Whaley's "Neches" wrecks Warren Report's Oswald/Tippit timeline

[Donald Willis]

Whaley's "Neches" wrecks Warren Report's Oswald/Tippit timeline

Apparently, the Warren Commission panicked when witness William W. Whaley went off-script, on 3/12/64, and testified that he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley".  (In his 11/23/63 affidavit, Whaley mentions only "500 block of North Beckley".)  That would have screwed up the official eta of Oswald at 10th & Patton of 1:16. (Warren Report p158)  As the WR says, "Neches is within one-half block of the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley where Oswald was living." (WRp162)  That would, in fact, seem to have been an ideal spot for Oswald to get out of the cab--not right in front of the house, but close, as Norman Redlich here acknowledges.  Close enough perhaps, that is, for Oswald to see without being seen.  The Commission--which had all the time in the world--went so far as to recall Whaley, who capitulated and now said that he left Oswald off at "the intersection of Beckley and Neely" (4/8/64 testimony p429), at (as per the WR p158) 12:54.  That would have meant a walk of about 6 minutes to get to the rooming house. (WR pp158, 163)  Then another 3 minutes before departing, arriving at 10th & Patton about 1:16. (WRp158)  A 13-minute walk.  However, Whaley's blundering, out-of-left-field reference to "Neches" throws that timeline a bit out of whack.  Dutifully, he retains "Beckley" through it all, from affidavit to testimony to corrected testimony.  But as a cab driver, he must have known that Neches and Beckley did not actually intersect--certainly he did know by 11/22/63.  In fact, that might have been where Oswald actually instructed him to go, Neches near Beckley.  How else would Whaley have latched on to "Neches"?  To reconstruct the adjusted timeline:  Out of cab 12:54 on Neches.  Rooming house 12:55.  Leaving rooming house 12:58.  10th & Patton 1:11.

Leaving Oswald patiently waiting around for Tippit to show up, four or five minutes later.  However, no witness saw the gunman do any such waiting, just walking.

Revised, adjusted timeline, then, for Oswald:  Leaving rooming house 12:58.  Arriving Texas Theatre 1:16.  No stopovers.

dcw

[Hank Sienzant]

So you eliminated Whaley simply misspeaking and saying “Neches” when he meant “Neely” exactly how?

As you admit,

1. Whaley testified ‘he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley”. ‘

*AND*

2. “Neches and Beckley did not actually intersect”.

*AND*

3. “his 11/22/63 affidavit says the correct intersection was the 500 block of North Beckley.”

So, me, being a reasonable person and all that that entails, when I put all that together, I conclude Whaley simply mis-spoke, and said “Neches” when he meant “Neely”.

Big deal.

And since the revolver in evidence matches the shells in evidence, and the revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald, and numerous witnesses at the scene said the gunman discarded the shells from his handgun, tossing them aside as he walked away from the crime scene, and since Oswald punched McDonald and drew his handgun on him, and since numerous witnesses picked Oswald out of lineups as the gunman (stuff you don't admit, but an even bigger deal, as this is the kind of stuff a prosecutor takes to trial).

I sometimes wonder if you're just trolling here, mocking conspiracy “logic” by ignoring the reasonable conclusion and deliberately reaching the most far-fetched conclusion possible.

But then I remember folks like Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Harold Weisberg actually published books with conclusions at least as far-fetched as yours.

> dcw

Hank

[NoTrueFlags Here]

If you read the different versions of the Whaley account, you can see that Whaley really doesn't know where he left Oswlad. Sometimes it is Neches, sometimes it is Neeley. Sometimes it is the 500 block, sometimes it is the 700 block. The Whaley ride is most likely a complete fabrication so it is no basis for an Oswald alibi regarding whatever really happened on 10th Street. It is not a basis for anything at all since it probably never happened.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 12:01:40 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> And since the revolver in evidence matches the shells in evidence,

https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/

> and the revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald,

https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-38-caliber-revolver/

>and since Oswald punched McDonald and drew his handgun on him,

https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-arrest/

>and since numerous witnesses picked Oswald out of lineups as the gunman

https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

> Hank

No, spanked.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 3:11:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> If you read the different versions of the Whaley account, you can see that Whaley really doesn't know where he left Oswlad. Sometimes it is Neches, sometimes it is Neeley. Sometimes it is the 500 block, sometimes it is the 700 block. The Whaley ride is most likely a complete fabrication so it is no basis for an Oswald alibi regarding whatever really happened on 10th Street. It is not a basis for anything at all since it probably never happened.

Whaley was such an unreliable witness, that when he was shown Oswald's jackets and asked to identify which jacket Oswald was wearing, he testified that Oswald was wearing BOTH,
one over the other. Poor Mr. Whaley was just confused as to what he was supposed to say.

https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-escape/

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 12:01:40 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> So you eliminated Whaley simply misspeaking and saying “Neches” when he meant “Neely” exactly how?
>
> As you admit,
>
> 1. Whaley testified ‘he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley”. ‘
>
> *AND*
>
> 2. “Neches and Beckley did not actually intersect”.
>
> *AND*
>
> 3. “his 11/22/63 affidavit says the correct intersection was the 500 block of North Beckley.”
>
> So, me, being a reasonable person and all that that entails, when I put all that together, I conclude Whaley simply mis-spoke, and said “Neches” when he meant “Neely”.

