Will Huckster Run Again?

[Ben Holmes]

Andjerkson posted a series of questions to me (despite claiming to
have me on "ignore") - Dale declared that I'd be proven a "fraud" if I
failed to answer them...

Amazingly, I think that they really thought that the questions
wouldn't be answered!!

Yet I did... and posed my own questions in response... and since
Andjerkson, "Out of the Closet" Dale, and Henry are all studiously
avoiding this post - it seems like it would be a good time to repost
it for the third time... Here it is, the post that shut them all up:

>Based on Dale's comments it might be entertaining to simply have a
>question and answer session with Ben Dover.

No it wouldn't... you'd simply reveal yourself to be a coward...
unable to give any refutation to the statements I make, even as I
point out the lies in yours.

Undoubtedly, this is why you refuse to admit that you read my posts...
and still make posts directed at me.

You need to avoid answering...

> Of course dishonest people such as Ben Dover HATE question and answer
> sessioins because THEY don't get to control the conversation and are
> forced to answer other people's questions, and people that inherently
> are liars HATE this, but we will give it a shot.

The sad *fact* is that I have no problems answering questions -
BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS IN MY FAVOR. It's you and the kooks who
believe the Warren Commission that can't answer evidential questions.

Such as why James Chaney was never questioned...

Or what part of the occipital cannot be seen in the BOH photo...

Or why the HSCA lied about the medical testimony...

> I am going to ask Ben Dover a series of simple evidence-based
> questions and see what his position is on each question. We can assume
> any questions he refuses to answer are examples of issues he knows
> disprove his beliefs.

Of course, Andjerkson can't answer *my* questions - so he runs like
the coward he is.

>1. Is a rifle found at the scene considered evidence in murder
> investigation involving a person killed by rifle shots?

Of course it is. How many rifles can you see in the video frame I've
previously referenced? How many rifles were *KNOWN* to be in the
building that week?

>2. Are fingerprints found on that rifle considered evidence?

Certainly they are. Tell us what the FBI said about those prints.
QUOTE the relevant testimony.

> 3. Are the bullets recovered from the victim's body or from the
> crime scene considered evidence?

Yep... Is FBI 302's considered evidence? Is eyewitness testimony of
those who handled these bullets/fragments considered evidence?

> 4. Is the body of the victim considered evidence?

Yep... do you believe the autopsy report?

If so, can you point to the BOH photo - and show us what part of the
Occipital that cannot be seen in it?

> 5. Are photographs of the crime scene considered evidence?

When supported by eyewitness testimony, certainly. How many weapons
can you see in the video frame I've previously referred to in the
TSBD? Where is James Chaney as seen in the Altgen's photo? Describe
the largest bullet fragment that can be seen in the AP X-ray... then
tell us why your answer contradicts Dr. Humes' testimony on that same
point...

> 6. Are movies of the crime scene considered evidence?

When they are supported by eyewitness testimony, and have a chain of
custody, certainly. Tell us about the chain of custody... why was the
film in a top-secret CIA facility the weekend of the assassination...

> 7. Which level of evidence is more reliable--rifle striations found
> on a bullet or an eyewitness's statement?"

*BOTH* are eyewitness's... either the "eyewitness", or the expert
testifying to what striations he saw on a bullet. Are you too stupid
to understand that expert testimony is still eyewitness testimony?

> 8. Is the suspect's behavior before, during, and after a crime
> considered evidence?

Certainly... tell us how many people left the TSBD after the
assassination, and failed to return...

> 9. Should we give equal weight to eyewitness (or earwitness)
> statements that ARE supported by physical evidence as we do those that
> aren't supported by physical evidence? Meaning if three spent
> cartridges casings were found and one witness says they heard three
> shots but another witness says they heard four shots (although a
> fourth casing was NEVER found) are we to consider that BOTH statements
> have equal weight? What if the deceased is riddled with bullet holes
> but one eyewitness says they saw them being stabbed which another says
> they saw them being shot. Do YOU consider both witnesses to be correct
> and WHICH do you give more credence to?

You're presuming that an honest investigation has been performed...
can you give a credible reason why eyewitnesses were harassed and
intimidated by the FBI?

Physical evidence PROPERLY TAKEN AND WITH A CHAIN OF CUSTODY BY HONEST
INVESTIGATORS will generally carry more weight than eyewitness
testimony... so tell us about the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in
the AP X-ray...

