Lack of interest in the JFK assassination

[John Corbett]

Most Americans have long ago moved on from the assassination. A majority still believe there was a conspiracy although that majority has been shrinking in recent years. Whatever people think about the question of conspiracy, most of them go about their daily lives without giving a thought about the matter. It's as irrelevant to most people today as the McKinley assassination.

I did a Google search for the latest polling data. The most recent poll I could find on the subject was a Five Thirty Eight poll taken in October of 2017. It showed 61% still believing in conspiracy, 33% believing Oswald was the lone assassin, and 6% undecided. The most recent Gallup poll was taken ten years ago. Now it's possible other polls have been taken that didn't pop up on my Google search, but the scarcity of polling reveals how little interest there still is in the assassination.

Interest in the assassination was already waning in the early 1990s when Oliver Stone's movie kick started a new wave of interest and the cottage industry of JFK assassination theories. The formation of the ARRB gave conspiracy hobbyists new hope that there would finally be evidence made public that would prove their pet theory. When that turned out to be a big
nothing burger, Americans began losing interest in the subject again and many who remained engaged have been dying off since. As their numbers continue to dwindle, so will the interest in this silly hobby.

I had largely disengaged from the hobby last year, making only occasional visits to Fantasyland just to see if anything had changed. Other than a couple new names, it's mostly the same old conspiracy hobbyists presenting
the same crap that I was reading when I first took part in online discussions in the early 1990s. Same old shit with the occasional turd polishing. We still have a handful of Lone Nutters fighting the good fight for common sense. I'm guessing, like me, they do this for amusement only. I don't know why anyone could think that anything that gets written on this board and others amounts to a hill of beans. 99.99+% of Americans don't know these boards even exist nor do they care. The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.

Have nice day.

[donald willis]

Stop! You're both right! Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK. He did not have a hand in Tippit's murder, however!

[John Corbett]

Are we supposed to give you partial credit?

[David Healy]

Ah, why? And who the fuck cares who you specifically credit, for anything? Without a stated scenario you are as irrelevant as the next loon nutter. Scorn is *your* bed partner, poopsie...

[John Corbett]

My scenario was stated by the WC back in 1964. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Good thing the Warren Commission had invented the wheel, otherwise you would have been the Jackass Capitalist.

[Gil Jesus]

> The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.
>
> Have nice day.

You're right John. Conspiracies don't exist.
I guess "Russia, Russia, Russia" was real.
I guess the Zelensky phone call was real.
And now Trump is about to be indicted. Does that mean he's guilty ?
According to you, it can't be that there is a conspiracy to keep him from running in 2024, because conspiracies don't exist.

Go back and look at the Lincoln Assassination, John.
Look at the assassination of Caesar.

Wake TF up John. Outsiders, whether JFK or Trump, cannot be allowed to hold the Presidency.
How many President's who are for the people have to die before you wake the fuck up ?

[Ben Holmes]

Sadly for you, it's this sort of hypothetical musings that make you
happy.

Because you can't deal with the EVIDENCE.

Run coward... RUN!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My scenario was stated by the WC back in 1964. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

And yet, the very same morons who constantly and repeatedly demand
that critics support their claims with evidence... can't themselves,
do the same.

You're a coward DESPERATELY trying to hold on to a failed
"investigation."

[John Corbett]

This is a classic strawman argument. Nobody has said conspiracies don't exist. Of course they do. Some crimes are committed by conspiracies and some are the work of one individual. The question in this case is whether JFK died by a conspiracy or was it the act of one man. All the evidence we have points to one man, LHO. If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced. If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence that others took
part in the crime.

[John Corbett]

I have the WCR as my scenario. If you have a publication that presents your scenario, please
present it so we can see how it stacks up against the WCR. I have yet to see any book that
presents anywhere near as complete and detailed an explanation of the double murder that the WCR did, with evidence to back it up.

[John Corbett]

Yes, I am happy. I'm not bitter like you because nobody will listen to my bullshit.

>
> Because you can't deal with the EVIDENCE.
>

You don't present evidence. You present lame excuses for dismissing evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:50:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.
>> >
>> > Have nice day.
>> You're right John. Conspiracies don't exist.
>> I guess "Russia, Russia, Russia" was real.
>> I guess the Zelensky phone call was real.
>> And now Trump is about to be indicted. Does that mean he's guilty ?
>> According to you, it can't be that there is a conspiracy to keep him from running in 2024, because conspiracies don't exist.
>>
>> Go back and look at the Lincoln Assassination, John.
>> Look at the assassination of Caesar.
>>
>> Wake TF up John. Outsiders, whether JFK or Trump, cannot be allowed to hold the Presidency.
>> How many President's who are for the people have to die before you wake the fuck up ?
>
> This is a classic strawman argument. Nobody has said conspiracies
> don't exist. Of course they do. Some crimes are committed by
> conspiracies and some are the work of one individual.

Bravo! Love to see the truth coming from believers, no matter how
rarely.

> The question in this case is whether JFK died by a conspiracy or was
> it the act of one man. All the evidence we have points to one man,
> LHO.

You're lying again Corbutt. Unless you can place LHO on the Grassy
Knoll.

Can you?

If not, it's a BLATANT LIE to claim that "all the evidence" points to
just one assassin.

> If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced.

Did anyone look? And can you name this logical fallacy?

> If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence
> that others took part in the crime.

This surely sounds familiar. As I recall, the believer who posted
that same challenged then ran when critics did so. Tell you what...
I'll answer this when **YOU** answer it... what are the three best
pieces of evidence that LHO alone committed the crime...


And, of course, you still have this to answer:

Quoted from the Autopsy Report:

*******************************************************
a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
right ear to a point slightly above the tragus.

b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.
******************************************************

What is being described? **QUOTE** from the citation.

But Corbutt can't... he's never read the Autopsy Report.

And - of course, if the Autopsy Report isn't correct, then there *ARE*
shots from the front - and conspiracy is a proven fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 9:54:39?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >My scenario was stated by the WC back in 1964. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
>> And yet, the very same morons who constantly and repeatedly demand
>> that critics support their claims with evidence... can't themselves,
>> do the same.
>>
>> You're a coward DESPERATELY trying to hold on to a failed
>> "investigation."
>
>I have the WCR as my scenario.

Yet you repeatedly refuse to defend it.


>If you have a publication that presents your scenario, please present it...


I've done so repeatedly... Douglas Horne's five volume set.

Not *ONCE* has anyone tried to refute him.

> so we can see how it stacks up against the WCR. I have yet to see
> any book that presents anywhere near as complete and detailed an
> explanation of the double murder that the WCR did, with evidence to
> back it up.

You can lead a believer to the evidence, but you can't force him to
read it.

Here's the proof of your cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 07:02:16 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Because you can't deal with the EVIDENCE.
>>
>You don't present evidence. You present lame excuses for dismissing evidence.

[John Corbett]

There is no credible evidence of a grassy knoll shooter. No eyewitnesses. No weapon.
No spent shells. No recovered bullets. No wounds that indicate a shot from the GK.
We have all those things for a shooter from the sniper's nest.

> Can you?
>
> If not, it's a BLATANT LIE to claim that "all the evidence" points to
> just one assassin.

Tell us who else the evidence indicates took part in the crime and list your evidence that
implicates that person. Without that, we only have one man.

> > If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced.
> Did anyone look? And can you name this logical fallacy?
> > If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence
> > that others took part in the crime.
> This surely sounds familiar. As I recall, the believer who posted
> that same challenged then ran when critics did so. Tell you what...
> I'll answer this when **YOU** answer it... what are the three best
> pieces of evidence that LHO alone committed the crime...
>

You are asking me to prove a negative. There is ample evidence Oswald committed
the crime. There is no evidence he had any accomplices. That doesn't prove there
were no accomplices, but without evidence, there is no reason to believe there were.

>
> And, of course, you still have this to answer:

Irrelevancy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 07:57:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There is no credible evidence...


Credible by whose standards? Prove it.

>No wounds that indicate a shot from the GK.

Other than Connally's wrist and JFK's large head wound & temple wound.


>> Can you?


Apparently not.

>> If not, it's a BLATANT LIE to claim that "all the evidence" points to
>> just one assassin.
>

>Tell us who else the evidence indicates...


Can you name this logical fallacy?

>>> If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced.
>> Did anyone look? And can you name this logical fallacy?
>>> If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence
>>> that others took part in the crime.
>> This surely sounds familiar. As I recall, the believer who posted
>> that same challenged then ran when critics did so. Tell you what...
>> I'll answer this when **YOU** answer it... what are the three best
>> pieces of evidence that LHO alone committed the crime...
>>
>You are asking me to prove a negative.

No, I'm asking you to PROVE YOUR OWN CLAIMS.


I knew you'd run... you always run...

>There is ample evidence Oswald committed the crime.

Ample to whom?

> There is no evidence he had any accomplices.

What investigation determined this?

> That doesn't prove there were no accomplices, but without evidence,
> there is no reason to believe there were.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> And, of course, you still have this to answer:

Quoted from the Autopsy Report:

*******************************************************
a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
right ear to a point slightly above the tragus.

b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.
******************************************************

What is being described? **QUOTE** from the citation.

But Corbutt can't... he's never read the Autopsy Report.

And - of course, if the Autopsy Report isn't correct, then there *ARE*
shots from the front - and conspiracy is a proven fact.