There is also the recreation he did for documentary "Four Days In November", where he reenacts the trip...

https://youtu.be/grgFgBEU0PY?si=kmrv9qWA-N4g26nZ

[Bud]

Conspiracy folks look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.

To hear conspiracy folk tell this is all the man had to say, they bring this one thing up every time he is mentioned, as if this negates everything he said (including extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet).

>
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-escape/

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 6:30:33 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
To hear conspiracy folk tell this is all the man had to say, they bring this one thing up every time he is mentioned, as if this negates everything he said (including extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet).
>
> >
> > https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-escape/

According to his timesheet, what time did Oswald enter his cab ?

[Bud]

Was his timesheet accurate?

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Was his timesheet accurate?

We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.
You claimed that one of the reasons why the witness was credible was because of his, "extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet".
Now you're impugning his credibility by suggesting that he lied about the times on his timesheet ?
If his timesheet was inaccurate, that means he lied on it.

Now tell us what time his timesheet said he picked up Oswald.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Was his timesheet accurate?
>
> We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.

He doesn`t belong to me.

> You claimed that one of the reasons why the witness was credible was because of his, "extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet".

And since that is the right thing, you ignore it.

> Now you're impugning his credibility by suggesting that he lied about the times on his timesheet ?

An idiot might think that. A reasonable person would see it as looking at the information correctly, for what it actually is and what it isn`t.

> If his timesheet was inaccurate, that means he lied on it.

Post Hoc fallacy. False Dilemma fallacy. Dumb as a stump fallacy.

> Now tell us what time his timesheet said he picked up Oswald.

Did Whaley represent the timesheet as being accurate?

[Gil Jesus]

I've asked you my question first and until you answer it, I'm not going to answer yours.
I'm going to do what Ben does. I'm going to keep asking you the same question over and over until you answer it.

What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?
Any response other than a time proves your running from the question.

When you answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:16:33 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:05:09 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > Now tell us what time his timesheet said he picked up Oswald.
> > Did Whaley represent the timesheet as being accurate?
> I've asked you my question first and until you answer it, I'm not going to answer yours.

I don`t care what you do. You can look at the wrong things incorrectly all you like.

I will choose to look at the information correctly, and in that way I will be able to figure out things that will keep you stumped forever.

Like the timesheet. Do you really think that Whaley always picked up passengers at precise times like "6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10" (quoting you on the Education Forum), or is it more reasonable to believe these were rough, ballpark figures where no real attempt was made at accuracy?

This is how reasoning people use information. Like this...

Oswald was seen in the TSBD about such and such a time. It would take him about this long to leave the building and walk to the bus. He was seen on the bus. He was seen leaving the bus. It would take him about this long to walk to the cab station. He was seen at the cab station. It would take the cab about this long to get to the vicinity of the boardinghouse. He was seen at the boarding house. Ect.

You can`t string information together like this (even after decades), you can only make pretend you are nullifying the information.

But you can believe whatever you like. You can hold up an obviously forged memo as significant while pretending the BY photo is faked if you like, it is a free country. Your ideas and your opinions are meaningless because they are not the product of reasoning and critical thinking, they are the product of silly game playing.

> I'm going to do what Ben does. I'm going to keep asking you the same question over and over until you answer it.

Then you are going to use the same cowardly tactic Ben uses to avoid engaging on ideas. The fact is that neither of you could discuss ideas honestly if your lives depended on it. You have to play silly games where you isolate on a talking point, and that is all that is allowed to be focused on, everything else must be ignored. Can you show that this is a valid approach to get to the truth?

> What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?

Don`t know, don`t care. I`m not using that time in support of any ideas.

> Any response other than a time proves your running from the question.

An idiot who frames things in a way they find comfortable might think that.
'

> When you answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

Don`t care what you do.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< a lot of bullshit without answering the question --- as usual >

What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?

[Donald Willis]

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 9:01:40 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> So you eliminated Whaley simply misspeaking and saying “Neches” when he meant “Neely” exactly how?
>
> As you admit,
>
> 1. Whaley testified ‘he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley”. ‘
>
> *AND*
>
> 2. “Neches and Beckley did not actually intersect”.
>
> *AND*
>
> 3. “his 11/22/63 affidavit says the correct intersection was the 500 block of North Beckley.”
>
> So, me, being a reasonable person and all that that entails, when I put all that together, I conclude Whaley simply mis-spoke, and said “Neches” when he meant “Neely”.

In his 4/8/63 testimony, Whaley says that he let Oswald out at the *700* block:

Mr. WHALEY. I went right up on Beckley headed toward the 500 block.
Mr. BELIN. Then what happened?
Mr. WHALEY. When I got to Beckley almost to the intersection of Beckley
and Neely, he said, “This will do right here,” and I pulled up to the curb.
Mr. BELIN. Was that the 500 block of North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. No, sir ; that was the 700 block.
Mr. BELIN. You let him out not at the 5oo block but the 700 block of North
Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. (p429)

So here he overrides the "500" of his affidavit. (There will be more overrides in his testimony.) Now, let's see if Counsel Ball can clear this all up:

Mr. BALL. Here is Neches right here. (on CE 371)
Mr. WHALEY. Let me see where Neches is, is that right? Yes, that is it.
This is the intersection right there.
Mr. BALL. We put an "X" there.
Mr. WHALEY. That is where he got off.
Mr. BALL. That is where you dropped your passenger, is that right?
Mr. WHALEY. That is--as far as I can see that is Neches.
Mr. BALL. That is Neches, that is Beckley.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is right, because that is the 500 block of North Beckley.