What is it?

And why wasn't it seen by ANY of the prosectors or X-ray techs the
night of the autopsy?

> 10. Are the results of an autopsy considered evidence and if not then
> why does the court order autopsies in virtually all murder cases? If
> the findings are not evidence.....then please explain for us what is
> the point of conducting autopsies?

The results of autopsy's are just like any other expert eyewitness
testimony. So tell us, why does the autopsy conflict with the BOH
photo?

> Good luck Ben. We all anxiously await seeing how you avoid addressing
> these questions. It should be rather gymnastic on your part, but with
> a name like Ben Dover, gymnastics is probably your forte.

I don't need any luck - you'll run like the coward you are from
answering *any* of these questions, as will Dale (hiding in his
closet)... Henry will keep trying to justify his errors...

But *NO-ONE* will respond to these evidential questions.

[The prediction was, of course, accurate...]

Tell us Huckster - why am I able to easily and credibly answer
questions from believers, but the opposite simply isn't true?

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster read this, but couldn't respond... he knows the answer, but
it would embarrass him were he to honestly give it.

[Bud]

Fringe reset.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 9:48:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Is that so? If the evidence is in your favor then you should have no problem listing the three
best pieces of evidence there are that someone other than Oswald was involved in the
assassination of JFK.

1._______________________________
2._______________________________
3._______________________________

Have at it. Notice I said to list evidence of the involvement of others, not your objections to
the evidence the WCR provided.

Any bets that Benny will list even one? Watch him run and hide from this one.

[Ben Holmes]

You ALREADY lost that bet. This question was already asked.

Here was my response the LAST time you asked it:

Strangely, Monkey man thinks that critics can't answer such a
simplistic question... I'll do so in detail, then challenge Monkey man
to a challenge I know he'll run from... Here we go:

This is really two parts... one, that Oswald wasn't one of the
assassins, and two, that the plural of assassins is the correct usage.

First, the evidence that Oswald wasn't one of the assassins:

1. His alibi. Unless he's psychic, he knew who was passing the
lunchroom when he was allegedly on the 6th floor. For more details and
citations, see this:
http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi
2. Others place him there, contrary to the blatantly lie told by the
Warren Commission (recently posted.)
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ilcEVFCrinE/m/moSAU1wZAgAJ
3. The NAA testing of his cheek cast showed that he'd not fired a
rifle that day, and the positive results of his hands can be
attributed to his work.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258&relPageId=23
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58211#relPageId=171
http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/cdockery/docs/JUCR%202011.pdf
4. No fingerprints of his were found on the rifle, according to the
FBI. (and no "palmprint" was found.)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=29
5. The DPD had no case, until the FBI created that case. The
intimidation of eyewitnesses and the changing of eyewitness affidavit
statements by the FBI supports this.
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ejgvO4Un8cg/m/8I6tJYPkYSYJ


Now, evidence that others were involved:

1. In the first two days, a MAJORITY of the documented statements show
that the shooting came from the Grassy Knoll.
See pg 38-39 - Rush to Judgment - Mark Lane.
2. A majority of the police went to the Grassy Knoll in the first few
moments.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
3. A number of eyewitnesses to a through and through hole in the front
windshield.
https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/7512.html
4. Related to #3, evidence that the windshield was replaced on
Monday.
5. The unidentified fingerprint left in the Sniper's Nest.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=835
6. The very early attempts by the Secret Service to eliminate evidence
in the limo - they were provably attempting to wash out the limo
*before JFK was in the emergency room*.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2619-earliest-timestamp-for-wanting-limo-washed-ph/
7. The two previous attempts on JFK's life - in cities that Oswald had
nothing to do with - Chicago and Tampa.
https://www.pimall.com/nais/newspyshop/books/jfkcontent.html
8. The intentional destruction of documents by the Secret Service when
it became clear that the ARRB would require them.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
9. The disappearance of medical records.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
10. The failure of the Warren Commission to call absolutely legitmate
witnesses - James Chaney or Dr. Burkley, for example.

I know that Monkey Man only asked for three... but entire books have
been written on this topic, and it was EASY to list far more than just
three. Proving, of course, that if he's ever asked this question
before, it certainly hasn't been where a knowledgeable critic could
answer.

