Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Henry Sienzant Has A Long History Of Lying...

125 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 11:25:45 AM9/4/19
to
Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:

"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying...

Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
evidence" as you claim."

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9

This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
I've quoted him correctly.

Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
evidence."

But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
with my post.

What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."

And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.

Bud

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 12:49:57 PM9/4/19
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> a statement such as this.

Or looking at it correctly.

> And since the legal system in America *does*
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> lying...
>
> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence" as you claim."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>
> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
> I've quoted him correctly.
>
> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence."
>
> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> with my post.
>
> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."

Allowing it and deeming it credible on it`s merits is two different things.
Message has been deleted

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 5:37:06 PM9/4/19
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>
> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> (WCR 61)
>
> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> lying...
>
> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence" as you claim."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>
> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
> I've quoted him correctly.
>
> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
> evidence."

My point was, which you omit, that it's up to the jury (in a jury
trial) or the judge, or in this case, the Warren Commission to
determine whether the witness(es) is credible or not. They are not automatically assumed to be credible by the judicial systen, which
is your claim.

My claim holds with or without the "all". But since you didn't limit
your claim in any way, I pointed out it doesn't apply to "all" witnesses.

I could have just as easily made the same point with the use of the word
"any":
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting *any* eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

or without any qualifier whatsoever:
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

Eyewitness testimony can be presented at the hearing, the trial, the grand jury proceeding, whatever.

It's not deemed credible by the judicial system.

It's still up to the trier of fact to make that determination
whether it's credible or not.

The Warren Commission made the determination that the witnesses
to shots anywhere but the Depository weren't credible, as is their
right. That's what they said. That's what you quoted.

Argue against the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend
I made.


>
> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> with my post.
>
> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."

Not true. The judge, the jury, or in this case, the Warren
Commissioners get to decide on an individual basis how much credibility
to grant to each witness. They are not assumed to be credible, and
the judicial system doesn't accept them as credible automatically.
That's been my point all along.

Argue against the point I made, not the one you wish to pretend I made.


>
> And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
> forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.

I wasn't forced to lie about anything. I didn't lie. I pointed out
you claimed that witnesses were granted credibility by the
U.S. judicial system, and that's simply not so.

Hank

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 6:05:36 PM9/4/19
to
One more thing: Entitling your post "Henry Sienzant Has A Long History Of Lying..." is a logical fallacy.

It's known as poisoning the well.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

== QUOTE ==
Poisoning the Well
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)

Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

Try posting without the logical fallacies.

Hank


Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 9:27:29 PM9/4/19
to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:32:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>>
>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying...
>>
>> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
>> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence" as you claim."
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>
>> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
>> I've quoted him correctly.
>>
>> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
>> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence."
>
>My point was, which you omit...


Indeed, I'm going to omit everything again.

You pretended that I'd said something that I did not.

That's a lie, Henry.

Stay on topic, and QUOTE me saying what you claimed I'd said.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 9:28:36 PM9/4/19
to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:37:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>>
>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying...
>>
>> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
>> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence" as you claim."
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>
>> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
>> I've quoted him correctly.
>>
>> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
>> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence."
>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 9:29:25 PM9/4/19
to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>One more thing: Entitling your post "Henry Sienzant Has A Long History Of Lying..." is a logical fallacy.


Not, however, when its merely the truth.

Bud

unread,
Sep 4, 2019, 10:13:47 PM9/4/19
to
Runners run, that`s what they do.

Hank Sienzant

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 6:24:00 AM9/5/19
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 9:29:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> wrote:
>
> >One more thing: Entitling your post "Henry Sienzant Has A Long History Of Lying..." is a logical fallacy.
>
>
> Not, however, when its merely the truth.

No, it's still poisoning the well.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Quoting from that site: "In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now "poisoned" because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they're a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward."

Whether a person is a convict or a nun shouldn't be used to determine the truth of the argument. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

You're attacking the arguer when you call me a liar.

That's simply ad hominem. That is not an attack on the argument whatsoever.

Attack the argument, if you can. I doubt you can.

Hank



Hank Sienzant

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 6:29:31 AM9/5/19
to
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 9:27:29 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:32:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Of course you omit my argument. You can't rebut it, so you're reduced to ad hominem, calling me a liar.

Here's the points I made once more:

My point was, which you omit, that it's up to the jury (in a jury
trial) or the judge, or in this case, the Warren Commission to
determine whether the witness(es) is credible or not. They are not
automatically assumed to be credible by the judicial systen, which
is your claim.

My claim holds with or without the "all". But since you didn't limit
your claim in any way, I pointed out it doesn't apply to "all" witnesses.

I could have just as easily made the same point with the use of the word
"any":
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting *any* eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

or without any qualifier whatsoever:
== QUOTE ==
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.
== UNQUOTE ==

Eyewitness testimony can be presented at the hearing, the trial,
the grand jury proceeding, whatever.

It's not deemed credible by the judicial system.

It's still up to the trier of fact to make that determination
whether it's credible or not.

The Warren Commission made the determination that the witnesses
to shots anywhere but the Depository weren't credible, as is their
right. That's what they said. That's what you quoted.

Argue against the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend
I made.


>
> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> with my post.
>
> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."

Not true. The judge, the jury, or in this case, the Warren
Commissioners get to decide on an individual basis how much credibility
to grant to each witness. They are not assumed to be credible, and
the judicial system doesn't accept them as credible automatically.
That's been my point all along.