So Ball points out Neches on the map, and Whaley agrees, "Yes, that is it", and he thinks that's an intersection of Neches and Beckley and that it's the 500 block. The online reproductions of 371 which I've seen don't seem to have an "X" on them. So we have to trust Ball when he says "Here is Neches right here" and trust Whaley when he agrees and says "Yes, that is it. This is the intersection right there," where Ball points out Neches.

Either we trust Ball and Whaley here, or conclude that neither of them can read a map. Or that Ball lied when he said "Here is Neches". Or that they are both misreading and misspeaking. Yes, Ball clears it all up.

I'll clear it all up: Neches near Beckley.

dcw

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

> I will choose to look at the information correctly, and in that way I will be able to figure out things that will keep you stumped forever.
>
> Like the timesheet. Do you really think that Whaley always picked up passengers at precise times like "6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10" (quoting you on the Education Forum), or is it more reasonable to believe these were rough, ballpark figures where no real attempt was made at accuracy?
>
> This is how reasoning people use information. Like this...

LOL.
The Commission explained Oswald's entering the cab at 12:30 by saying that Whaley made entries in the log in 15 minute intervals.
That was a lie and the entries at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved it.

From my website ( which you refuse to look at )

An examination of William Whaley’s timesheet indicates that the fare the Commission said was Oswald was picked up at the Greyhound Bus station at 12:30 PM, exactly the time that the shots were being fired in Dealey Plaza. How could Oswald be firing his rifle at the motorcade and be in a cab heading home at the same time ?

The Commission explained this by stating in its report that the 12:30 entry was not precise, that Whaley logged in times in 15-minute intervals.
“Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..” ( Report, pg. 161 )

But that was a lie. Looking at the timesheet one can see numerous entries that were NOT in 15-minute intervals. ( I marked them in red squares )
https://www.gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/whaley_timesheet.jpg

The Commission never questioned Whaley about his entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10, even though it had the above copy of his timesheet. Instead, it ignored those entries as if they never existed and perpetrated the lie, “that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..”. This lie allowed the Commission to have Oswald entering Whaley’s cab at 12:47 or 12:48 and leaving it at about 12:54. ( Report, pg. 163 )

The Commission also never explained how it had concluded that Oswald ENTERED the cab ( 12:47 ) AFTER the timesheet showed that he had been dropped off ( 12:45 ).
Another thing the Commission never explained was how a 12:47 fare would have been logged in at 12:30.
If the entries were really made in 15 minute intervals and the Commission was telling the truth about Oswald entering the cab at 12:47,
the entry in the timesheet showing Oswald's entering the cab should have been at 12:45, NOT 12:30.

The timesheet proved that the Commission lied about Whaley's recording the times by the quarter hour. His entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved the timesheet was in fact accurate. And that either Oswald entered his cab at the recorded time of 12:30, meaning he could not have been the one shooting at the President, or the man who entered the cab was not Oswald.

And THAT'S how you look at the evidence CORRECTLY without any of your guesswork or speculation ( a/k/a "reasoning" ).

Idiot.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 5:09:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > I will choose to look at the information correctly, and in that way I will be able to figure out things that will keep you stumped forever.
> >
> > Like the timesheet. Do you really think that Whaley always picked up passengers at precise times like "6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10" (quoting you on the Education Forum), or is it more reasonable to believe these were rough, ballpark figures where no real attempt was made at accuracy?
> >
> > This is how reasoning people use information. Like this...
> LOL.
> The Commission explained Oswald's entering the cab at 12:30 by saying that Whaley made entries in the log in 15 minute intervals.

Whaley said it...

"I unloaded at the Greyhound, I have got it marked 12:30. See there is that 15 minutes you say I am off, I just mark it 15, I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate."

> That was a lie and the entries at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved it.

Do you think people got in Whaley`s cab always at ten minute increments, or do you think he is rounding time up or down?

Once you recognize the times aren`t accurate, trying to use them make precise determinations becomes useless.

> From my website ( which you refuse to look at )
>
> An examination of William Whaley’s timesheet indicates that the fare the Commission said was Oswald was picked up at the Greyhound Bus station at 12:30 PM, exactly the time that the shots were being fired in Dealey Plaza. How could Oswald be firing his rifle at the motorcade and be in a cab heading home at the same time ?

Because the times on the timesheet were not accurate. They can`t be used to make precise determinations. I`m sure I can say this a hundred times and you will still treat them as reliable times to work with.

> The Commission explained this by stating in its report that the 12:30 entry was not precise, that Whaley logged in times in 15-minute intervals.

I suspect what Whaley meant was the times were plus or minus fifteen minutes. Even that wouldn`t rule out times longer or shorter. It seems Whaley took a guess at the time and wrote that in.

He testified...

"Mr. WHALEY. Sometimes I make them right after I make the trips, sir, and sometimes I make three or four trips before I make the entries."