The ball is in your court - but if you cannot CITE for your claims,
I'll simply ignore them.

Logical fallacies will merely be pointed out.

And lies from the Monkey man are expected... watch for it!

Here was your response to Don:
> As I expected, you are unable to name even a single piece of
> evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the assassination
> of JFK. That is almost invariably what happens when I pose this
> challenge. You are unable to support your claim that "CTer's have
> evidence".

You will be COMPLETELY unable to say the same to me. And now we're
going to see a TRUE statement: invariably, when *I* challenge
believers, they run.

Invariably.

Before I issue my challenge to you - let's see if you can publicly
acknowledge that I met your "challenge" - and indeed listed (and in
many of the cased, cited for) the evidence that you asked for.

I predict that you will *not* acknowledge that fact.

I further predict that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to accept the opinion
of any third party as to whether or not I met your challenge.

In other words, you're simply a liar. I can predict this so easily
(and so correctly) because cowards and liars are quite predictable.



Now, since I've met *YOUR* challenge - here's one for you. Tell us
what your scenario is for 11/22/63 - cite the evidence for your claims
as you make them. Go into as much detail as you think you can handle.

And I will MATCH it in length, detail, and number of citations. This
is a challenge I've been making repeatedly ... and only one single
taker... who promptly disappeared when I responded to his scenario.

I predict, (easy to do!) that you'll run.

As cowards do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME.

[Notice folks, that Monkey Boy RAN AWAY the last time, and absolutely
refused to post his scenario]

[Bud]

Produce a definition for "alibi" that anything in that article satisfies.

> 2. Others place him there, contrary to the blatantly lie told by the
> Warren Commission (recently posted.)
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ilcEVFCrinE/m/moSAU1wZAgAJ

Did these encounter occur at established times?

> 3. The NAA testing of his cheek cast showed that he'd not fired a
> rifle that day, and the positive results of his hands can be
> attributed to his work.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258&relPageId=23
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58211#relPageId=171
> http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/cdockery/docs/JUCR%202011.pdf

You refuse to say what there shows Oswald hadn`t fired a rifle that day.

> 4. No fingerprints of his were found on the rifle, according to the
> FBI. (and no "palmprint" was found.)

The DPD processed the rifle for prints before the FBI did. They found prints.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=29
> 5. The DPD had no case, until the FBI created that case. The
> intimidation of eyewitnesses and the changing of eyewitness affidavit
> statements by the FBI supports this.
> https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ejgvO4Un8cg/m/8I6tJYPkYSYJ

You refuse to say what there shows the DPD had no case.

> Now, evidence that others were involved:
>
> 1. In the first two days, a MAJORITY of the documented statements show
> that the shooting came from the Grassy Knoll.
> See pg 38-39 - Rush to Judgment - Mark Lane.

How do they *show* this?

> 2. A majority of the police went to the Grassy Knoll in the first few
> moments.

They were ordered there.

> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
> 3. A number of eyewitnesses to a through and through hole in the front
> windshield.

How does that establish there was a through and through hole?

> https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/7512.html
> 4. Related to #3, evidence that the windshield was replaced on
> Monday.

So?

> 5. The unidentified fingerprint left in the Sniper's Nest.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=835

What about it?

> 6. The very early attempts by the Secret Service to eliminate evidence
> in the limo - they were provably attempting to wash out the limo
> *before JFK was in the emergency room*.

Begged. Assumes what you haven`t shown, nefarious intent in cleaning the limo.

> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2619-earliest-timestamp-for-wanting-limo-washed-ph/
> 7. The two previous attempts on JFK's life - in cities that Oswald had
> nothing to do with - Chicago and Tampa.

Who is satisfied that such attempts existed, you?

> https://www.pimall.com/nais/newspyshop/books/jfkcontent.html
> 8. The intentional destruction of documents by the Secret Service when
> it became clear that the ARRB would require them.

Show causation.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
> 9. The disappearance of medical records.

Show causation.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
> 10. The failure of the Warren Commission to call absolutely legitmate
> witnesses - James Chaney or Dr. Burkley, for example.

Begged. Assumes their questioning was essential.