Run coward, RUN!!!

[John Corbett]

If you had any credible evidence, you would have presented it by now.

> >No wounds that indicate a shot from the GK.
> Other than Connally's wrist and JFK's large head wound & temple wound.
>

Which were caused by a shot from behind according to every qualified medical examiner
who has reviewed the evidence.

>
> >> Can you?
>
>
> Apparently not.
> >> If not, it's a BLATANT LIE to claim that "all the evidence" points to
> >> just one assassin.

It does.

> >
> >Tell us who else the evidence indicates...
>
>
> Can you name this logical fallacy?

Apparently you can't cite any evidence of other's involement.

> >>> If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced.
> >> Did anyone look? And can you name this logical fallacy?
> >>> If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence
> >>> that others took part in the crime.
> >> This surely sounds familiar. As I recall, the believer who posted
> >> that same challenged then ran when critics did so. Tell you what...
> >> I'll answer this when **YOU** answer it... what are the three best
> >> pieces of evidence that LHO alone committed the crime...
> >>
> >You are asking me to prove a negative.
> No, I'm asking you to PROVE YOUR OWN CLAIMS.
>

The WCR already did that.

>
> I knew you'd run... you always run...

I'm still here.

> >There is ample evidence Oswald committed the crime.
> Ample to whom?

The intelligent people. You won't ever be invited into that club.

> > There is no evidence he had any accomplices.

> What investigation determined this?

The WC.

> > That doesn't prove there were no accomplices, but without evidence,
> > there is no reason to believe there were.
> Can you name this logical fallacy?

There is no logical fallacy.

> >> And, of course, you still have this to answer:

Now you are back to lying that I never answered it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:40:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you...

Has *NOTHING* to do with me. So you can't prove your statement. By
Chickenshit's standards, we can presume you're lying...

>>>No wounds that indicate a shot from the GK.
>>
>> Other than Connally's wrist and JFK's large head wound & temple wound.
>

>Which were caused by a shot from behind ...


Begging the question, aren't you?


>>>> Can you?
>>
>> Apparently not.


And you didn't.

>>>> If not, it's a BLATANT LIE to claim that "all the evidence" points to
>>>> just one assassin.
>
>It does.

Stll telling the same lie with no ability to support it...

>>>Tell us who else the evidence indicates...
>>
>> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>

>Apparently you...


I have nothing to do with your inability to name your logical
fallacy...

>>>>> If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced.
>>>> Did anyone look? And can you name this logical fallacy?
>>>>> If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence
>>>>> that others took part in the crime.
>>>> This surely sounds familiar. As I recall, the believer who posted
>>>> that same challenged then ran when critics did so. Tell you what...
>>>> I'll answer this when **YOU** answer it... what are the three best
>>>> pieces of evidence that LHO alone committed the crime...
>>>>
>>>You are asking me to prove a negative.
>>
>> No, I'm asking you to PROVE YOUR OWN CLAIMS.
>>
>The WCR already did that.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

>> I knew you'd run... you always run...
>
>I'm still here.

And still running...

>>>There is ample evidence Oswald committed the crime.
>> Ample to whom?
>
>The intelligent people. You won't ever be invited into that club.

Can you name these two logical fallacies?

>>> There is no evidence he had any accomplices.
>
>> What investigation determined this?
>
>The WC.

Yet another logical fallacy.

>>> That doesn't prove there were no accomplices, but without evidence,
>>> there is no reason to believe there were.
>>
>> Can you name this logical fallacy?
>
>There is no logical fallacy.

You're lying again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>>> And, of course, you still have this to answer:
>
>Now you are back to lying that I never answered it.

You haven't. Run coward... RUN!!!

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:53:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> And - of course, if the Autopsy Report isn't correct, then there *ARE*
> shots from the front - and conspiracy is a proven fact.

There's such a lack of interest in the JFK assassination, John just couldn't stay away.
His own actions show that the subject of this thread is not true.
LOL.

Welcome back, John.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, he'll run away soon. But it won't be "boredom" that makes him run
away - it'll be the evidence he can't explain.

[John Corbett]

As if I need to explain anything to an asshole like you.

It's a question of mind over matter. I don't mind and you sure as hell don't matter.

[John Corbett]

I stopped back here because I was bored and thought it would be worth a few chuckles. You
guys haven't disappointed. I'm also not typical of the average American. I actually have much
more of an interest in the subject than 99.99+% of the general public but it had gotten to the
point where the same lame arguments were being regurgitated that I had been dealing with
literally for decades. I'm sure I'll grow weary of them again but in the mean time, it still has
some amusement value. The funniest part is you guys think you are actually accomplishing
something here. How many people do you think even know this group exists and of those,
how many do you think care? There is a niche interest group in the JFK assassination and it
gets smaller with each passing year. There is nothing of importance being written by anybody,
including me.

[John Corbett]

Yellowpanties keeps jerking off hoping somebody will pay attention to him.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:43:28 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 1:35:40?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:53:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> And - of course, if the Autopsy Report isn't correct, then there *ARE*
>>>> shots from the front - and conspiracy is a proven fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's such a lack of interest in the JFK assassination, John just couldn't stay away.
>>>His own actions show that the subject of this thread is not true.
>>>LOL.
>>>
>>>Welcome back, John.
>>
>> Oh, he'll run away soon. But it won't be "boredom" that makes him run
>> away - it'll be the evidence he can't explain.

Logical fallacies deleted. I've made the prediction, it'll come true
like the vast majority of my other predictions...

Cowards are SOOOOOO predictable!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:52:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt ran again... does that surprise
anyone?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 11:50:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 1:31:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:53:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > And - of course, if the Autopsy Report isn't correct, then there *ARE*
>> > shots from the front - and conspiracy is a proven fact.
>> There's such a lack of interest in the JFK assassination, John just couldn't stay away.
>> His own actions show that the subject of this thread is not true.
>> LOL.
>>
>> Welcome back, John.
>
>I stopped back here because I was bored and thought it would be worth a few chuckles.

And indeed, you've provided some chuckles... mostly from your fear of
answering this question:

Quoted from the Autopsy Report:

*******************************************************
a. From the right inferior temporo-parietal margin anterior to the
right ear to a point slightly above the tragus.

b. From the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on the forehead to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c. From the left margin of the main defect across the midline
antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d. From the same starting point as c. 10 cm. postero-laterally.
******************************************************

What is being described? **QUOTE** from the citation.

But Corbutt can't... he's never read the Autopsy Report.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:50:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.
> >
> > Have nice day.

> You're right John. Conspiracies don't exist.

Conspiracies certainly exist, and Big Dog would certainly agree with me.

> I guess "Russia, Russia, Russia" was real.

It wasn't real, and it was uncovered. A POSITIVE case rebutting it was presented, and the Russian collusion story is now recognized as a false story by the NYTs, etc. who once SUPPORTED it.

> I guess the Zelensky phone call was real.

See above.

> And now Trump is about to be indicted. Does that mean he's guilty ?

Of course not. And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY. JFK's own online Presidential library and museum links to the WCR for visitors to learn more about what happened on 11/22/63 and takes pains to point out that the HSCA acoustics study has been debunked. In the case of Team Oswald, there isn't a specific different historical case to consider. Team Oswald hasn't offered one. Different captains on different ships carrying different cargo on different oceans in different direction to different ports, all pretending to be part of the same convoy. This is insanity, but this is what you're part of.

> According to you, it can't be that there is a conspiracy to keep him from running in 2024, because conspiracies don't exist.

Conspiracies exist, but you don't have a JFK conspiracy. You have the social malady or condition or disease of CONSPIRACISM. If you can offer a specific JFK conspiracy, please do so.

>
> Go back and look at the Lincoln Assassination, John.
> Look at the assassination of Caesar.
>
> Wake TF up John. Outsiders, whether JFK or Trump, cannot be allowed to hold the Presidency.

LOL, JFK was an outsider? C'mon, Gil. JFK was young, but he was firmly within the establishment from a monied US business tycoon's family and his father was a former ambassador and head of the SEC.

> How many President's who are for the people have to die before you wake the fuck up ?

Why didn't the JFK coup plotters just run him out of office with a bunch of dirty tricks like they seemed to have done with Trump? Why not use those press assets to spread the stories about him with hookers, interns, Mafia gun molls, Hollywood starlets, and so on? If death was supposedly the only coup option, why not just inject him with something courtesy of his personal physician and induce a heart attack? Why not have a CIA "mechanic" loosen a $5.00 bolt on the rotor of Marine One and watch his helicopter cartwheel across the White House lawn into a flaming pile of twisted metal?

You need to consider why something so complex--multiple gunmen under the direction of multiple USG bureaus and agencies, firing weapons in a public location in broad daylight being filmed by bystanders--would be favored over something more simple.

Here's one of the many conundrums Team Oswald is faced with, logically. The story is that those guns in Dealey Plaza were a message to future political leaders to toe the line or that the same fate would await them, but hold on...the idea was that this would smoothly be pinned on a lone gunman firing from behind. If the "hit" went off without a hitch and no one suspects anyone but Oswald, how is a message sent to "future" Presidents about staying in line and not bucking the system?