These are rough guesses at the times. You can`t use the times on the manifest to make any kind of precise determinations of time. Being an idiot you will try to do exactly that.

> “Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..” ( Report, pg. 161 )
>
> But that was a lie. Looking at the timesheet one can see numerous entries that were NOT in 15-minute intervals. ( I marked them in red squares )
> https://www.gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/whaley_timesheet.jpg
>
> The Commission never questioned Whaley about his entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10, even though it had the above copy of his timesheet. Instead, it ignored those entries as if they never existed and perpetrated the lie, “that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..”. This lie allowed the Commission to have Oswald entering Whaley’s cab at 12:47 or 12:48 and leaving it at about 12:54. ( Report, pg. 163 )

As usual, you look at the wrong things incorrectly. The correct way to look at this is that the times in the manifest are inaccurate. That is the only takeaway from this. Whaley is making absolutely no effort to record accurate times. He is sometimes guessing at the time he picked up and dropped people off several trips after this occurred. It is a formality the city requires, and the city probably never looks at them, so he makes no effort to keep an accurate log.

Why do I need to explain this to you when you`ve read the testimony. Why do you totally ignore the parts where he explains the manifest is inaccurate? Why do you play these silly games, are you a child?

> The Commission also never explained how it had concluded that Oswald ENTERED the cab ( 12:47 ) AFTER the timesheet showed that he had been dropped off ( 12:45 ).

Because you`re an idiot, and they weren`t. They knew the times in the manifest weren`t accurate.

Do you even know this now that I`ve explained it to you?

> Another thing the Commission never explained was how a 12:47 fare would have been logged in at 12:30.
> If the entries were really made in 15 minute intervals and the Commission was telling the truth about Oswald entering the cab at 12:47,
> the entry in the timesheet showing Oswald's entering the cab should have been at 12:45, NOT 12:30.

Did they state Oswald got in the cab at 12:47? The 12:47 time is a guess. They are extrapolating times.

But instead of trying to put a time on how wrong Whaley`s manifest might be, they should have just said the times were unreliable and left it at that.

> The timesheet proved that the Commission lied about Whaley's recording the times by the quarter hour. His entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved the timesheet was in fact accurate.

You think people always entered Whaley`s cab at ten minute increments. You think Whaley would think 3-4 trips back and nail when people entered or left his cab?

>And that either Oswald entered his cab at the recorded time of 12:30, meaning he could not have been the one shooting at the President, or the man who entered the cab was not Oswald.

An idiot gets to where he was desperate to get to because he cherry picks information and applies no reasoning to the information he is using.

> And THAT'S how you look at the evidence CORRECTLY without any of your guesswork or speculation ( a/k/a "reasoning" ).

The witness said the times in the manifest did not represent the times to be accurate times, so how are you looking at the evidence correctly?

> Idiot.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:04:35 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual bullshit without citations >

All of my statements are cited and referenced.
You should do the same.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > Was his timesheet accurate?
>
> We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.
> You claimed that one of the reasons why the witness was credible was because of his, "extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet".
> Now you're impugning his credibility by suggesting that he lied about the times on his timesheet?

What did Whalley say about the times?

— quote —
Mr. BALL. Then where did you go at 12:15 according to you record?
Mr. WHALEY. According to my record I got a pickup at the Continental bus station which is stand 16 and went to the Greyhound which is 55 cents. I unloaded at the Greyhound, I have got it marked 12:30. See there is that 15 minutes you say I am off, I just mark it 15, I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate.
Mr. BALL. In other words, it took you about 15 minutes to go--
Mr. WHALEY. It actually took about nine minutes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you put the trip ending Greyhound around 12:30?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
…
Mr. WHALEY. Well, on this which was the 14th trip when I picked up at the Greyhound I marked it 12:30 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL. You say that can be off 15 minutes?
Mr. WHALEY. That can be off either direction.
Mr. BALL. Anything up to 15 minutes, you say?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I wrote that trip up the same time I wrote the one up from the Continental bus station to the Greyhound, I marked this 12:15 to 12:30 and started 12:30 to 12:45. And the next one starts at 1:15 to 1:30 and it goes on all day long every 15 minutes the time keeps pretty approximate.
— unquote —

He said they were estimations, that he sometimes picked up multiple fares, and then went back and entered them on his log as he had times, and they were mostly entered at 15 minute intervals. Did his supervisor demand to-the-minute accuracy? If not, then what he was doing was more than okay, unless of course you're a CT, then every shortcut anyone took in their daily job means Oswald was framed.

If ‘they’ were intent on framing Oswald, why didn't they recreate the log sheet with more accurate times?

> If his timesheet was inaccurate, that means he lied on it.

No, that’s inaccurate. That's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy where you list only two choices and leave out other options. How did YOU eliminate Whaley was telling the truth about using estimations, for example?

>
> Now tell us what time his timesheet said he picked up Oswald.

12:30 — “ I just mark it 15, I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ”

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 5:09:02 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > I will choose to look at the information correctly, and in that way I will be able to figure out things that will keep you stumped forever.
> >
> > Like the timesheet. Do you really think that Whaley always picked up passengers at precise times like "6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10" (quoting you on the Education Forum), or is it more reasonable to believe these were rough, ballpark figures where no real attempt was made at accuracy?
> >
> > This is how reasoning people use information. Like this...
> LOL.
> The Commission explained Oswald's entering the cab at 12:30 by saying that Whaley made entries in the log in 15 minute intervals.
> That was a lie and the entries at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved it.