> I know that Monkey Man only asked for three... but entire books have
> been written on this topic, and it was EASY to list far more than just
> three. Proving, of course, that if he's ever asked this question
> before, it certainly hasn't been where a knowledgeable critic could
> answer.
>
> The ball is in your court - but if you cannot CITE for your claims,
> I'll simply ignore them.
>
> Logical fallacies will merely be pointed out.
>
> And lies from the Monkey man are expected... watch for it!
>
> Here was your response to Don:
> > As I expected, you are unable to name even a single piece of
> > evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the assassination
> > of JFK. That is almost invariably what happens when I pose this
> > challenge. You are unable to support your claim that "CTer's have
> > evidence".
>
> You will be COMPLETELY unable to say the same to me. And now we're
> going to see a TRUE statement: invariably, when *I* challenge
> believers, they run.
>
> Invariably.

What happens is you talk over any points made, remove points made, lie, commit fallacies, ect until people tire of engaging with a dishonest person such as yourself.

> Before I issue my challenge to you - let's see if you can publicly
> acknowledge that I met your "challenge" - and indeed listed (and in
> many of the cased, cited for) the evidence that you asked for.
>
> I predict that you will *not* acknowledge that fact.
>
> I further predict that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to accept the opinion
> of any third party as to whether or not I met your challenge.
>
> In other words, you're simply a liar. I can predict this so easily
> (and so correctly) because cowards and liars are quite predictable.

You are.

>
>
> Now, since I've met *YOUR* challenge - here's one for you. Tell us
> what your scenario is for 11/22/63 - cite the evidence for your claims
> as you make them. Go into as much detail as you think you can handle.
>
> And I will MATCH it in length, detail, and number of citations. This
> is a challenge I've been making repeatedly ... and only one single
> taker... who promptly disappeared when I responded to his scenario.
>
> I predict, (easy to do!) that you'll run.
>
> As cowards do.
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME.

What mostly happens is I address the issue you bring up and you cowardly remove my responses. Why would the truth require such cowardice?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Fringe reset. All dealt with over the past fifty-seven plus years.

And John asked for your three best pieces of evidence for conspiracy, and you galloped your gish across the landscape, no doubt in an attempt to bog the conversation down in a million different directions.

Let's take one item in your Gish Gallop: Didn't we all engage in a multi-thread, multi-hundred plus posts discussion on the hole-in-the-windshield issue a year ago or so? Boris the Truther was involved, etc.? Didn't we discuss the Barb Junkkarinens and Tink Thompson Education Forum piece on the windshield and so on? This article is almost TWELVE YEARS OLD and we treat it as if it's new and fresh because this entire case is so old and moldy now, and the discussions just go round and round:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14532-barb-junkkarinens-articlea-hole-through-the-windshield/

Did you offer anything in rebuttal? Did you offer a pro-hole-in-the-windshield post that laid out your case for some sort of pinhole sized bullet fired from the south knoll? Of course you didn't. Did David Healy--who tried to chirp Barb about the article at the Education Forum and was laughingly put in his place (Barb J to Healy: "I got your number a long time ago!")--offer anything for Tink or Jerry Logan or Barb to review that would've caused a reexamination of their conclusion that there was no hole--just a crack--in the windshield? Of course not.

You guys literally have NOTHING. This issue was put to bed (as if it really ever was an issue) by your fellow conspiracists over a DECADE ago, and you still bring it up as one of the top pieces of proof that there was a conspiracy.

What a JOKE. If your claim that there was a through-and-through hole in JFK's limo is one of your top pieces of info that proves JFK was killed by a conspiracy, you really need to find a new hobby.

[Ben Holmes]

>Fringe reset...

End post whining deleted.

Notice folks, that neither Chickenshit nor Chuckles has been able to
answer... and Monkey Boy forgot that I'd already answered.

[Bud]

Is that what you`ve decided to believe?

[John Corbett]

Oh, we should ignore all the evidence that Oswald was the assassin because he said he was
somewhere else. Oswald has no alibi. No one says they saw him elsewhere when the shots
were fired. That is how you establish an alibi.

> 2. Others place him there, contrary to the blatantly lie told by the
> Warren Commission (recently posted.)
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ilcEVFCrinE/m/moSAU1wZAgAJ

The blatant lie is yours. Nobody places Oswald anywhere when the shots were fired. The fact
he was seen elsewhere in the building at other times does not preclude him being the
assassin because he could have reached the sniper's nest from anywhere in the building in a
matter of minutes.

