Two things

[Bud]

This notification came up on google...

"Google Groups ending support for Usenet
If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.

What’s changing?
Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."

I suppose that means that people who use google to post will have to find alternative means.

Secondly, and totally unrelated, I was in the doctor`s office yesterday and read this article in Sports Illustrated...

https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/11/21/remember-kennedy-assassination-impact-pete-rozelle-nfl

From the article...

"Thalman found himself standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository, the building from which Oswald had fired his fateful shots."

Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:46:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[JE Corbett]

Most people do despite Giltardo's valiant efforts to exonerate his client.

It was rivalry week in college football but most of the games were postponed or cancelled including the Army-Navy game
which JFK had planned to attend in Philadelphia the following day. That was Navy's greatest team ever led by Roger
Staubach who won the Heisman Trophy in leading Navy to a 9-1 record, a #2 ranking, and a berth in the Cotton Bowl against
#1 Texas. Navy would lose that game but even if they had won, Texas would have been national champions because in those
days the final college football polls were taken before the bowl games were played. Navy was only playing for bragging rights.

One game that was played was Nebraska's rivalry game with Oklahoma. Nebraska needed to win that game to finish 9-1 and
get a berth in the Orange Bowl. I lived in Omaha at the time. Of course there was no network coverage of the game but a
local channel in Lincoln was broadcasting the game and in Omaha we could barely pick up the signal on our little black
and white Admiral TV. The picture was snowy but you could follow the action. We watched the second half of the game, the
only time that weekend the TV wasn't tuned to NBC's coverage.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:46:37 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>

> Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.

Just think about how much of the taxpayers' money they wasted investigating this crime.
First the Warren Commission, then the House Select Committee.
All they had to do was to ask Sports Illustrated who did it.

[JE Corbett]

All they had to do was ask any intelligent person who is familiar with the evidence who did it.
They would have gotten the same answer Sports Illustrated gave.

[Chuck Schuyler]

All you need to do is visit JFK's own library and museum to see who did it.

Here:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/november-22-1963-death-of-the-president

It links to the WARREN REPORT for interested people who want to learn about the assassination. Tom Rossley's website didn't make the cut, lol.

The money line is when the library discusses the HSCA investigation. From the website:

"The House Select Committee on Assassinations

"The US House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to reopen the investigation of the assassination in light of allegations that previous inquiries had not received the full cooperation of federal agencies.

"Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B."

[JE Corbett]

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 7:33:38 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

They figured it out a lot quicker than you.

[JE Corbett]

BINGO!!!

But the conspiracy hobbyists will continue to cling to that finding because they have no real evidence anyone other than Oswald was involved.

[Chuck Schuyler]

It's an illness. None of this has anything to do with "figuring out" who killed JFK. Gil has even written here that he's not that interested in what actually happened. This is part of the disease of conspiracism. Technically, Gil isn't even a conspiracy THEORIST because he claims not to have one. He just thinks some people did something on 11/22/63. Dark forces of evil manipulated world events to control the planet and deny Earth its boy-Prince leader who was going to rid the country of the Military-Industrial complex, end Vietnam, put a chicken in every pot, cure racism, etc. all while fucking interns, whores, starlets, etc. which the boy-Prince gets a pass on from Team Oswald because his nobility was so profound that his minor "flaws" could be overlooked.

JFK was "too good" so he had to be eliminated, Camelot needed to be snuffed out.

People afflicted with conspiracism come from all backgrounds, all income levels, etc. It doesn't have much to do with intelligence, although according to studies, low-moderate IQ types are more likely to believe nonsense like thousands killed JFK and covered it up for 60 years, or that nano-thermite planted in the WTCs caused them to collapse, etc.

Gil seems to be of normal intelligence, Ben is probably a little lower but in the "normal" range. They just believe really stupid shit about the JFK assassination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 03:45:41 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Most people do despite Giltardo's valiant efforts to exonerate his client.

A statement that will not, and cannot be supported.