Conspiracism--which is what you're afflicted with, whether you realize it or not--looks at everything in 20/20 hindsight and builds their castles of sand accordingly. In real life, real people operate in the real world, and it's extremely difficult to get multiples of people to act irrationally (complex conspiracies that can go wrong and get everyone involved swinging from a rope, potentially) as opposed to an individual to act irrationally (Oswald in the TSBD window at 1230pm, 11/22/63).

[John Corbett]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 4:17:39 PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:50:49 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.
> > >
> > > Have nice day.
>
> > You're right John. Conspiracies don't exist.
> Conspiracies certainly exist, and Big Dog would certainly agree with me.

In fact, I already did when I replied to Gil:

"This is a classic strawman argument. Nobody has said conspiracies don't exist. Of course they do. Some crimes are committed by conspiracies and some are the work of one individual. The question in this case is whether JFK died by a conspiracy or was it the act of one man. All the evidence we have points to one man, LHO. If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced. If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence that others took
part in the crime."

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.

Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.

Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.

But you won't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:04:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 4:17:39?PM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:

>> On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 8:50:49?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> The hobby is on life support and will expire with the last of the conspiracy loons.
>>>>
>>>> Have nice day.
>>
>>> You're right John. Conspiracies don't exist.
>> Conspiracies certainly exist, and Big Dog would certainly agree with me.
>
>In fact, I already did when I replied to Gil:
>
>"This is a classic strawman argument. Nobody has said conspiracies don't exist. Of course they do. Some crimes are committed by conspiracies and some are the work of one individual. The question in this case is whether JFK died by a conspiracy or was it the act of one man. All the evidence we have points to one man, LHO. If he had accomplices, no evidence of such has ever surfaced. If you disagree, please present your three best pieces of evidence that others took
>part in the crime."

And this lie has already responded to... you ran.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>
> > And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> > never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>

The same kind of history that found John Wilkes Booth guilty of assassinating Abraham
Lincoln. The same kind of history that found Adolf Hitler guilty of crimes against humanity.
Our criminal justice system has a dual purpose, to find the truth while protecting the rights
of the accused. Our Constitution demands that the accused be afforded due process before
he/she can be denied life, liberty, or property. History has a sole purpose. To determine the
truth. There is no requirement for history to afford due process to John Wilkes Booth, Adolf
Hitler, or Lee Harvey Oswald before declaring each of them guilty of committing heinous
crimes. Those who write the history books are free to make such declarations even without
any of the above having been declared guilty in a court of law. The evidence of the guilt of
each man is as plain as could be. Those who cannot see it choose not to see it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>
>The same kind of history that found John Wilkes Booth guilty of assassinating Abraham
>Lincoln.

Begging the question...

> The same kind of history that found Adolf Hitler guilty of crimes against humanity.

Begging the question...

>Our criminal justice system has a dual purpose, to find the truth while protecting the rights
>of the accused.

Not the topic.

>Our Constitution demands that the accused be afforded due process before
>he/she can be denied life, liberty, or property.

Not the topic.

> History has a sole purpose. To determine the truth.

That's an incredibly poor "definition." Religion would dispute it.

You cannot cite for this "definition."

>There is no requirement for history to afford due process to John
>Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, or Lee Harvey Oswald before declaring each
> of them guilty of committing heinous crimes.

No-one said otherwise.

> Those who write the history books are free to make such declarations
> even without any of the above having been declared guilty in a court
> of law.

Not relevant.

> The evidence of the guilt of each man is as plain as could be.

According to whom?

> Those who cannot see it choose not to see it.

Those who choose to lie ... choose to lie.


But the question still remains unanswered. **CITE** for this mythical
"history" that finds people guilty.

You couldn't do it. Not a cite to be found among your logical
fallacies.

[John Corbett]

Once again, Benny Yellowpanties resorts to playing his lame games rather than address any
of the points made in the post he responded to. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 07:57:42 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett

>Once again...

You ran from every point I made.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:48:24 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> >> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> >>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.

> >> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
> >>

> >The same kind of history that found John Wilkes Booth guilty of assassinating Abraham
> >Lincoln.

> Begging the question...

John Wilkes Booth is historically guilty of killing Lincoln. There is no begging the question.

> > The same kind of history that found Adolf Hitler guilty of crimes against humanity.

> Begging the question...

Adolf Hitler is guilty of crimes against humanity. There is no begging the question.

> >Our criminal justice system has a dual purpose, to find the truth while protecting the rights
> >of the accused.
> Not the topic.
> >Our Constitution demands that the accused be afforded due process before
> >he/she can be denied life, liberty, or property.
> Not the topic.
> > History has a sole purpose. To determine the truth.
> That's an incredibly poor "definition." Religion would dispute it.
>
> You cannot cite for this "definition."

> >There is no requirement for history to afford due process to John
> >Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, or Lee Harvey Oswald before declaring each
> > of them guilty of committing heinous crimes.

> No-one said otherwise.

You just claimed the questions was begged is vis-a-vis Booth and Hitler.

> > Those who write the history books are free to make such declarations
> > even without any of the above having been declared guilty in a court
> > of law.
> Not relevant.
> > The evidence of the guilt of each man is as plain as could be.
> According to whom?
> > Those who cannot see it choose not to see it.
> Those who choose to lie ... choose to lie.
>
>

> But the question still remains unanswered. **CITE** for this mythical
> "history" that finds people guilty.

History finds guilt historically. Courts find people guilty of an offence criminally or civilly.

>
> You couldn't do it. Not a cite to be found among your logical
> fallacies.

History as authority regarding the JFK assassination is found in the documents preserved with our National Archives. This is our formal history through documents. JFK's Library and Museum is administered through the National Archives. You can visit JFK's Library and Museum here:

https://jfklibrary.archives.gov

This is where I sent your Magnum Opus, lol. Has anyone gotten back to you?

JFK's Library and Museum points visitors to the Warren Commission Report to learn about the assassination. His own library does this, Ben. It does so here:

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

It takes pains to educate viewers that the HSCA acoustics study was debunked. It does so at the above link which I will paste here:

Quote:

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.

Unquote.

OUR OFFICIAL HISTORY in first hand documents and the conclusions that flow from them AT JFK's OWN LIBRARY, administered by the National Archives, doesn't agree with your wacky ideas.

Too bad, so sad, sucks to be you. FInd a new hobby, shorty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 8:48:24?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>
>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>
>
>>>The same kind of history that found John Wilkes Booth guilty of assassinating Abraham
>>>Lincoln.
>
>> Begging the question...
>
>John Wilkes Booth is historically guilty of killing Lincoln. There is no begging the question.

It's begging the question because John Wilkes Booth doesn't show that
the mythical "history" can find people guilty.

>>> The same kind of history that found Adolf Hitler guilty of crimes against humanity.
>
>> Begging the question...
>
>Adolf Hitler is guilty of crimes against humanity. There is no begging the question.

Same answer as above.

>>>Our criminal justice system has a dual purpose, to find the truth while protecting the rights
>>>of the accused.
>>
>> Not the topic.
>>
>>>Our Constitution demands that the accused be afforded due process before
>>>he/she can be denied life, liberty, or property.
>>
>> Not the topic.
>>
>>> History has a sole purpose. To determine the truth.
>>
>> That's an incredibly poor "definition." Religion would dispute it.
>>
>> You cannot cite for this "definition."

Note folks, my prediction was correct, Corbutt couldn't do it, and
neither can Chuckles.

>>>There is no requirement for history to afford due process to John
>>>Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, or Lee Harvey Oswald before declaring each
>>> of them guilty of committing heinous crimes.
>>
>> No-one said otherwise.
>

>You just claimed...


You're molesting Corbutts mother if you think I said anything at all
about history and due process.

>>> Those who write the history books are free to make such declarations
>>> even without any of the above having been declared guilty in a court
>>> of law.
>>
>> Not relevant.
>>
>>> The evidence of the guilt of each man is as plain as could be.
>>
>> According to whom?

Dead silence.

>>> Those who cannot see it choose not to see it.
>>
>> Those who choose to lie ... choose to lie.
>>
>> But the question still remains unanswered. **CITE** for this mythical
>> "history" that finds people guilty.
>
>History finds guilt historically. Courts find people guilty of an offence criminally or civilly.

Begging the question again...

>> You couldn't do it. Not a cite to be found among your logical
>> fallacies.
>
>History as authority regarding the JFK assassination is found in the documents preserved with our National Archives.

Cite your reference asserting that "history" can find people "guilty."


Or run away like Corbutt.

As believers do...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[John Corbett]

Not that I think there are many lurkers reading these posts but in case there are, this is a
perfect example of the lame games Benny Yellowpanties (aka Ben Holmes) engages in all
the time. He never makes a point. He never takes a position he would have to defend. He
never addresses the points other people make. He simply ignores them with phrases like
"begging the question" or deletes them by arbitrarily declaring them to be "logical fallacies".
He is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of rationally discussing the issues regarding the
assassination of JFK. Instead he just plays his silly games in a pathetic effort to get people
to pay attention to him.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not that I think...

Logical fallacy deleted. Notice folks, that Corbutt PROVABLY read my
refutation of his points, and simply refused to respond. He's a
proven coward... and cowards run...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

[Charles Schuyler]

Writing to write, arguing to argue. Eristic argumentation. Ben argues for conflict, never for clarity. Ben writes to be tedious, never to be truthful. It's just one non-stop battle after another over the trivial, never over the consequential. Blah, blah, blah.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 12:15:46 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>Writing to write...