> 3. The NAA testing of his cheek cast showed that he'd not fired a
> rifle that day, and the positive results of his hands can be
> attributed to his work.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258&relPageId=23
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58211#relPageId=171
> http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/cdockery/docs/JUCR%202011.pdf

The NAA testing proved no such thing. You can't cite a single expert in the field who has
said the NAA testing proved Oswald had not fired a rifle. That is something only unqualified
people such as yourself have concluded.

> 4. No fingerprints of his were found on the rifle, according to the
> FBI. (and no "palmprint" was found.)

The palm print had been found and lifted by Lt. Day prior to turning the rifle over to the FBI.
The absence of identifiable prints does not exonerate Oswald. The rifle was established as
the murder weapon by matching it to the recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets.
Since it didn't have any indentifiable fingerprints it means that the shooter did not leave any
such prints. There is no reason that person could not have been Oswald. The fact fibers
matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle is probative that he was the shooter.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=29
> 5. The DPD had no case, until the FBI created that case. The
> intimidation of eyewitnesses and the changing of eyewitness affidavit
> statements by the FBI supports this.

This is bullshit. The DPD had charged Oswald with both crimes by midnight before the FBI
had taken over the case.

> https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ejgvO4Un8cg/m/8I6tJYPkYSYJ
>
>
> Now, evidence that others were involved:
>
> 1. In the first two days, a MAJORITY of the documented statements show
> that the shooting came from the Grassy Knoll.
> See pg 38-39 - Rush to Judgment - Mark Lane.

> 2. A majority of the police went to the Grassy Knoll in the first few
> moments.
>

Both of these are based on sound which is a poor indicator of where a gun is fired from.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
> 3. A number of eyewitnesses to a through and through hole in the front
> windshield.

Refuted by the Secret Service who examined the windshield CLOSELY and found the windshield
had been hit from the inside and missile had not gone through to the windshield. The frontside of
the glass was still smooth.

> https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/7512.html
> 4. Related to #3, evidence that the windshield was replaced on
> Monday.

How is that evidence somebody else was involved?

> 5. The unidentified fingerprint left in the Sniper's Nest.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=835

That only indicates the box had been touched by an unknown person. It is not evidence that
person took part in the assassination.

> 6. The very early attempts by the Secret Service to eliminate evidence
> in the limo - they were provably attempting to wash out the limo
> *before JFK was in the emergency room*.

How is that evidence somebody else was involved?

> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2619-earliest-timestamp-for-wanting-limo-washed-ph/
> 7. The two previous attempts on JFK's life - in cities that Oswald had
> nothing to do with - Chicago and Tampa.

There were no other attempts on JFK's life.

> https://www.pimall.com/nais/newspyshop/books/jfkcontent.html
> 8. The intentional destruction of documents by the Secret Service when
> it became clear that the ARRB would require them.

How can an act three decades after the assassination be evidence that others were involved.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
> 9. The disappearance of medical records.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html

How is that evidence others were involved.

> 10. The failure of the Warren Commission to call absolutely legitmate
> witnesses - James Chaney or Dr. Burkley, for example.
>

How is that evidence others were involved.

> I know that Monkey Man only asked for three... but entire books have
> been written on this topic, and it was EASY to list far more than just
> three. Proving, of course, that if he's ever asked this question
> before, it certainly hasn't been where a knowledgeable critic could
> answer.

You didn't even give me three. The only thing you cited that would be evidence others were
involved were the people who thought they heard the shots coming from the GK. That is
pretty piss poor evidence given that sound is a poor indicator of the direction of gunfire.

>
> The ball is in your court - but if you cannot CITE for your claims,
> I'll simply ignore them.
>

I'm not citing claims. I presented you with a challenge and I am refuting your claims.

> Logical fallacies will merely be pointed out.

You never point them out. You just delete them and falsely claim they are logical fallacies
without ever explaining what the fallacy is. That is the coward's way out.