Argue against the point I made, not the one you wish to pretend I made.


>
> And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
> forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.

Bud

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 7:28:47 AM9/5/19
to
He`ll only remove them again. His crooked game consists of removing content, drowning out his opponents with ad hominem, bluff, bluster, making empty declarations, setting himself up as arbiter of all judgement calls, blowing hot air, ect.

You`ll end up fighting the tar baby until you tire of it and leave, and Ben will claim victory.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 9:24:06 AM9/5/19
to
Unless you're QUOTING me saying what you claimed I'd said, or
admitting that you lied, it's not relevant... it's simply the logical
fallacy of moving the goalposts.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 9:27:58 AM9/5/19
to
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 03:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 9:29:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> wrote:
>>
>>>One more thing: Entitling your post "Henry Sienzant Has A Long History Of Lying..." is a logical fallacy.
>>
>>
>> Not, however, when its merely the truth.
>
>No, it's still poisoning the well.

So tell us Henry, is it possible to accurately refer to someone's long
history of lying without it being a logical fallacy?

Or is the truth merely a logical fallacy?

chucksch...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 10:02:41 AM9/5/19
to
A sort of mixture of ad hominem, fallacy of a complex question, missing the point, and avoiding the issue.

Ben is on fire today.

But Boris is impressed, so there's that.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 5, 2019, 10:19:23 AM9/5/19
to
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 07:02:40 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ah! So there *ARE* truths that cannot be spoken.

It's fortunate that I recognize such an argument as the garbage that
it is.

And truth still exists...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 19, 2019, 9:30:52 PM9/19/19
to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:13:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Liars lie, that's what they do.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 19, 2019, 9:30:54 PM9/19/19
to
On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Good prediction. Keep it up... someday you may approach my record of
successful and accurate predictions.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 19, 2019, 9:31:01 PM9/19/19
to
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>>
>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>> (WCR 61)
>>
>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>> a statement such as this.
>
> Or looking at it correctly.


You're lying again, "Chickenshit."


>> And since the legal system in America *does*
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>> lying...
>>
>> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
>> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence" as you claim."
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>
>> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
>> I've quoted him correctly.
>>
>> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
>> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
>> evidence."
>>
>> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
>> with my post.
>>
>> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
>
> Allowing it and deeming it credible on it`s merits is two different things.


And do you have enough honesty to *CORRECTLY* place my statement among
those two choices?

The answer, of course, is no.

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2019, 8:03:58 PM9/24/19
to
You do that also. But you found it is easier to just remove what people write rather than be constantly put in the position where you are forced to lie.

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2019, 8:05:57 PM9/24/19
to
It appears I was correct about the cause and effect...

Bud

unread,
Sep 24, 2019, 8:09:49 PM9/24/19
to
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:31:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
> >>
> >> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
> >> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
> >> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
> >> (WCR 61)
> >>
> >> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
> >> a statement such as this.
> >
> > Or looking at it correctly.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Chickenshit."

Ad hominem can`t help you.

> >> And since the legal system in America *does*
> >> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
> >> lying...
> >>
> >> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
> >> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
> >> evidence" as you claim."
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
> >>
> >> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
> >> I've quoted him correctly.
> >>
> >> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
> >> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
> >> evidence."
> >>
> >> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
> >> with my post.
> >>
> >> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
> >> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
> >
> > Allowing it and deeming it credible on it`s merits is two different things.
>
>
> And do you have enough honesty to *CORRECTLY* place my statement among
> those two choices?

I have no idea what you are talking about, I was merely pointing out your inability to make a distinction between a witness being credible enough to be heard in a court of law, and the information a witness supplied being deemed credible.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 11:52:21 AM10/23/19
to
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:03:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
If you cannot, as Henry could not, quote where I said what he implied
I'd said - then you're a proven liar.

It's just that simple.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 11:52:21 AM10/23/19
to
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:31:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Getting back to the evidence... a thing that believers HATE:
>>>>
>>>> "No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
>>>> railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
>>>> or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
>>>> (WCR 61)
>>>>
>>>> Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
>>>> a statement such as this.
>>>
>>> Or looking at it correctly.
>>
>> You're lying again, "Chickenshit."
>
> Ad hominem can`t help you.


Lying can't help you.

Why can't you support your claims?



>>>> And since the legal system in America *does*
>>>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
>>>> lying...
>>>>
>>>> Henry jokes again: "Stop right there. There is no such thing as the
>>>> U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible
>>>> evidence" as you claim."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9&cdMsgNo=7767&cdPage=311&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1UOFP7W4CBPU#Mx1QDS6QCDKQLE9
>>>>
>>>> This link no longer works, but I'm sure Henry will acknowledge that
>>>> I've quoted him correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Notice that Henry flat lied. He claimed that I'd stated that the U.S.
>>>> Judicial system accepts **ALL** eyewitness testimony as "credible
>>>> evidence."
>>>>
>>>> But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
>>>> with my post.
>>>>
>>>> What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
>>>> accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
>>>
>>> Allowing it and deeming it credible on it`s merits is two different things.
>>
>> And do you have enough honesty to *CORRECTLY* place my statement among
>> those two choices?
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about...


Of course not.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 11:52:23 AM10/23/19
to
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:05:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> It appears I was correct ...

I see you have problems reading... here it is again: "Good
0 new messages