What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?

>
> From my website ( which you refuse to look at )
>
> An examination of William Whaley’s timesheet indicates that the fare the Commission said was Oswald was picked up at the Greyhound Bus station at 12:30 PM, exactly the time that the shots were being fired in Dealey Plaza. How could Oswald be firing his rifle at the motorcade and be in a cab heading home at the same time?

What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?

>
> The Commission explained this by stating in its report that the 12:30 entry was not precise, that Whaley logged in times in 15-minute intervals.
> “Whaley testified that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..” ( Report, pg. 161 )
>
> But that was a lie. Looking at the timesheet one can see numerous entries that were NOT in 15-minute intervals. ( I marked them in red squares )
> https://www.gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/whaley_timesheet.jpg
>
> The Commission never questioned Whaley about his entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10, even though it had the above copy of his timesheet. Instead, it ignored those entries as if they never existed and perpetrated the lie, “that he did not keep an accurate time record of his trips but recorded them by the quarter hour..”. This lie allowed the Commission to have Oswald entering Whaley’s cab at 12:47 or 12:48 and leaving it at about 12:54. ( Report, pg. 163 )

What part of “I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but *anywhere* approximate. ” didn't you understand?

>
> The Commission also never explained how it had concluded that Oswald ENTERED the cab ( 12:47 ) AFTER the timesheet showed that he had been dropped off ( 12:45 ).
> Another thing the Commission never explained was how a 12:47 fare would have been logged in at 12:30.


> If the entries were really made in 15 minute intervals and the Commission was telling the truth about Oswald entering the cab at 12:47,
> the entry in the timesheet showing Oswald's entering the cab should have been at 12:45, NOT 12:30.

What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?

>
> The timesheet proved that the Commission lied about Whaley's recording the times by the quarter hour. His entries of 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved the timesheet was in fact accurate. And that either Oswald entered his cab at the recorded time of 12:30, meaning he could not have been the one shooting at the President, or the man who entered the cab was not Oswald.

Or Whaley’s timesheet was estimations, exactly as he testified. How did you eliminate that?
By using the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy, that is how.

>
> And THAT'S how you look at the evidence CORRECTLY without any of your guesswork or speculation ( a/k/a "reasoning" ).
>
> Idiot.

Thank you for summarizing your argument so succinctly.

[Hank Sienzant]

If ‘they’ were intent on framing Oswald, why didn't they recreate the log sheet with better times for the “frameup”?

Why not have Whaley testify he picked up Oswald at 12:47, and produce a timesheet that showed exactly that?

You are either a great investigator who uncovered a massive conspiracy or someone who is so wedded to the idea of a conspiracy they can't see the glaring problems with their theory.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 8:05:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?

What part of 15 intervals don't YOU understand ?
A 12:47 fare logged in at 12:30 ?

12:47 is approximate to 12:30 ?
You're full of shit as usual Hank.

[Hank Sienzant]

Hello! 12:30 is a fifteen-minute interval.

Whaley didn't pick up Oswald at 12:30, he testified all his logged times were *approximations*.

12:47 is likewise an approximation, by the Commission. Nobody was following Oswald around with a stopwatch (although some CTs might argue otherwise).

Gil, please explain:

“ If ‘they’ were intent on framing Oswald, why didn't they recreate the log sheet with better times for the ‘frameup’?

Why not have Whaley testify he picked up Oswald at 12:47, and produce a timesheet that showed exactly that?

You are either a great investigator who uncovered a massive — but incredibly stupid — group of conspirators or someone who is so wedded to the idea of a conspiracy they can't see the glaring problems with their theory.”

Ditto with your other CTs on this board.

Ben to delete my arguments and change the subject, blaming me for things I never said.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 20:57:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>So you ...

Ran again, eh Huckster?

Can't admit to being illiterate, refuse to admit that you didn't read
what you responded to, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to retract a provably
false assertion...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:01:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 03:30:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Conspiracy folks...

Tie you up in knots:

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

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:05:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > Was his timesheet accurate?
>>
>> We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.

And again, Chickenshit runs from answering any evidential question.

As he's been doing for years...

Such AMAZING cowardice!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:58:28 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I don`t care ...

Chickenshit is just playing games with the death of a President.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 04:24:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:00:24?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 6:30:33?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> To hear conspiracy folk tell this is all the man had to say, they bring this one thing up every time he is mentioned, as if this negates everything he said (including extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-escape/
>> According to his timesheet, what time did Oswald enter his cab ?
>
> Was his timesheet accurate?

As usual, Chickenshit can't answer. Just as he's been running for
months from this:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:16:31 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:05:09?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> Now tell us what time his timesheet said he picked up Oswald.
>> Did Whaley represent the timesheet as being accurate?
>
>I've asked you my question first and until you answer it, I'm not going to answer yours.
>I'm going to do what Ben does. I'm going to keep asking you the same question over and over until you answer it.

Well, that ends this week.

But the truth is, Chickenshit would **NEVER** answer it, even if you
gave him a paid account to stay here forever...

He's a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 03:27:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> There is also the ...