>
> And lies from the Monkey man are expected... watch for it!
>
> Here was your response to Don:
> > As I expected, you are unable to name even a single piece of
> > evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the assassination
> > of JFK. That is almost invariably what happens when I pose this
> > challenge. You are unable to support your claim that "CTer's have
> > evidence".
>
> You will be COMPLETELY unable to say the same to me. And now we're
> going to see a TRUE statement: invariably, when *I* challenge
> believers, they run.
>

You presented the earwitnesses which is not credible evidence. Neither is the observations of
those who thought there was a bullet hole in the windshield since they didn't examine the
windshield close enough to see that the hole didn't go through to the outside of the glass.

> Invariably.
>
> Before I issue my challenge to you - let's see if you can publicly
> acknowledge that I met your "challenge" - and indeed listed (and in
> many of the cased, cited for) the evidence that you asked for.
>

It would be charitable to give you three since you counted the earwitnesses and the police as
two items when they are one, and pretty piss poor evidence. I suppose we could give you credit
for the windshield witnesses even though they are easily refuted by those who examined the
windshield closely.

> I predict that you will *not* acknowledge that fact.
>
> I further predict that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to accept the opinion
> of any third party as to whether or not I met your challenge.
>

First tell me who the third party is.

> In other words, you're simply a liar. I can predict this so easily
> (and so correctly) because cowards and liars are quite predictable.
>

Pot calling the kettle black.

>
>
> Now, since I've met *YOUR* challenge - here's one for you. Tell us
> what your scenario is for 11/22/63 - cite the evidence for your claims
> as you make them. Go into as much detail as you think you can handle.
>
> And I will MATCH it in length, detail, and number of citations. This
> is a challenge I've been making repeatedly ... and only one single
> taker... who promptly disappeared when I responded to his scenario.
>
> I predict, (easy to do!) that you'll run.
>
> As cowards do.
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME.
>
> [Notice folks, that Monkey Boy RAN AWAY the last time, and absolutely
> refused to post his scenario]

My scenario is the one that the WC gave us in 1964. It hasn't changed since then. It hasn't
needed to. The evidence for that conclusion was also in the WCR. I summarized that evidence
for you over a month ago, and you kept denying I had. If you deny it again, I'll jam it right up
your fucking nose, Yellow Pants.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:40:03 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Deleted... as I already posted it... I only reposted it because you
pretended yet again that I wouldn't answer.

MORON!!! AREN'T YOU???

[John Corbett]

You responded with a house of cards and I blew it over by pointing out the flaws in what you
presented. You got mad because I blew over that house of cards and now respond by
deleting everything rather than leave your stupidity hanging out for all to see. Too late. My
rebuttal of your evidence presentation is still there for all to see.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:16:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Let me explain this slowly, so that even you can understand... you
already asked this question... you already got a MASSIVE answer...
then you do it again, and pretend that I will "run" from this???

You're a moron.

You already HAD the evidence that there's no reason for me to run from
your questions...

You can't ask a question about this case that I'm not capable of
CREDIBLY answering.

You (and other believers), on the other hand - RUN AWAY WHEN I ASK THE
QUESTION...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

(Do you even remember the question you ran from?)

[Bud]

Bump.

[John Corbett]

I pointed out how horseshit your answer was. When we eliminated all the items you posted
which were NOT evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved, you were left with
the earwitnesses who THOUGHT they heard the shots coming from the GK and a couple who
Thought the hole in the windshield went all the way through. It did not and it is silly to think it
did.

> You're a moron.
>
You're a liar and a coward, Yellow Pants.

> You already HAD the evidence that there's no reason for me to run from
> your questions...

If a bunch of confused earwitnesses and mistaken eyewitnesses is all you have that others
were involved, you don't have squat.

>
> You can't ask a question about this case that I'm not capable of
> CREDIBLY answering.

I just did. There is nothing credible about the evidence you presented. Only in the broadest
sense of the word would it even be considered evidence. It is gruel.

>
> You (and other believers), on the other hand - RUN AWAY WHEN I ASK THE
> QUESTION...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!!!
>
> (Do you even remember the question you ran from?)

I can I remember something that didn't happen. You asked me what my scenario was and I told
you it is the same one the WC presented and you asked for the supporting evidence and I told
you it is the evidence presented by the WC which is far more compelling than anything you have
to offer. All you can do is regurgitate myths that were debunked a long time ago.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

then praytell what are you .john loonies here for then? Case closed 57 years ago, right? The only, ONLY power you have here on this board, after you fart your way in here, is what *critics* here allow you, remember that. Playing games is the weak kneed believers way out. More commonly called "ya ain't got shit asshole, move on." Get off my base, Ump! lmfao....