I deleted your sports trivia...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 06:33:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 7:33:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:46:37?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>> Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.
>> Just think about how much of the taxpayers' money they wasted investigating this crime.
>> First the Warren Commission, then the House Select Committee.
>> All they had to do was to ask Sports Illustrated who did it.
>
>All they had to do was ask any intelligent person who is familiar with the evidence who did it.

In which case, you lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 06:53:07 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 6:33:38?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:46:37?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>> Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.
>> Just think about how much of the taxpayers' money they wasted investigating this crime.
>> First the Warren Commission, then the House Select Committee.
>> All they had to do was to ask Sports Illustrated who did it.
>
>All you need to do is visit JFK's own library and museum to see who did it.

How silly!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:00:44 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But the conspiracy hobbyists will continue to cling to that finding because they have no real evidence anyone other than Oswald was involved.

Can you define what 'real evidence' is?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:16:41 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:00:46?AM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:53:08?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 6:33:38?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:46:37?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.
>>>> Just think about how much of the taxpayers' money they wasted investigating this crime.
>>>> First the Warren Commission, then the House Select Committee.
>>>> All they had to do was to ask Sports Illustrated who did it.

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 06:57:44 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 7:33:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:46:37?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>>>
>>> Sports Illustrated understands that Oswald is historically guilty.
>> Just think about how much of the taxpayers' money they wasted investigating this crime.
>> First the Warren Commission, then the House Select Committee.
>> All they had to do was to ask Sports Illustrated who did it.

Logical fallacy deleted. Where's Huckster when it's raining logical
fallacies?

[JE Corbett]

I have to believe that at some point, a truly intelligent person is going to realize how ludicrous the idea that Oswald could be
innocent truly is. How many ridiculous things does one have to convince themselves of in order to believe Oswald was framed?
When Gil gets faced with the difficult questions and has to stretch so far to find an answer, at some point he ought to realize
what he believes is nonsense. The most recent example is his attempt to explain JBC's sudden and rapid arm flip which
began at the same frame JFK raised his arms and just two frames after the jacket bulge. He suggested that it was because
Connally was adjusting his position in his seat. He provided a film clip showing Connally saying he did that but he cut
Connally off in mid sentence, I'm sure because Connally was about to tell the interviewer when he made that adjustment.
Without even seeing the rest of that, I'd gladly bet he said he did it before hearing the first shot which was about 4 seconds
before the arm flip. When you have to stretch that far for an explanation, you ought to consider the real possibility that your
beliefs just aren't compatible with the evidence. But Gil has invested so much into his argument that Oswald was innocent
he could never bring himself to admitting he has been wrong all these years so he continues to cling to his fantasy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:57:57 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have to believe that at some point, a truly intelligent person is going to realize how ludicrous the idea that Oswald could be
>innocent truly is. How many ridiculous things does one have to convince themselves of in order to believe Oswald was framed?

You can't name even *one* "ridiculous" thing and support it.

This shows how weak your argument is.

>When Gil gets faced with the difficult questions and has to stretch so far to find an answer, at some point he ought to realize
>what he believes is nonsense.

A meaningless logical fallacy. And one that you can't support.

>The most recent example is his attempt to explain JBC's sudden and rapid arm flip which
>began at the same frame JFK raised his arms and just two frames after the jacket bulge.

Notice once again, the "lapel flip" has disappeared, nowhere to be
seen, and Corbutt has no explanation.

If he was wrong on the "lapel flip" - why should anyone believe him on
the "jacket bulge?"

He also presumes a "sudden and rapid" movement, which is merely his
speculation.

>He suggested that it was because
>Connally was adjusting his position in his seat.

That quite credibly explains movement.

You lose!

>He provided a film clip showing Connally saying he did that but he cut
>Connally off in mid sentence, I'm sure because Connally was about to
>tell the interviewer when he made that adjustment.

Here we see Corbutt speculating, and thinking that it's evidence.

But, just for the sake of laughing at Corbutt - let's assume that
Connally *DID* say he was adjusting his position before the shots.

Can **YOU** explain the movement you made a year ago? And tie it to a
specific time & place?