The proof of your cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:01:51 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< a lot of bullshit without answering the question --- as usual >
>
>What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?
>Any response other than a time proves your running from the question.

Don't *need* proof that Chickenshit's a coward... :)

He literally proves it EVERY SINGLE DAY!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 02:09:00 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not just idiots... liars.

Read the responses to Gil's post and see how many lies you can spot.
Take a drink for each lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 04:04:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit believes Whaley, except when he doesn't.

Chickenshit believes Bugliosi, except when he doesn't:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:13:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>If ‘they’ were intent on framing Oswald...

If you had the facts on your side, you wouldn't need to lie , run, and
post logical fallacies all the time, would you?

Lest anyone forget:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:15:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 8:05:32?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?
>
>What part of 15 intervals don't YOU understand ?
>A 12:47 fare logged in at 12:30 ?
>
>12:47 is approximate to 12:30 ?
>You're full of shit as usual Hank.

Of course he is. He's a liar and a coward... proven repeatedly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:05:30 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 5:09:02?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > I will choose to look at the information correctly, and in that way I will be able to figure out things that will keep you stumped forever.
>> >
>> > Like the timesheet. Do you really think that Whaley always picked up passengers at precise times like "6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, or 3:10" (quoting you on the Education Forum), or is it more reasonable to believe these were rough, ballpark figures where no real attempt was made at accuracy?
>> >
>> > This is how reasoning people use information. Like this...
>> LOL.
>> The Commission explained Oswald's entering the cab at 12:30 by saying that Whaley made entries in the log in 15 minute intervals.
>> That was a lie and the entries at 6:20, 7:50, 8:10, 8:20, 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10 proved it.
>

>What part of..

You don't believe Whaley... stop pretending that you do.

Prove you're not the coward I know you to be:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 04:50:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > Was his timesheet accurate?
>>
>> We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.
>> You claimed that one of the reasons why the witness was credible was because of his, "extremely accurate observations like Oswald wearing a silver bracelet".
>> Now you're impugning his credibility by suggesting that he lied about the times on his timesheet?
>What did Whalley say about the times?

What did Whaley say about the jackets?

Run coward...

RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 04:22:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:04:35?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< his usual bullshit without citations >
>
>All of my statements are cited and referenced.
>You should do the same.

You're not implying that Chickenshit's a liar???

God forbid!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 07:07:43 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 8:15:10?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 8:05:32?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> > What part of “ I don't put the correct time on the sheet because they don't require it, sir, but anywhere approximate. ” didn't you understand?
>> What part of 15 intervals don't YOU understand ?
>> A 12:47 fare logged in at 12:30 ?
>>
>> 12:47 is approximate to 12:30 ?
>> You're full of shit as usual Hank.
>
>Hello! 12:30 is a fifteen-minute interval.

Hello! 12:47 is not.

If you're going to keep lying, don't you think you could make your
lies more convincing?

Instead of blatantly obvious...

Speaking of blatantly obvious:

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:09 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> But the truth is, Chickenshit would **NEVER** answer it, even if you gave him a paid account to stay here forever...
>

An examination of Whaley's timesheet indicates that all of his entries on 11/22 ended in either a "0" or a "5".
That tells me he was rounding off the times to the nearest 5 minutes. Not 15 as the Commission claimed.
I asked the Nutters to explain how a 12:47 fare got rounded off to "12:30" instead of 12:45 and they could not.

> He's a coward.

They all are.

[Hank Sienzant]

Called it!

“Ben to delete my arguments and change the subject, blaming me for things I never said.”

I said that just minutes *before* Ben deleted my points, changed the subject, and blamed me for things I never said.

See the post at 10:07 today, link here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/RkYnswP6uuQ/m/YS7uJ4dCCQAJ

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:07:45 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>
> Hello! 12:30 is a fifteen-minute interval.

From 12:47 ?
What school did you go to ?
That's 17 minutes in my book.

Give it up, Hank. Every time you post something you look stupid.

SMH

[Hank Sienzant]

Wrong.

Bud and I answered that. His times were *approximations* — reconstructions from memory in some cases after multiple trips had transpired. He simply filled up his time sheet after the fact:

— quote —
Mr. WHALEY. It is a trip sheet manifest. The company gets the amount of money you have run, your meter reading and all, and they have to keep it because of the city ordinance requirement that the taxis make this kind of manifest.
Mr. BALL. Tell me when you make the entries, you make the entries when?
Mr. WHALEY. Sometimes I make them right after I make the trips, sir, and sometimes I make three or four trips before I make the entries.
Mr. BALL. Are you required by your employer to describe the trip, where you went, how far it was?
Mr. WHALEY. Not by the employer, sir. All the employers are interested in are the meter reading and your tolls. The city of Dallas ordinance requires that you put down where you picked the passenger up, where you unload the passenger. They are not interested in the price, the number of passengers and the time.”

Elsewhere he says the log could be off by ten minutes:
— quote —
Mr. WHALEY. I thought maybe you might need it. You look down there it says Greyhound, 500 North Beckley, I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.
— unquote —

He didn't use a watch, he was winging it, in the vernacular.

None of his trips were precisely noted, as he admitted, he “…didn't use a watch, I just guess”.