[drivel snipped]

[John Corbett]

To make fun of you.

> Case closed 57 years ago, right? The only, ONLY power you have here on this board, after you fart your way in here, is what *critics* here allow you, remember that. Playing games is the weak kneed believers way out. More commonly called "ya ain't got shit asshole, move on." Get off my base, Ump! lmfao....
>
> [drivel snipped]

HICCUP!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:58:09 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

Fortunately, the facts don't care about your feelings.

> When we eliminated all the items you posted
>which were NOT evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved,

Empty claim... they *all* were evidence for someone other than Oswald.


You can't show otherwise.

> you were left with
>the earwitnesses who THOUGHT they heard the shots coming from the GK

Is this anything like those who THOUGHT they saw a shooter on the 6th
floor?

> and a couple who Thought the hole in the windshield went all the
> way through. It did not and it is silly to think it did.

Lie again and say it was only a "couple..."

Where's your proof that there was *NOT* a hole through the windshield?

Produce it, let's examine it.

(But you won't.)


>> You're a moron.
>>

>> You already HAD the evidence that there's no reason for me to run from
>> your questions...
>
>If a bunch of confused earwitnesses and mistaken eyewitnesses is all you have that others
>were involved, you don't have squat.

Let me say this again real slow so you can understand.

YOU ALREADY ASKED ME THAT QUESTION

YOU KNEW FOR A **FACT** THAT I'D ANSWER IT AGAIN.

So why did you pretend that I'd "run?"

>> You can't ask a question about this case that I'm not capable of
>> CREDIBLY answering.
>
>I just did.

No you didn't.

As most of America already accepts a conspiracy in this case, you've
already lost.

> There is nothing credible about the evidence you presented.

Define "credible."

But I predict you won't. You're a coward and a liar.

>> You (and other believers), on the other hand - RUN AWAY WHEN I ASK THE
>> QUESTION...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!!!
>>
>> (Do you even remember the question you ran from?)
>
>I can I remember something that didn't happen. You asked me what my scenario was and I told
>you it is the same one the WC presented and you asked for the supporting evidence and I told
>you it is the evidence presented by the WC which is far more compelling than anything you have
>to offer. All you can do is regurgitate myths that were debunked a long time ago.

Yep... you ran.

Unlike me, who has already posted my scenario, you're incapable of
doing so.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 17:09:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

And yet, Chickenshit will be the first to claim that I don't answer
questions...

And proving that he *CAN'T*.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 09:08:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Ditto.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

No.

If you didn't learn English when you were in school, I feel no need to
school you now.

>> 2. Others place him there, contrary to the blatantly lie told by the
>> Warren Commission (recently posted.)
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ilcEVFCrinE/m/moSAU1wZAgAJ
>
> Did these encounter occur at established times?

Go read the thread.

>> 3. The NAA testing of his cheek cast showed that he'd not fired a
>> rifle that day, and the positive results of his hands can be
>> attributed to his work.
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62258&relPageId=23
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58211#relPageId=171
>> http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/cdockery/docs/JUCR%202011.pdf
>
> You refuse to say what there shows Oswald hadn`t fired a rifle that day.

"The NAA testing of his cheek..."

>> 4. No fingerprints of his were found on the rifle, according to the
>> FBI. (and no "palmprint" was found.)
>
> The DPD processed the rifle for prints before the FBI did. They found prints.

Not a refutation.

>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=29
>> 5. The DPD had no case, until the FBI created that case. The
>> intimidation of eyewitnesses and the changing of eyewitness affidavit
>> statements by the FBI supports this.
>> https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ejgvO4Un8cg/m/8I6tJYPkYSYJ
>
> You refuse to say what there shows the DPD had no case.

You refuse to make the case.

>> Now, evidence that others were involved:
>>
>> 1. In the first two days, a MAJORITY of the documented statements show
>> that the shooting came from the Grassy Knoll.
>> See pg 38-39 - Rush to Judgment - Mark Lane.
>
> How do they *show* this?

Define "show."

>> 2. A majority of the police went to the Grassy Knoll in the first few
>> moments.
>
> They were ordered there.