And pointing out your cowardice...

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>
> > And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> > never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.

Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?

https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

How many times have you read that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>
>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>
>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>
>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy

No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.

>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.
>>
>> But you won't.

I knew Chuckles wouldn't - but I thought Huckster was smarter than
this.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> >> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> >>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
> >>
> >> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
> >
> >Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
> >
> >https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.

You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.
Here’s another one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
Supported by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence.

> >> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.

https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
Reporting history’s consensus.

And guess what? They don’t care about your opinion.
Neither does history.
Rant and rail all you want, it won’t change the facts any.

[Bud]

They dropped the ball here...

"The resulting 888-page Warren Report concluded that Oswald, who had become a skilled marksman as a marine, had fired three shots: one that entered Kennedy’s neck and exited through his throat before hitting Connally, one that hit Kennedy in the back of the head (the fatal shot), and one miss. (The conclusion drawn about the first shot, known as the “single bullet theory,” was dismissed by doubters, who saw it as predicated on what they saw as the unfathomable movements of a “magic bullet.”)"

The second shot is the SBT shot, not the first.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>
>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>
>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>
>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>
>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>
>You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.

That states that "history" can find people guilty... or do anything,
for that matter.

If you don't understand what I'm pointing out, then you should try to
pay closer attention and not presume that you know it all.

>>>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.

And STATES that "history" can think and judge.

Once you figure out what I'm pointing out to everyone, then you'll be
forced to stop claiming what "history" thinks or does.

All you're citing is people's opinions.

People can be right... people can be wrong.

"History" isn't a thing. As proven by everyone's inability to CITE
anything that supports such a wacky idea.

[John Corbett]

It's amazing how many misconceptions there are about the shots. The reality is the WC
never concluded which shot missed. They didn't think they had conclusive evidence. For
many years, the popular misconception was that the second shot missed and all three
shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. The WC did consider that a possibility, but did not commit
to it. Oliver Stone was particularly duplicitous on this point. In the scene in which Kevin
Costner and his aide recreated the shooting, Costner supposedly timed the three shots at
over 7 seconds and the aide said Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds, which
would only have been a requirement if the second shot missed. Then the aide falsely
claimed the WC concluded the first shot missed, which the WC never did. What Stone
did was conflate two mutually exclusive scenarios and present both as conclusions of
the WC. Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able to conclude
that it is almost certain it was the first shot that missed, but that was not a conclusion of
the WCR.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:39:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
> >>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
> >>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
> >>>
> >>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
> >>>
> >>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
> >>
> >> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
> >> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
> >> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
> >
> >You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.
> That states that "history" can find people guilty... or do anything,
> for that matter.

One question. Do you think John Wilkes Booth is guilty of killing Abraham Lincoln?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:07:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:23:14?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:05:14?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>>>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>>>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>>> You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.
>>> Here’s another one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>>> Supported by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence.
>>>>>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.
>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>> Reporting history’s consensus.
>>>
>>> And guess what? They don’t care about your opinion.
>>> Neither does history.
>>> Rant and rail all you want, it won’t change the facts any.
>> They dropped the ball here...
>>

>> The second shot is the SBT shot, not the first.
>
>It's amazing how many misconceptions there are about the shots. The reality is the WC

>never concluded which shot missed. They didn't think they had conclusive evidence...


And here comes the Dunning Kruger effect:

> Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
> to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

> missed...


Since only **ONE** shot can be matched to a frame - this moron will be
completely unable to explain why he knows more than the WC did.

And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
simple question for a cite.

[Bud]

The problem is that this source (Brittannica) is placing the SBT as the first shot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why do believers apparently believe they don't have the SAME
obligation to answer questions that they foist on critics?

You ***N E V E R*** answer questions, and you just keep right on
asking 'em.

Even when the answer to *YOUR* question wouldn't show me wrong in
demanding a cite you can't provide.

Answer a question, and I'll be happy to answer yours.

Run like a coward, and I'll merely point it out.

[Bud]

Why are you such a deceitful yellow coward? You know our position on just about everything yet you hide your ideas because you are ashamed of them an know they are not supportable. You vaguely hint, and if someone infers something from your hints you cry like a stuck piggy over the injustice of it all. You are an intellectual coward in every way it is possible to be one.

> You ***N E V E R*** answer questions, and you just keep right on
> asking 'em.

You questions are usually loaded or begged, and are asked with the intention of scoring points in some sort of game you are playing in your head. Our questions are honest attempts to ascertain your position on things. The difference is we are honest and you are dishonest, and merely playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

[John Corbett]

Yup, and that for years was widely believed to be the WC's conclusion which it never was.

[John Corbett]

You ignore the answers given to you, delete them, call them logical fallacies, then falsely
claim you are never given answers as you have just done here.

> Even when the answer to *YOUR* question wouldn't show me wrong in
> demanding a cite you can't provide.
>

Can somebody who is fluent in gibberish translate this for me?

> Answer a question, and I'll be happy to answer yours.
>

You're lying.

[John Corbett]

On the contrary that is quite easy. Thanks to David Von Pein's website, I was able to look at
enhanced and stabilized Zapruder frames. DVP's website allowed me to toggle between frames
224 and 225 and that revealed that at 225, JFK's right hand was still moving downward which
means JFK had not reacted to being shot at 225. This dispelled a widely held belief that JFK
was already reacting to having been shot when he first reappeared at 225. He had been shot
by that time, but he had not started to react. That happened at the very next frame, 226, when
JFK dramatically lifts his arms upward. In that same frame, we see JBC's right arm also
dramatically jerky upward. Because the reaction came just one frame after JFK reappeared,
the naked eye looking at an enhanced version of the film cannot detact that 1/18 second
difference from when he reappeared and when he started to react.

Had the WC been able to see what I and many others have seen in the enhanced frames, I have
little doubt they would have concluded that JFK and JBC reacted at the same time to a single
shot which struck both men a few milliseconds apart. Determining precisely when the single
bullet struck is made difficult by the fact the Z-film only took 18 frame per second which is
quite low by modern standards. Based on a startle reaction time of 200 milliseconds, we can
say a reaction at 226 would indicate a strike in the 222-223 range.

> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
> simple question for a cite.

I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:17:40?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:07:11?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:23:14?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:05:14?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>>>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>>>>>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>>>>>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>>>>> You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.
>>>>> Here’s another one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>>>>> Supported by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence.
>>>>>>>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.
>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>> Reporting history’s consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> And guess what? They don’t care about your opinion.
>>>>> Neither does history.
>>>>> Rant and rail all you want, it won’t change the facts any.
>>>> They dropped the ball here...
>>>>

>>>> The second shot is the SBT shot, not the first.
>>>
>>> It's amazing how many misconceptions there are about the shots. The reality is the WC
>>> never concluded which shot missed. They didn't think they had conclusive evidence. For
>>> many years, the popular misconception was that the second shot missed and all three
>>> shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. The WC did consider that a possibility, but did not commit
>>> to it. Oliver Stone was particularly duplicitous on this point. In the scene in which Kevin
>>> Costner and his aide recreated the shooting, Costner supposedly timed the three shots at
>>> over 7 seconds and the aide said Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds, which
>>> would only have been a requirement if the second shot missed. Then the aide falsely
>>> claimed the WC concluded the first shot missed, which the WC never did. What Stone
>>> did was conflate two mutually exclusive scenarios and present both as conclusions of
>>> the WC. Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able to conclude
>>> that it is almost certain it was the first shot that missed, but that was not a conclusion of
>>> the WCR.
>> The problem is that this source (Brittannica) is placing the SBT as the first shot.
>
>Yup, and that for years was widely believed to be the WC's conclusion which it never was.

Amusingly, this cite was given as a "valid source reporting history’s
consensus." Now you're pointiing out that it's wrong.

YOU'RE POINTING OUT THAT "HISTORY" IS WRONG!!

You've just shot yourself in the foot.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

Wrong. The first engagements of Pearl Harbor are now thought to be between American destroyers and Japanese midget submarines. If earlier engagements were discovered it wouldn`t jeopardize the conclusion that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that historical reality would not be impacted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:46:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, in fact, you DIDN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL!!!

Here's what you said: "Given the luxury of decades of observation of

the Z-film, we are able to conclude that it is almost certain it was
the first shot that missed..."

Since only **ONE** shot can be definitively tied to a Z-frame - how
did you determine which shot missed???

>Thanks to David Von Pein's website, I was able to look at
>enhanced and stabilized Zapruder frames. DVP's website allowed me to toggle between frames
>224 and 225 and that revealed that at 225, JFK's right hand was still moving downward which
>means JFK had not reacted to being shot at 225. This dispelled a widely held belief that JFK
>was already reacting to having been shot when he first reappeared at 225. He had been shot
>by that time, but he had not started to react. That happened at the very next frame, 226, when
>JFK dramatically lifts his arms upward. In that same frame, we see JBC's right arm also
>dramatically jerky upward. Because the reaction came just one frame after JFK reappeared,
>the naked eye looking at an enhanced version of the film cannot detact that 1/18 second
>difference from when he reappeared and when he started to react.
>
>Had the WC been able to see what I and many others have seen in the enhanced frames, I have
>little doubt they would have concluded that JFK and JBC reacted at the same time to a single
>shot which struck both men a few milliseconds apart. Determining precisely when the single
>bullet struck is made difficult by the fact the Z-film only took 18 frame per second which is
>quite low by modern standards. Based on a startle reaction time of 200 milliseconds, we can
>say a reaction at 226 would indicate a strike in the 222-223 range.