Ben to call me a liar and coward, introduce the logic fallacy of a begged question, delete my points, and change the subject, claiming I said things I never did.

[Bud]

On what do you base your confidence that Whaley can only be wrong by fifteen minutes on?

In all the years that Whaley was driving a cab, what was the worst guess of time that he entered into his manifest?

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 03:30:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Conspiracy folks...
>
> Tie you up in knots:

They tie themselves up. They can`t figure out the simplest things.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:22:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 7:04:35 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> < his usual bullshit without citations >
>
> All of my statements are cited and referenced.

And then you lie about it.

William Whaley did not represent the manifest as having accurate times, in fact he testified to the opposite. Idiot Gil Jesus comes along and claims to know more about the times in the manifest than the person who wrote the information in the manifest, Idiot Gil Jesus represents the information as accurate. Then he further compounds that lie by claiming he has the evidence on his side.

> You should do the same.

You removed it when I did.

[Donald Willis]

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 3:02:03 PM UTC-8, Donald Willis wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 9:01:40 PM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > So you eliminated Whaley simply misspeaking and saying “Neches” when he meant “Neely” exactly how?
> >
> > As you admit,
> >
> > 1. Whaley testified ‘he dropped Oswald off at "Neches and North Beckley”. ‘
> >
> > *AND*
> >
> > 2. “Neches and Beckley did not actually intersect”.
> >
> > *AND*
> >
> > 3. “his 11/22/63 affidavit says the correct intersection was the 500 block of North Beckley.”
> >
> > So, me, being a reasonable person and all that that entails, when I put all that together, I conclude Whaley simply mis-spoke, and said “Neches” when he meant “Neely”.
> In his 4/8/63 testimony, Whaley says that he let Oswald out at the *700* block:
>
> Mr. WHALEY. I went right up on Beckley headed toward the 500 block.
> Mr. BELIN. Then what happened?
> Mr. WHALEY. When I got to Beckley almost to the intersection of Beckley
> and Neely, he said, “This will do right here,” and I pulled up to the curb.
> Mr. BELIN. Was that the 500 block of North Beckley?
> Mr. WHALEY. No, sir ; that was the 700 block.
> Mr. BELIN. You let him out not at the 5oo block but the 700 block of North
> Beckley?
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. (p429)
>
> So here he overrides the "500" of his affidavit. (There will be more overrides in his testimony.) Now, let's see if Counsel Ball can clear this all up:
>
> Mr. BALL. Here is Neches right here. (on CE 371)
> Mr. WHALEY. Let me see where Neches is, is that right? Yes, that is it.
> This is the intersection right there.
> Mr. BALL. We put an "X" there.
> Mr. WHALEY. That is where he got off.
> Mr. BALL. That is where you dropped your passenger, is that right?
> Mr. WHALEY. That is--as far as I can see that is Neches.
> Mr. BALL. That is Neches, that is Beckley.
> Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; that is right, because that is the 500 block of North Beckley.
>
> So Ball points out Neches on the map, and Whaley agrees, "Yes, that is it", and he thinks that's an intersection of Neches and Beckley and that it's the 500 block. The online reproductions of 371 which I've seen don't seem to have an "X" on them. So we have to trust Ball when he says "Here is Neches right here" and trust Whaley when he agrees and says "Yes, that is it. This is the intersection right there," where Ball points out Neches.
>
> Either we trust Ball and Whaley here, or conclude that neither of them can read a map. Or that Ball lied when he said "Here is Neches". Or that they are both misreading and misspeaking. Yes, Ball clears it all up.
>
> I'll clear it all up: Neches near Beckley.
>
> dcw
> >
> > Big deal.
> >
> > And since the revolver in evidence matches the shells in evidence, and the revolver in evidence is traceable to Oswald, and numerous witnesses at the scene said the gunman discarded the shells from his handgun, tossing them aside as he walked away from the crime scene, and since Oswald punched McDonald and drew his handgun on him, and since numerous witnesses picked Oswald out of lineups as the gunman (stuff you don't admit, but an even bigger deal, as this is the kind of stuff a prosecutor takes to trial).

Maybe I'll get to this in the next few days, after we're done with the actual subject here.

dcw
> >
> > I sometimes wonder if you're just trolling here, mocking conspiracy “logic” by ignoring the reasonable conclusion and deliberately reaching the most far-fetched conclusion possible.
> >
> > But then I remember folks like Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Harold Weisberg actually published books with conclusions at least as far-fetched as yours.
> >
> > > dcw
> >
> > Hank

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 8:13:09 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 10:01:53 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> > On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > < a lot of bullshit without answering the question --- as usual >
> > What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?
> > Any response other than a time proves your running from the question.

> If ‘they’ were intent on framing Oswald, why didn't they recreate the log sheet with better times for the “frameup”?
>
> Why not have Whaley testify he picked up Oswald at 12:47, and produce a timesheet that showed exactly that?
>
> You are either a great investigator who uncovered a massive conspiracy or someone who is so wedded to the idea of a conspiracy they can't see the glaring problems with their theory.

Never apply reasoning to conspiracy hobbyist ideas, they never fare well.

Because the other implied idea is that Whaley *happened* to be close to the murder scene around the time of the assassination, *happened to pick up a guy wearing a silver bracelet, *happened to drive him to the vicinity of Oswald`s boardinghouse, and saw Oswald on TV and *happened* to decided to come forward and start lying about things (even with Oswald possibly going to trial where he could dispute what Whaley says).