Not all of them. Nor is this a refutation.

>> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/Dallas%20Police%20Department/Dallas%20Police%20Department%20Records/Volume%2004/Item%2001.pdf
>> 3. A number of eyewitnesses to a through and through hole in the front
>> windshield.
>
> How does that establish there was a through and through hole?

Define "establish."

>> https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/7512.html
>> 4. Related to #3, evidence that the windshield was replaced on
>> Monday.
>
> So?

Supporting evidence, of course.

>> 5. The unidentified fingerprint left in the Sniper's Nest.
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=835
>
> What about it?

Here Chickenshit reveals his stupidity.

>> 6. The very early attempts by the Secret Service to eliminate evidence
>> in the limo - they were provably attempting to wash out the limo
>> *before JFK was in the emergency room*.
>
> Begged. Assumes what you haven`t shown, nefarious intent in cleaning the limo.

Here Chickenshit acknowledges the facts, but refuses to provide an
alternative explanation.

>> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2619-earliest-timestamp-for-wanting-limo-washed-ph/
>> 7. The two previous attempts on JFK's life - in cities that Oswald had
>> nothing to do with - Chicago and Tampa.
>
> Who is satisfied that such attempts existed, you?

I'm satisfied.

So are you, you refused to deny they happened.

>> https://www.pimall.com/nais/newspyshop/books/jfkcontent.html
>> 8. The intentional destruction of documents by the Secret Service when
>> it became clear that the ARRB would require them.
>
> Show causation.

Timing.

>> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
>> 9. The disappearance of medical records.
>
> Show causation.

Timing.

>> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Destruction_of_Records.html
>> 10. The failure of the Warren Commission to call absolutely legitmate
>> witnesses - James Chaney or Dr. Burkley, for example.
>
> Begged. Assumes their questioning was essential.

Here Chickenshit shows himself to be a moron.

>> I know that Monkey Man only asked for three... but entire books have
>> been written on this topic, and it was EASY to list far more than just
>> three. Proving, of course, that if he's ever asked this question
>> before, it certainly hasn't been where a knowledgeable critic could
>> answer.
>>
>> The ball is in your court - but if you cannot CITE for your claims,
>> I'll simply ignore them.
>>
>> Logical fallacies will merely be pointed out.
>>
>> And lies from the Monkey man are expected... watch for it!
>>
>> Here was your response to Don:
>>> As I expected, you are unable to name even a single piece of
>>> evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the assassination
>>> of JFK. That is almost invariably what happens when I pose this
>>> challenge. You are unable to support your claim that "CTer's have
>>> evidence".
>>
>> You will be COMPLETELY unable to say the same to me. And now we're
>> going to see a TRUE statement: invariably, when *I* challenge
>> believers, they run.
>>
>> Invariably.
>
> What happens is you talk over any points made, remove points made,
> lie, commit fallacies, ect until people tire of engaging with a
> dishonest person such as yourself.

You see? Invariably...

>> Before I issue my challenge to you - let's see if you can publicly
>> acknowledge that I met your "challenge" - and indeed listed (and in
>> many of the cased, cited for) the evidence that you asked for.
>>
>> I predict that you will *not* acknowledge that fact.
>>
>> I further predict that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to accept the opinion
>> of any third party as to whether or not I met your challenge.
>>
>> In other words, you're simply a liar. I can predict this so easily
>> (and so correctly) because cowards and liars are quite predictable.
>

> You are honest.


Of course. That's the only longterm way to convince people of the
truth, is to be truthful.

You can't convince people with lies.

>> Now, since I've met *YOUR* challenge - here's one for you. Tell us
>> what your scenario is for 11/22/63 - cite the evidence for your claims
>> as you make them. Go into as much detail as you think you can handle.
>>
>> And I will MATCH it in length, detail, and number of citations. This
>> is a challenge I've been making repeatedly ... and only one single
>> taker... who promptly disappeared when I responded to his scenario.
>>
>> I predict, (easy to do!) that you'll run.
>>
>> As cowards do.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME.
>
> What mostly happens is I address the issue you bring up and you
> cowardly remove my responses. Why would the truth require such
> cowardice?

Did anyone notice Chickenshit posting a scenario?

I didn't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Whining deleted...