, and somewhat longer "Kate" torpedo bombers or "Val" dive bombers were heavily modified Royal Canadian Air Force Harvard (T-6 Texan) and BT-13 Valiant pilot training aircraft. The large fleet of Japanese aircraft was created by Lynn Garrison, a well-known aerial action coordinator, who produced a number of conversions. Garrison and Jack Canary coordinated the actual engineering work at facilities in the Los Angeles area. These aircraft still make appearances at air shows."

The above was from Wikipedia.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:59:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:34:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 06:03:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

>> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 8:48:57 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>>>> They really need some new material. Their posts fall into one of three categories:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Old turds, long since debunked, polished off and presented as if they were
>>>> fresh.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Incredibly silly
>>>>

>>>> 3. Incredibly trivial
>>>>
>>>> Some are even a combination of the above. Can't you guys come up with
>>>> anything better. You would really make things more interesting for the LNs if
>>>> you could. If this is the best you can do after 58 years, maybe it is time for you
>>>> to close up shop.
>>>
>>> The hobby is in it`s death throes. It never went anywhere because there was never anywhere for it to go.
>>>

>>> It isn`t even LNer versus CTer anymore, it is a competition among CTers over who has created the most appealing construction. Some here are pissed that they aren`t allowed into the clubhouses where other CTers display their creations. In the next decade this hobby will be a memory.
>>

>> When all you have is speculation and logical fallacies, you won't
>> convince anyone.
>
> I made an observation stupid, I wasn`t trying to convince anyone.

I made an observation that most people already agree with stupid! No
need to convince anyone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 05:59:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ben used to ask me why I post here. "Because it's fun," I truthfully
> told him.

This is something that inherently dishonest people use quite
frequently... Honest people don't need to assert that they're being
truthful.

>"I just can't believe that otherwise sane grown men believe
> stuff like JFK's body being snatched en route to Bethesda, or that a
> sniper team fired a bullet through the front of JFK's limo windshield
> and expected to pin it on a guy from behind, or that the Z film was
> altered to hide evidence it stopped."

You pretend not to believe it, but you run like a coward from the very
evidence that supports these things. For YEARS you've refused to
publicly state what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.

> I've in turn asked Ben why he
> posts here. His answer? "To get the truth out."

Yep. Most people aren't interested enough in the topic to do the
research themselves.

> No chat board has given me more laughs than this place, but yeah,
> it's much more boring that it was a decade ago. Even Ben's posting
> frequency is down since I caught him lying about being a FIDE rated
> tournament chess player.

My FIDE recognized rating is still published online. So who's the
liar? And my posting frequency is the same ... I respond to PRECISELY
the same posts I've always responded to. I simply do what Huckster
does ... and wait days or weeks between responding.

You're too dishonest to point to Huckster Sienzant, and make the same
comment.

But I'm only emulating what *HE* has done.