This is why they will not spell out their ideas.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:09 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:05:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:49:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 7:24:28?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >> > Was his timesheet accurate?
> >>
> >> We're talking about the credibility of YOUR witness here.
> And again, Chickenshit runs from answering any evidential question.
>
> As he's been doing for years...
>
> Such AMAZING cowardice!
> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>
> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question.

I leave looking at the wrong things incorrectly to you guys. In that way I can figure out simple things that leave you stumped.

> He knows
> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>
> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

You refuse to say who gets to decide whether it has been answered.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:09 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

You take a sentence fragment out of context because that is how dishonest people discuss ideas.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), Donald Willis
<willisd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Huckster's been throwing in the towel for a long time now...

He's a coward that can't answer evidential questions...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:05:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I Never apply reasoning ...

Nor truth.

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

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows

that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:58:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> And then I lie about it.

No lies here:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:51:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit can't tell time either...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 07:27:46 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Called it!

Called it! Huckster to whine, cry, run to his safe place, and NEVER
answer questions that prove him a liar.

Such as:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:11:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:09?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 06:58:28 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don`t care ...
>>
>> Chickenshit is just playing games with the death of a President.
>

> You...

This isn't about me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 07:39:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:26:41?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:09?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> But the truth is, Chickenshit would **NEVER** answer it, even if you gave him a paid account to stay here forever...
>>>
>> An examination of Whaley's timesheet indicates that all of his entries on 11/22 ended in either a "0" or a "5".
>> That tells me he was rounding off the times to the nearest 5 minutes. Not 15 as the Commission claimed.
>> I asked the Nutters to explain how a 12:47 fare got rounded off to "12:30" instead of 12:45 and they could not.
>
>Wrong.

When a liar asserts that a person is wrong - that's high praise.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:08:34 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


> I'm looking at the wrong things incorrectly ...

Yep.

Coward, too!

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

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows

that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:53:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I can`t figure out the simplest things.

Like this?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:30:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:07:45 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >
> > Hello! 12:30 is a fifteen-minute interval.
> From 12:47?

The 12:30 is Whaley’s *guess*. That's what he called it.

The 12:47 is the Commission’s considered approximation.

You are trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole, you're comparing apples to oranges, you’re looking at the wrong things wrongly.

> What school did you go to?

Rutgers, Newark. Like the guy in Animal House, “seven years of college down the drain!”

> That's 17 minutes in my book.

The difference between the two estimations has been explained to you. I can try explaining it differently, using different words, but I can't make you understand it. That has to come from your own awareness.

Start with explaining what you fail to understand from his testimony that he didn't use a watch, he just *guessed* at the times. Yet you tried arguing his 12:30 *guess* eliminates Oswald being the shooter. That’s funny.

>
> Give it up, Hank. Every time you post something you look stupid.

This from the same guy who wrote this:
“ Here we go with the name calling, proving what an asshole you are. “
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LWjZVlXmDKU/m/iCkSAX1LCAAJ

>
> SMH

“All his brains were on the gurney.”

[Donald Willis]

So I see

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:17:29 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:05:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I Never apply reasoning ...

Changing what I wrote, nothing is too low for you. God and the Marine Corps must be very proud.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:01:51 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 9:58:30?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >< a lot of bullshit without answering the question --- as usual >
> >
> >What time does Whaley's timesheet say he picked up Oswald ?
> >Any response other than a time proves your running from the question.

> Don't *need* proof that Chickenshit's a coward... :)
>
> He literally proves it EVERY SINGLE DAY!

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Bud]

I see that you guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:00:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 3:51:08?PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:

>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 9:16:33?AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), Donald Willis
>>> <willisd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Huckster's been throwing in the towel for a long time now...
>>>
>>> He's a coward that can't answer evidential questions...
>> So I see
>
> I see that you guys have your own little worlds going on.

Trying to defend a coward when you can't cite his answer doesn't
convince anyone.

Of course, *YOU* can't convince anyone that you're not a coward
either:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:59:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:17:29?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:05:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I Never apply reasoning ...
>>

>> Nor truth.
>>
>> So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
>> "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
>>
>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>
>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

No answer to a simple "Yes" or "No" question... Chickenshit's
cowardice knows no bounds...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:59:22 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:31:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:30:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:07:45?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello! 12:30 is a fifteen-minute interval.
>>
>> From 12:47?
>
>The 12:30 is Whaley’s *guess*. That's what he called it.

Coward, aren't you Huckster?

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 6:15:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 13:00:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 3:51:08?PM UTC-5, Donald Willis wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 9:16:33?AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 08:58:39 -0800 (PST), Donald Willis
> >>> <willisd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Huckster's been throwing in the towel for a long time now...
> >>>
> >>> He's a coward that can't answer evidential questions...
> >> So I see
> >
> > I see that you guys have your own little worlds going on.
> Trying to defend a coward when you can't cite his answer doesn't
> convince anyone.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:26:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit ran AGAIN!

What a proven coward!

[Bud]

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 6:35:20 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:26:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> Chickenshit ran AGAIN!

<snicker> Ben has his own little world going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:16:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Chickenshit ran AGAIN!