All of this word vomit has **NOTHING** to do with your claim that you
have determined *WHICH* shot missed.

You didn't address it AT ALL! Yet you claimed that you answered my
question.

>> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
>> simple question for a cite.
>
>I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!

No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?

Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?

Answer the question - or admit that you LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:45:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

You're lying again, Corbutt.

I've *STILL* seen no cite for the mythical "history" that can think
and judge...

>, delete them, call them logical fallacies, then falsely
>claim you are never given answers as you have just done here.

Quote the answer to the above question. Indeed, quote the answer
given to the sentence immediately preceding the "a. b. c. d." quote of
Chickeshit's.

That's two examples of unanswered questions.

>> Even when the answer to *YOUR* question wouldn't show me wrong in
>> demanding a cite you can't provide.
>>
>Can somebody who is fluent in gibberish translate this for me?

Let me explain it real slow... so even *YOU* can understand it.

Even if... IF... I bothered to answer your question...

IT WOULD NOT SHOW THAT I'M INCORRECT ON THE ISSUE OF "HISTORY" DOING
THINGS... that you cannot cite for.

So your question was meaningless... it would NOT accomplish anything.

If you still can't understand this slowed down version - ask your
mother to explain it to you.

>> Answer a question, and I'll be happy to answer yours.
>>
>You're lying.

You'll never be able to prove it.

[Bud]

One clue is that the little girl stops running.

There is a bit of support outside the zfilm (Altgens photo, testimony, ect) that make it the most reasonable conclusion.

Look at Ben pretend he wants to discuss ideas like a big boy, isn`t he adorable?

[David Von Pein]

FYI / FWIW....

Here are some of my links which IMO deal fairly well with the subjects of "The 5.6 Seconds Myth" and "The Missed Shot" and "When Exactly Did The SBT Shot Occur?":

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-900.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-940.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:58:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>FYI / FWIW....
>

>Here are some of my links...

Which you cannot support against critical review.

Why is that, coward?

[David Von Pein]

A couple more....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oliver-stone-blunder.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Oliver-Stone

[Bud]

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 7:06:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:58:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >FYI / FWIW....
> >
> >Here are some of my links...
>
> Which you cannot support against critical review.

The support for his ideas is given in the articles, stupid.

> Why is that, coward?

[John Corbett]

Of course I have and you probably just deleted it like you do with most things for which you
have no answer which is most things. I'll give to you one more time so you can delete it
again.

We have the observable reactions of Connally and Rosemary Willis. Connally's reaction began
at 164 and Willis' about a half second later when she began to slow down and then turn back
toward the TSBD. Connally later testified that in reaction to hearing the first shot, he turned to
look over his right shoulder and that he was turning back the other way when he felt the
second shot hit him in the back. We have the report of Agent Bennett who upon hearing the
first shot scanned the crowd to his right and not seeing anything, turned back to look at JFK
and saw the second shot strike him high on his back. So we have two observable reactions
and at least two witnesses who are on the record as saying they heard a shot before the shot
that struck both JFK and JBC.

> >> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
> >> simple question for a cite.
> >
> >I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!
> No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
> You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
> that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
> video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?

That's inane even by your low standards.

>
> Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
> a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
> another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
> film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
> MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?
>
> Answer the question - or admit that you LIED!!!

I'll admit you're being an asshole.......AGAIN!!!

[John Corbett]

On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:58:13 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> FYI / FWIW....
>
> Here are some of my links which IMO deal fairly well with the subjects of "The 5.6 Seconds Myth" and "The Missed Shot" and "When Exactly Did The SBT Shot Occur?":
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html

A very good analysis and as you correctly pointed out, 160 is at best an approximation of
when the first shot struck. 160 seems to be the latest time for the first missed shot given
Connally's reaction at 164. Keep in mind also that Connally is reacting to the sound of the
gunfire, which would take roughly 3 frames to reach his ears so the shot would actually have
been fired no later than 157. My own belief, based on the jiggles of Zapruder's camera, is that
the first shot was fired in the 150-151 window. Where as the distance from Oswald's rifle to
the limo was increasing as the limo went down Elm, the distance from the rifle to Zapruder's
ears was constant so we could expect a similar delay between the shot being fired and
Zapruder reacting. For the subsequent shots, it would have taken about two frames for the
bullet to reach the target, so a strike at 222-223 would indicate a shot fired 220-221. In the
next paragraph I will deal with why I think 224 was not when that shot struck. The head shot
struck either at 313 or the gap between 312-313 indicating it was fired in the 310-311 time
frame. Close approximations are the best we can do given the speed of Zapruder's camera.
For the head shot, the jiggle occurred 318 so that would be 7-8 frames after the shot was fired.
For the single bullet the jiggle occurred at 227 which would mean it was fired in the 219-220
range. The jiggle at 158 would indicate a shot fired 150-151. Because none of the time frames
either from the time the shot was fired to the time it struck or from the time the shot was fired
to the time Zapruder reacted is an exact number of frames, we can't say precisely when any
event occurred. An event could happen early in a frame's exposure, in the middle of the
exposure, late in the exposure, or in the gap between frames. Not know precisely when any
event occurred precludes identifying and how much of a delay there is between events.

I believe the bulging of JBC's jacket at 224 was caused by the single bullet but that seems
too late for a reaction at 226. I below that bulge occurred 1-2 frames after the bullet had
passed. If you've ever seen super slow motion footage of a bullet passing through an inert
object, the bullet passes through the object and any material being moved by the bullet
follows behind it. For example, a bullet passing through a block of would will exit the block
and the splinters follow behind it in its wake. I believe there was a similar delay between the
time the bullet passed through the material in JBC's jacket and the jacket bulging out. It was
probably only a frame or two delay, but I don't think the bulge was simultaneous with the
passage of the bullet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 03:36:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm leaving it all in so that everyone can see you have no excuses to
use... You made a claim that you've still not supported.

>We have the observable reactions of Connally and Rosemary Willis. Connally's reaction began
>at 164 and Willis' about a half second later when she began to slow down and then turn back
>toward the TSBD. Connally later testified that in reaction to hearing the first shot, he turned to
>look over his right shoulder and that he was turning back the other way when he felt the
>second shot hit him in the back. We have the report of Agent Bennett who upon hearing the
>first shot scanned the crowd to his right and not seeing anything, turned back to look at JFK
>and saw the second shot strike him high on his back. So we have two observable reactions
>and at least two witnesses who are on the record as saying they heard a shot before the shot
>that struck both JFK and JBC.

There you go again... citing WITNESSES when you claimed that the
Zapruder film was your source.

You prove to everyone that you were lying.

>>>> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
>>>> simple question for a cite.
>>>
>>>I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!
>>
>> No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
>> You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
>> that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
>> video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?
>
>That's inane even by your low standards.

Actually, it was DIRECTLY on point - and a VERY CLOSE analogy to the
claim you made.

>> Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
>> a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
>> another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
>> film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
>> MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?
>>
>> Answer the question - or admit that you LIED!!!
>
>I'll admit you're being an asshole.......AGAIN!!!

When all you have is a logical fallacy to a reasonable question -
you've merely shown the world that *YOU* know you got caught lying.

Clearly, you lied. There's no evidence WHATSOEVER on the extant
Z-film that can show which shot missed - or indeed, even how many
shots were fired. This is a fact... and one that proves you a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:58:13?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> FYI / FWIW....
>>

>> Here are some of my links ...

That you cannot support.

[Hank Sienzant]

If you change the word "shot" to "hit" in the passage below, I think you'll agree with Brittanica:

[Hank Sienzant]

Or more to the subject matter of this forum:

Is it a *historical fact* that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot and killed on 11/22/63 in Dallas, Texas?
Does "history" record that as known beyond any doubt?
Or is that everywhere just some people's opinion?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 06:49:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:09:14?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Huckster simply cannot admit that "history" can't judge or decide
anything.

[John Corbett]

I cited two witnesses, Connally and Bennett. Their accounts are public record. Are you claiming
I have lied about what they said. Because if you are, I'll be more than hope to provide quotes
from both of them and the source of those quotes and jam them up your fucking nose.

> >>>> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
> >>>> simple question for a cite.
> >>>
> >>>I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!
> >>
> >> No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
> >> You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
> >> that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
> >> video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?
> >
> >That's inane even by your low standards.
> Actually, it was DIRECTLY on point - and a VERY CLOSE analogy to the
> claim you made.

It's still inane.

> >> Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
> >> a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
> >> another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
> >> film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
> >> MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?
> >>
> >> Answer the question - or admit that you LIED!!!
> >
> >I'll admit you're being an asshole.......AGAIN!!!
> When all you have is a logical fallacy to a reasonable question -
> you've merely shown the world that *YOU* know you got caught lying.
>

There is nothing reasonable about your questions or your claims. All you do is play word
games because you lack the guts to ever say what you mean.

> Clearly, you lied. There's no evidence WHATSOEVER on the extant
> Z-film that can show which shot missed - or indeed, even how many
> shots were fired. This is a fact... and one that proves you a liar.