If you can't... you lose.

>Without even seeing the rest of that, I'd gladly bet he said he did it before hearing the first shot which was about 4 seconds
>before the arm flip.

So your hypothesis is that any "sudden" movements, which are, of
course, merely "movements" - must have been in response to the SBT,
thus proving the SBT.

You clearly can't reason.

>When you have to stretch that far for an explanation,

ROTFLMAO!!! People move - that's what people do! **ALL THE TIME**

Your silly efforts to claim that explanations FROM THE PERSON HIMSELF
is "stretching" ... and "nonsense.' - shows just what a kook you are.

> you ought to consider the real possibility that your beliefs just
> aren't compatible with the evidence.

Why should Gil "consider" your wild & wacky speculation? Why can't
**YOU** support it?

Why can't **YOU** cite the evidece, then explain why it supports your
faith?

WHY ARE YOU A COWARD??

> But Gil has invested so much into his argument that Oswald was
> innocent he could never bring himself to admitting he has been
> wrong all these years so he continues to cling to his fantasy.

It's not "his" argument. This is simply what the evidence shows.

Gil has met his burden - why can't you? Where's the evidence for all
these speculative logical fallacies of yours?

Why can't you make your case?

[Bud]

I disagree, it is Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, but I put Ben ahead of Gil, at least Ben is smart enough to hide his ridiculous ideas. Gil is a stump for the ages. As stupid as the woman in this video is, she is a genius compared to Gil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuHuneDcw9M

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:33:15 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


Notice that Von Penis simply deleted EVERYTHING ... so he's not
actually in this thread, he's creating a new one.


>Let's take a quick JBC/SBT inventory....
>
>Here are all the things that are going on with John B. Connally in the Z-Film between frames 224 and 225....
>
>Flinching of the shoulders.
>Scrunching of the head downward.
>Mouth opening.


You dare not give a Z-frame for this.


>Eyes closing.
>Lapel flipping.

So Corbutt simply lied when he claimed a coat "bulge" rather than a
"lapel flip."

Good to know.

Why can't you specifically state this to Corbutt?

>All in just Z224 and Z225 alone.


Then you're lying.


>And yet, even with all of the above...


What???

You've listed *YOUR SPECULATIONS"... then used them as a foundation
for your beliefs.


>That's a lot of stuff for me to be fooled by, don't you think?

Who's trying to fool who?


Watch folks, as Von Penis fails to correct Corbutt on the lapel flip.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:04:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[David Von Pein]

Let's take a quick JBC/SBT inventory....

Here are all the things that are going on with John B. Connally in the Z-Film in frames 224 and 225....

Shoulders are flinching/hunching.

Scrunching of the head downward.

Mouth is opening.
Eyes are closing.
Lapel is flipping/bulging.
Necktie is moving.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KCPYZe3ljVA/UolSwZ4DOwI/AAAAAAAAw1o/JH7p-L7CfvU/s1600/110a.+Z224-Z225+Toggling+Clip.gif

All in just Z224 and Z225 alone.

Then, just one frame later, that hat flip---which James [Gordon] [of The Education Forum] says is just a figment of my imagination too....

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2tK_GSE7HOg/UolSwJ5-AEI/AAAAAAAAw1s/9I0RZMn_3yY/s1600/109.+Z225-Z226+Toggling+Clip.gif

And yet, even with all of the above, according to CTers, Connally HASN'T been hit by a bullet yet. Per the CTers, the bullet is going to hit him in another one second or so (probably even less than that). And his RIGHT WRIST is going to get smashed by that bullet---which, per CTers, HASN'T yet hit him as of Z226, even though the same RIGHT ARM/WRIST goes flying upward at 226. Go figure that.

That's a lot of stuff for me to be fooled by, don't you think? It's a whole array of things in Z224-227 that James Gordon [and Ben Holmes] are filing in his [their] folder labelled....

Things that appear to be happening to John B. Connally in the Z-Film, but aren't really happening at all. It's all due to either "corrupt" video frames, Mr. Zapruder's camera movement, and/or the simple fact that Governor Connally is merely turning to his left in his seat.