Of course the Z-film can't show which shot missed. There is no evidence of a missed shot
in the Z-film. The Z-film shows us two shots that hit, on of which hit both men and the Z-film
shows both of them reacting at the same instant, frame 226. A missed shot was determined
by the fact three spent shells were found in the sniper's nest and the consensus of witnesses
is there were three shots. The determination that it was the first shot that missed comes
from the statements of Connally and Bennett. Connally said the second shot hit him and
Bennett said he saw the second shot hit JFK in the back.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:46:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

You ASSERTED that it was the Zapruder film that showed this.
""Connally and Bennett" aren't the Z-film... You ADMIT you lied!!!

>>>>>> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
>>>>>> simple question for a cite.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!
>>>>
>>>> No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
>>>> You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
>>>> that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
>>>> video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?
>>>
>>>That's inane even by your low standards.
>> Actually, it was DIRECTLY on point - and a VERY CLOSE analogy to the
>> claim you made.
>
>It's still inane.

And the fact that you were forced to run shows that you're BEGINNING
to understand the lie you told.

>>>> Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
>>>> a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
>>>> another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
>>>> film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
>>>> MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question - or admit that you LIED!!!
>>>
>>>I'll admit you're being an asshole.......AGAIN!!!
>>
>> When all you have is a logical fallacy to a reasonable question -
>> you've merely shown the world that *YOU* know you got caught lying.
>>
>There is nothing reasonable about your questions or your claims.

**YOU** made the claim. I'm merely pointing out how silly it was.

>All you do is play word
>games because you lack the guts to ever say what you mean.

Why do you find it difficult to understand?

>> Clearly, you lied. There's no evidence WHATSOEVER on the extant
>> Z-film that can show which shot missed - or indeed, even how many
>> shots were fired. This is a fact... and one that proves you a liar.
>
>Of course the Z-film can't show which shot missed.

HEY MORON!!! THIS WAS **YOUR** CLAIM!!!

Good to see that you admit its a lie.

>There is no evidence of a missed shot in the Z-film.

Let's match that to YOUR previous assertion:

>Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
>to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that
>missed...

Sorry stupid, these two statements CANNOT be reconciled. One
ABSOLUTELY is untrue.


You lied.

It's that simple.

And it's truly amusing how many posts you had to go through to figure
that out.

[Hank Sienzant]

Why did you run from answering those three simple questions?

Is it a *historical fact* that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot and killed on 11/22/63 in Dallas, Texas?
Does "history" record that as known beyond any doubt?
Or is that everywhere just some people's opinion?

Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the nonsense that is his argument.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 12:29:33 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

I'll answer all three as soon as **YOU** quote the sentence that
precedied Chickenshit's "A,B,C,D" quote from the Autopsy Report (And
explain what it means)

But you're a proven coward, and will refuse to answer.

Yet demand answers from me that *DO NOT* refute what I stated.

> Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the
> nonsense that is his argument.

Apparently, Huckster can't answer ONE evidential question without
exposing a fellow believer's lie.

Answering *YOUR* questions will not show that "history" has the
ability to judge, make decisions, and decide anything at all. So
you're simply lying again, aren't you Huckster?

[John Corbett]

You're full of shit (but everyone already knows this). I have never made the claim
that the Z-film shows a missed shot. I said the Z-film shows the simultaneous reaction
of JFK and JBC to being hit by a single bullet. You can't refute what I have said so
you create strawman arguments and attribute them to me. This is your cue to delete
what I have just written and falsely claim it is logical fallacy because you have no
rebuttal.

You're such a chickenshit you deleted the rest of my response because if you had
repeated your previous lie, you knew I could do just what I said I would do. Below
is what you deleted:

"Their accounts are public record. Are you claiming I have lied about what they said.
Because if you are, I'll be more than hope to provide quotes from both of them and the
source of those quotes and jam them up your fucking nose."

Why did you delete that, chickenshit? Could it be that you knew I would make good on
my threat and thoroughly humiliate you........AGAIN!!!

> >
> >Of course the Z-film can't show which shot missed.
> HEY MORON!!! THIS WAS **YOUR** CLAIM!!!
>
> Good to see that you admit its a lie.

> Let's match that to YOUR previous assertion:
> >Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
> >to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that
> >missed...

There is a huge difference between concluding a missed shot and seeing evidence
for a missed shot in the Z-film. If all we had to go on was the Z-film, there would be
no evidence of a missed shot. But we aren't limited to the Z-film. We have earwitness
testimony of three shots and we have three spent shells. We have evidence that
JFK was hit twice and JBC once. The Z-film shows us JFK and JBC reacting at the
same time to being shot. It logically follows that if there were three shots and one bullet
hit two men and another bullet hit one man, then there was a shot that missed both
men. The observations of JBC and Agent Bennett as well as the observable reactions
of JBC and Rosemary Willis indicate to a thinking person that the first shot was the one
that missed.

> Sorry stupid, these two statements CANNOT be reconciled. One
> ABSOLUTELY is untrue.
>

I just reconciled them.
>
> You lied.
>
You are the liar.

> It's that simple.
>
Yes it is.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:54:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

"Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

Figure it out yet, liar?

[John Corbett]

Obviously, you haven't. It's a simple concept so there's no reason to think you could figure
it out. We have evidence of three shots from sources other than the Z-film. The Z-film,
along with recreations which showed JBC was aligned with JFK at the time JFK was hit in
the back, tells us one shot hit both men, and another shot hit JFK in the head. Three shots
minus two hits equals one miss.

Conspiracy hobbyists are always looking at the evidence in isolation so they think others
should do the same. Looking at one piece of evidence isn't going to tell you much anymore
than looking at one piece of a jigsaw puzzle. You have to put the pieces together to figure
out what the picture looks like. The pieces only go together one way. It's not a multiple
choice exercise.

Did I dumb it down enough so that you can understand. Probably not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:13:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 5:59:40?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:54:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 2:24:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:46:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:01:50?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 03:36:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:36:36?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

...

>>>>>> There you go again... citing WITNESSES when you claimed that the
>>>>>> Zapruder film was your source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You prove to everyone that you were lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>I cited two witnesses, Connally and Bennett
>>>>
>>>> You ASSERTED that it was the Zapruder film that showed this.
>>>> ""Connally and Bennett" aren't the Z-film... You ADMIT you lied!!!
>>>
>>>You're full of shit (but everyone already knows this). I have never made the claim
>>>that the Z-film shows a missed shot.
>>
>> "Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
>> to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that
>> missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ
>>

>> Figure it out yet, liar?
>
>Obviously, you haven't.

Did you make this statement:

> "Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are
> able to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that
> missed, but that was not a conclusion of the WCR."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XoznZRxR8MY/m/WV0JN0DJAgAJ

A simple "yes" or "no" is all that's needed.

[John Corbett]

I'll be glad t give you a "yes" but you're going to get more. I said we can CONCUDE from decades
of observing the Z-film that the first shot missed. That doesn't mean we can conclude that by
ONLY watching the Z-film. We reach that conclusion from what we see in the Z-film AND the
other things we know, that there were three shots, that JBC said the second shot him and
Bennett said the second shot hit JFK in the upper back. ALL of that has to be taken into
account to reach the conclusion that there was a missed shot and that it was the first shot.
You expect me to explain how I can conclude that ONLY from what the Z-film shows, which is
a position I have never taken, and it is dishonest of you to suggest I have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 15:46:23 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

More isn't needed. What were you able to "conclude" based on "the
luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film?

Quote what you ALREADY stated...

[John Corbett]

If I already state it, why do you need me to sate it again?
So you can delete it again?

[Hank Sienzant]

Yep. Ben does it again! Holds up a hoop and says “jump through this before I answer your questions”.

>
> But you're a proven coward, and will refuse to answer.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A,B,C,D reference above.
Some context would be nice. You putting forth an argument complete with citations to the evidence would be even better. Instead of any of that, I get a nebulous challenge.

>
> Yet demand answers from me that *DO NOT* refute what I stated.

They would, if you actually answered them. Or is everything just somebody’s opinion, and nothing is historically known?

> > Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the
> > nonsense that is his argument.
> Apparently, Huckster can't answer ONE evidential question without
> exposing a fellow believer's lie.
>
> Answering *YOUR* questions will not show that "history" has the
> ability to judge, make decisions, and decide anything at all. So
> you're simply lying again, aren't you Huckster?

Straw man argument. History is settled for certain things, whether you accept them or not.
Pretending it’s all just somebody’s opinion is beyond bizarre, but that’s your argument to date.

Here’s the line you took exception to: “He [Oswald] is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.”
To which you responded “Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.”

People write the history books, and some things are settled history. Again, whether you accept it or not. Or are even willing here to admit President Kennedy was killed in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

If you’re not even willing to admit that, what exactly are you arguing for here on this forum?

[Hank Sienzant]

So like all conspiracy theorists, you want to remove the context and look at some of the evidence in isolation from the other evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 19:30:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Lie, and assert that you don't understand what's happening...

You're a GUTLESS COWARD who CANNOT answer questions, yet demand that I
answer yours... even though I've PROVEN beyond all doubt that you
can't ask a question I can't answer credibly when it comes to the
evidence in this case.

>> But you're a proven coward, and will refuse to answer.

Remember folks, I predicted it.

> I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A,B,C,D reference above.
> Some context would be nice. You putting forth an argument complete
> with citations to the evidence would be even better. Instead of any of
> that, I get a nebulous challenge.

You're lying again, Huckster.

You're pretending senility... and pretending that it's only the fact
that I don't go into details that stops you from answering.

But you're simply showing yet again your dishonesty & cowardice.

>> Yet demand answers from me that *DO NOT* refute what I stated.
>
> They would, if you actually answered them. Or is everything just
> somebody’s opinion, and nothing is historically known?

Even *YOU* can't be stupid enough to think that the answers... ANY
answers... to your questions would show that "history" is capable of
thought, reasoning, and judgment.

But I **WILL** answer them in detail - provided you answer my
question.

>>> Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the
>>> nonsense that is his argument.
>>
>> Apparently, Huckster can't answer ONE evidential question without
>> exposing a fellow believer's lie.
>>
>> Answering *YOUR* questions will not show that "history" has the
>> ability to judge, make decisions, and decide anything at all. So
>> you're simply lying again, aren't you Huckster?
>
>Straw man argument.

NO STUPID!!! THIS IS **PRECISELY** WHAT WAS BEING ARGUED.

If you want to join in on an existing thread, you'll defend or reject
WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED.

No need to change the topic.


>History is settled for certain things, whether you accept them or not.]


Nope... not the topic.

>Pretending it’s all just somebody’s opinion is beyond bizarre, but that’s your argument to date.

Pretending that "history" has made some final judgment is beyond

bizarre, but that's your argument to date.


>Here’s the line you took exception to: “He [Oswald] is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.”
>To which you responded “Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.”

Amusingly, you demosntrate that the above was *NOT* a straw man, since
you clearly know the topic.

> People write the history books, and some things are settled history.
> Again, whether you accept it or not. Or are even willing here to admit
> President Kennedy was killed in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

Can you name this logical fallacy, Huckster?

> If you’re not even willing to admit that, what exactly are you
> arguing for here on this forum?

If you're not even willing to admit a *SINGLE SENTENCE* in arguably
the most important evidence in the entire case, what exactly are you
doing here?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:34:28 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

The fact that you couldn't shows that *YOU* know you lost.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 19:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Notice folks, who is ACTUALLY refusing to acknowledge the context!

ANSWER THE QUESTION BELOW, HUCKSTER!!!

>> What were you able to "conclude" based on "the
>> luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film?
>>
>> Quote what you ALREADY stated...

Huckster ran... he couldn't provide the answer... because the answer
would prove me right, and these cowards to be liars.

Huckster can't show from the extant Z-film which shot missed any more
than Corbutt could.

[John Corbett]

This is just Benny playing his little games and declaring he is winning.

Maybe we should chip in and buy him a sandbox.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 12:32:08 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

[Charles Schuyler]

He's not vaguely claiming that some people did something on 11/22/63. You are. Stop shifting the burden, little fella. If you want the men around here to take you seriously, you need to put something up for consideration. Your claim that unknown gunmen firing rifles of an unknown caliber from unspecified locations caused unspecified wounds on JFK and JBC before then disappearing in an unknown manner to points unknown, is your CLAIM, so you have the burden to carry. When will you start?

>
> Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
>
> Which makes who exactly the fool?

Climb on a stepladder and look in the mirror.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 13:35:32 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

Only comments and logical fallacies. We gain nothing from the above.

[Hank Sienzant]

Begged. I was away for about two months, and haven’t read everythin* posted in the interim. Nor do I intend to.

>
> You're a GUTLESS COWARD

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

> who CANNOT answer questions, yet demand that I
> answer yours...

You posted in this thread. I asked you to expand on your arguments. You refused, and changed the subject to something else entirely. This is a tactic of yours when you cannot respond to the points made.

> even though I've PROVEN beyond all doubt that you
> can't ask a question I can't answer credibly when it comes to the
> evidence in this case.

Begged.

> >> But you're a proven coward, and will refuse to answer.
> Remember folks, I predicted it.

Ad hominem, and begged question. I asked you for context. Instead of enlightening me, you insult me, and proclaim you are right. You don’t want to discuss the evidence. With every post you make, you establish you can’t discuss the evidence, as you avoid discussing it at every turn and instead just attack the poster.

> > I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A,B,C,D reference above.
> > Some context would be nice. You putting forth an argument complete
> > with citations to the evidence would be even better. Instead of any of
> > that, I get a nebulous challenge.
> You're lying again, Huckster.

You’re establishing you don’t want to discuss the evidence. Asked to post the context, you simply called me a liar.


>
> You're pretending senility...

More ad hominem, more avoiding clarifying your point and more avoiding discussing the evidence.

> and pretending that it's only the fact
> that I don't go into details that stops you from answering.

More attacking the messenger and avoiding discussing the evidence.

>
> But you're simply showing yet again your dishonesty & cowardice.

And more of the same.

> >> Yet demand answers from me that *DO NOT* refute what I stated.
> >
> > They would, if you actually answered them. Or is everything just
> > somebody’s opinion, and nothing is historically known?
> Even *YOU* can't be stupid enough to think that the answers... ANY
> answers... to your questions would show that "history" is capable of
> thought, reasoning, and judgment.
>
> But I **WILL** answer them in detail - provided you answer my
> question.

And more doubling down on your change of subject logical fallacy and demanding I jump through hoops A,B,C, and D before you’ll return to the topic under discussion.

> >>> Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the
> >>> nonsense that is his argument.
> >>
> >> Apparently, Huckster can't answer ONE evidential question without
> >> exposing a fellow believer's lie.
> >>
> >> Answering *YOUR* questions will not show that "history" has the
> >> ability to judge, make decisions, and decide anything at all. So
> >> you're simply lying again, aren't you Huckster?
> >
> >Straw man argument.
> NO STUPID!!! THIS IS **PRECISELY** WHAT WAS BEING ARGUED.
>
> If you want to join in on an existing thread, you'll defend or reject
> WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED.
>
> No need to change the topic.

You’re the one avoiding the topic and simply attacking the messenger.

>
>
> >History is settled for certain things, whether you accept them or not.]
>
>
> Nope... not the topic.

Yes, it is.

> >Pretending it’s all just somebody’s opinion is beyond bizarre, but that’s your argument to date.
> Pretending that "history" has made some final judgment is beyond
> bizarre, but that's your argument to date.

Again, does history record JFK was killed I. Dallas on 11/22/63, or not?

>
>
> >Here’s the line you took exception to: “He [Oswald] is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.”
> >To which you responded “Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.”
> Amusingly, you demosntrate that the above was *NOT* a straw man, since
> you clearly know the topic.

You are missing the point. Deliberately or otherwise. Which is why you refuse to answer those simple questions I advanced, and changed the subject.

> > People write the history books, and some things are settled history.
> > Again, whether you accept it or not. Or are even willing here to admit
> > President Kennedy was killed in Dallas on 11/22/1963.
> Can you name this logical fallacy, Huckster?

Begged question by Ben. Shifting the Burden by Ben. He asserts but does not establish a logical fallacy, and then asks me to name it.

Unlike Ben, I name his logical fallacies and point out why they are.

> > If you’re not even willing to admit that, what exactly are you
> > arguing for here on this forum?
> If you're not even willing to admit a *SINGLE SENTENCE* in arguably
> the most important evidence in the entire case, what exactly are you
> doing here?

Change of subject logical fallacy. Two wrongs make a right logical fallacy., also known as the Tu Quoque logical fallacy:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 18:08:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You were here, and have ALREADY responded to the topic.

So either you're senile, or your a liar. We already know you're a
liar, so it's simple.

>> You're a GUTLESS COWARD

>> who CANNOT answer questions, yet demand that I
>> answer yours...

>> even though I've PROVEN beyond all doubt that you
>> can't ask a question I can't answer credibly when it comes to the
>> evidence in this case.
>>

>>>> But you're a proven coward, and will refuse to answer.
>> Remember folks, I predicted it.

And Huckster supports my prediction!

>>> I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A,B,C,D reference above.
>>> Some context would be nice. You putting forth an argument complete
>>> with citations to the evidence would be even better. Instead of any of
>>> that, I get a nebulous challenge.
>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>

>You’re establishing ...


The FACT that you can't do what you demand of me...


>> You're pretending senility...

>> and pretending that it's only the fact
>> that I don't go into details that stops you from answering.

>> But you're simply showing yet again your dishonesty & cowardice.
>>

>>>> Yet demand answers from me that *DO NOT* refute what I stated.
>>>
>>> They would, if you actually answered them. Or is everything just
>>> somebody’s opinion, and nothing is historically known?
>> Even *YOU* can't be stupid enough to think that the answers... ANY
>> answers... to your questions would show that "history" is capable of
>> thought, reasoning, and judgment.
>>
>> But I **WILL** answer them in detail - provided you answer my
>> question.

Remember folks, I made the offer.

It's on Huckster...

>>>>> Apparently, Ben can't answer the questions without exposing the
>>>>> nonsense that is his argument.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, Huckster can't answer ONE evidential question without
>>>> exposing a fellow believer's lie.
>>>>
>>>> Answering *YOUR* questions will not show that "history" has the
>>>> ability to judge, make decisions, and decide anything at all. So
>>>> you're simply lying again, aren't you Huckster?
>>>
>>>Straw man argument.
>>
>> NO STUPID!!! THIS IS **PRECISELY** WHAT WAS BEING ARGUED.
>>
>> If you want to join in on an existing thread, you'll defend or reject
>> WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED.
>>
>> No need to change the topic.
>>

>>>History is settled for certain things, whether you accept them or not.
>>
>>
>> Nope... not the topic.
>
>Yes, it is.