Yeah, right. And I'm going to win TWO lotteries next week.

Much more CTer SBT Denial here ----> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

-------------------------------

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:40:07 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Reposting what has already been refuted is meaningless.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:47:38 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

Continuing to repost what has already been refuted is the
demonstration of your senility.

[BT George]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:46:37 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> This notification came up on google...
>
> "Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
>
> What’s changing?
> Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
>
> I suppose that means that people who use google to post will have to find alternative means.
>

I've tried an Usenet reader once and wasn't impressed. What do you use?

[Bud]

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:14:39 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:46:37 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > This notification came up on google...
> >
> > "Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> > If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
> >
> > What’s changing?
> > Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
> >
> > I suppose that means that people who use google to post will have to find alternative means.
> >
> I've tried an Usenet reader once and wasn't impressed. What do you use?

I use google at the moment. I also tried other news readers and didn`t like them. It is quite possible I may stop coming here altogether when the change occurs, the place is pretty boring any more anyway.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:42:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> I use google at the moment. I also tried other news readers and
> didn`t like them. It is quite possible I may stop coming here
> altogether when the change occurs, the place is pretty boring any more
> anyway.

Seems like you'll NEVER answer this:

[Bud]

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 6:36:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:42:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > I use google at the moment. I also tried other news readers and
> > didn`t like them. It is quite possible I may stop coming here
> > altogether when the change occurs, the place is pretty boring any more
> > anyway.
> Seems like you'll NEVER answer this:

Why do you say I haven`t?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 16:14:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[JE Corbett]

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:42:21 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:14:39 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:46:37 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > This notification came up on google...
> > >
> > > "Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> > > If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
> > >
> > > What’s changing?
> > > Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
> > >
> > > I suppose that means that people who use google to post will have to find alternative means.
> > >
> > I've tried an Usenet reader once and wasn't impressed. What do you use?
> I use google at the moment. I also tried other news readers and didn`t like them. It is quite possible I may stop coming here altogether when the change occurs, the place is pretty boring any more anyway.

My sentiments exactly. Between the spam, the annoying robot checks, and the lack of CTs who are capable of presenting
lucid arguments for a conspiracy, this place is losing its charm. I think I went about a year hardly posting at all so it's not
going to be difficult walking away again. Let the crazies post their drivel. There's probably only going to be about 6 people
left here come February 15. When Yellowpanties no longer has anybody posting things for him to delete, I wonder what he
will do with himself. On second thought, I don't want to wonder about that at all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 03:59:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My sentiments exactly. Between the spam, the annoying robot checks, and the lack of CTs who are capable of presenting
>lucid arguments for a conspiracy, this place is losing its charm. I think I went about a year hardly posting at all so it's not
>going to be difficult walking away again. Let the crazies post their drivel.

They already do.

But you're too cheap to be able to continue doing it when free options
disappear.

[BT George]

On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 4:42:21 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 5:14:39 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 4:46:37 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > This notification came up on google...
> > >
> > > "Google Groups ending support for Usenet
> > > If you work with Usenet groups in Google Groups, support for these groups is ending soon.
> > >
> > > What’s changing?
> > > Starting on February 22, 2024, you can no longer use Google Groups (at groups.google.com) to post content to Usenet groups, subscribe to Usenet groups, or view new Usenet content. You can continue to view and search for historical Usenet content posted before February 22, 2024 on Google Groups."
> > >
> > > I suppose that means that people who use google to post will have to find alternative means.
> > >
> > I've tried an Usenet reader once and wasn't impressed. What do you use?
> I use google at the moment. I also tried other news readers and didn`t like them. It is quite possible I may stop coming here altogether when the change occurs, the place is pretty boring any more anyway.

Well for sure if you and JEC stop I probably won't continue. As is evident, anymore I use this (joker) place pretty much as poor entertainment when I am bored. Let the morons take a victory lap as they will die in their delusions as previous CTs before them have anyway.