Nope. You even QUOTED it below...

>>>Pretending it’s all just somebody’s opinion is beyond bizarre, but that’s your argument to date.
>>
>> Pretending that "history" has made some final judgment is beyond
>> bizarre, but that's your argument to date.
>>

>>>Here’s the line you took exception to: “He [Oswald] is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.”
>>>To which you responded “Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.”
>>
>> Amusingly, you demosntrate that the above was *NOT* a straw man, since
>> you clearly know the topic.
>
>You are missing the point.

And you are provably lying.

>>> People write the history books, and some things are settled history.
>>> Again, whether you accept it or not. Or are even willing here to admit
>>> President Kennedy was killed in Dallas on 11/22/1963.
>> Can you name this logical fallacy, Huckster?

Clearly not...

>>> If you’re not even willing to admit that, what exactly are you
>>> arguing for here on this forum?
>>
>> If you're not even willing to admit a *SINGLE SENTENCE* in arguably
>> the most important evidence in the entire case, what exactly are you
>> doing here?

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:36:36?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:46:24 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:13:55?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:07:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:23:14?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:05:14?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>>>>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>>>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>>>>>>>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>>>>>>>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>>>>>>> You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.

>>>>>>> Here’s another one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>>>>>>> Supported by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.
>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>>> Reporting history’s consensus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And guess what? They don’t care about your opinion.
>>>>>>> Neither does history.
>>>>>>> Rant and rail all you want, it won’t change the facts any.
>>>>>> They dropped the ball here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second shot is the SBT shot, not the first.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's amazing how many misconceptions there are about the shots. The reality is the WC
>>>>>never concluded which shot missed. They didn't think they had conclusive evidence...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And here comes the Dunning Kruger effect:

>>>>> Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able
>>>>> to conclude that it is almost certain it was the first shot that

>>>>> missed...
>>>>
>>>> Since only **ONE** shot can be matched to a frame - this moron will be
>>>> completely unable to explain why he knows more than the WC did.
>>>>
>>>On the contrary that is quite easy.
>> No, in fact, you DIDN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL!!!
>>

>> Here's what you said: "Given the luxury of decades of observation of

>> the Z-film, we are able to conclude that it is almost certain it was

>> the first shot that missed..."
>> Since only **ONE** shot can be definitively tied to a Z-frame - how
>> did you determine which shot missed???
>

> One clue is that the little girl stops running.


That is, AS YOU ADMIT... simply a clue.


> There is a bit of support outside the zfilm (Altgens photo,
> testimony, ect) that make it the most reasonable conclusion.


This has nothing to do with the claim, which designated the source of
the information AS THE ZAPRUDER FILM!!

Anything outside of the Z-film would not support the claim.

And surprising absolutely no-one - you were too afraid to cite any of
it... in other words, simply an empty claim. And we know from your
own words that we can consider empty claims to merely be lies.

>>>Thanks to David Von Pein's website, I was able to look at
>>>enhanced and stabilized Zapruder frames. DVP's website allowed me to toggle between frames
>>>224 and 225 and that revealed that at 225, JFK's right hand was still moving downward which
>>>means JFK had not reacted to being shot at 225. This dispelled a widely held belief that JFK
>>>was already reacting to having been shot when he first reappeared at 225. He had been shot
>>>by that time, but he had not started to react. That happened at the very next frame, 226, when
>>>JFK dramatically lifts his arms upward. In that same frame, we see JBC's right arm also
>>>dramatically jerky upward. Because the reaction came just one frame after JFK reappeared,
>>>the naked eye looking at an enhanced version of the film cannot detact that 1/18 second
>>>difference from when he reappeared and when he started to react.
>>>
>>>Had the WC been able to see what I and many others have seen in the enhanced frames, I have
>>>little doubt they would have concluded that JFK and JBC reacted at the same time to a single
>>>shot which struck both men a few milliseconds apart. Determining precisely when the single
>>>bullet struck is made difficult by the fact the Z-film only took 18 frame per second which is
>>>quite low by modern standards. Based on a startle reaction time of 200 milliseconds, we can
>>>say a reaction at 226 would indicate a strike in the 222-223 range.
>> All of this word vomit has **NOTHING** to do with your claim that you
>> have determined *WHICH* shot missed.
>>
>> You didn't address it AT ALL! Yet you claimed that you answered my
>> question.

Notice that Chickenshit couldn't acknowledge this simple fact.

>>>> And amusing that the topic changes when believers can't answer my
>>>> simple question for a cite.
>>>
>>>I just answered you inane question.......AGAIN!!!
>>
>> No moron, you didn't. Tell you what... let's INVENT a new scenario.
>> You have a video of Michael Jordan sinking a free throw. You are told
>> that he had three shots, and MISSED one of them. Based only on the
>> video showing *ONE* shot - which one missed?
>>

>> Let's go further - let's pretend that the beginning of the film shows
>> a basketball dropping from the hoop - thus providing good evidence for
>> another shot. So you reasonably know that the shot you see in the
>> film is preceeded by another successful shot. WHICH ONE OF THE THREE
>> MISSED? Was it the first one? Was it the third one?

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chickenshit couldn't answer the question...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 04:22:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:58:13?PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> FYI / FWIW....
>>
>> Here are some of my links which IMO deal fairly well with the subjects of "The 5.6 Seconds Myth" and "The Missed Shot" and "When Exactly Did The SBT Shot Occur?":
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/five-point-six-seconds-myth.html
>
>A very good analysis ...

And sadly, can't be supported in open forum against critical review...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 16:22:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 7:06:04?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:58:11 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >FYI / FWIW....
>> >

>> >Here are some of my links...
>>
>> Which you cannot support against critical review.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Why is that, coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:26:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:17:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:39:40?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:05:12 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>>>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>>>>>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>>>>>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>>You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.

>>>> That states that "history" can find people guilty... or do anything,
>>>> for that matter.
>>>
>>>One question. Do you think John Wilkes Booth is guilty of killing Abraham Lincoln?

>> Why do believers apparently believe they don't have the SAME
>> obligation to answer questions that they foist on critics?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You ***N E V E R*** answer questions, and you just keep right on
>> asking 'em.
>
> You questions are usually loaded or begged...


Actually, my questions most often are simply asking you to support the
empty claims you make.

Such as this one - asking for a citation to this mythical "history"
that can think and judge.



Logical fallacy deleted.


>> Even when the answer to *YOUR* question wouldn't show me wrong in
>> demanding a cite you can't provide.
>>
>> Answer a question, and I'll be happy to answer yours.
>>
>> Run like a coward, and I'll merely point it out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:48:12?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:17:40?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 5:07:11?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:23:14?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>>>>>> On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 4:05:14?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 10:52:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:37:24 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:34:13?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:17:38 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
>>>>>>>>>> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And Oswald isn't guilty of killing JFK and Tippit, LEGALLY. He
>>>>>>>>>>> never had his day in court. He is, however, guilty HISTORICALLY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cite for this mythical "History" that finds people guilty.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Will you accept the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a valid source reporting history’s consensus?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>>>> No moron. You are EVADING the issue I raised. I didn't ask for yet
>>>>>>>> more sources spouting the same WCR nonsense, I asked for a citation
>>>>>>>> that supports a mythical "history" that makes decisions.
>>>>>>> You asked for a source that rises above mere opinion.

>>>>>>> Here’s another one: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>>>>>>> Supported by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence.
>>>>>>>>>> Cite ANYTHING AT ALL that rises above mere opinion.
>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
>>>>>>> Reporting history’s consensus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And guess what? They don’t care about your opinion.
>>>>>>> Neither does history.
>>>>>>> Rant and rail all you want, it won’t change the facts any.
>>>>>> They dropped the ball here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second shot is the SBT shot, not the first.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's amazing how many misconceptions there are about the shots. The reality is the WC

>>>>> never concluded which shot missed. They didn't think they had conclusive evidence. For
>>>>> many years, the popular misconception was that the second shot missed and all three
>>>>> shots were fired in 5.6 seconds. The WC did consider that a possibility, but did not commit
>>>>> to it. Oliver Stone was particularly duplicitous on this point. In the scene in which Kevin
>>>>> Costner and his aide recreated the shooting, Costner supposedly timed the three shots at
>>>>> over 7 seconds and the aide said Oswald couldn't have fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds, which
>>>>> would only have been a requirement if the second shot missed. Then the aide falsely
>>>>> claimed the WC concluded the first shot missed, which the WC never did. What Stone
>>>>> did was conflate two mutually exclusive scenarios and present both as conclusions of
>>>>> the WC. Given the luxury of decades of observation of the Z-film, we are able to conclude

>>>>> that it is almost certain it was the first shot that missed, but that was not a conclusion of
>>>>> the WCR.

>>>> The problem is that this source (Brittannica) is placing the SBT as the first shot.
>>>
>>>Yup, and that for years was widely believed to be the WC's conclusion which it never was.
>> Amusingly, this cite was given as a "valid source reporting history’s
>> consensus." Now you're pointiing out that it's wrong.
>>
>> YOU'RE POINTING OUT THAT "HISTORY" IS WRONG!!
>
> Wrong.


You're lying again Chickenshit.


>> You've just shot yourself in the foot.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!