info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ben Can`t Reason
163 views
Skip to first unread message
Bud
Feb 24, 2023, 2:52:58 PM2/24/23
to
I`ve been thinking about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
"the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of anything your ideas suggest.
Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
Ben wrote...
"Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a crime Ben does not establish).
Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their ideas to be valid.
Ben also wrote...
"This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
of evidence in a murder case."
Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition". And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of evidence.
Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea, it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo. But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what actually occurred.
So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it). So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to highlight the activity.
Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the investigation in any way.
Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting on of the bubble top.
Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster put it...
"Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
"the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of anything your ideas suggest.
Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
Ben wrote...
"Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a crime Ben does not establish).
Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their ideas to be valid.
Ben also wrote...
"This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
of evidence in a murder case."
Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition". And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of evidence.
Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea, it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo. But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what actually occurred.
So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it). So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to highlight the activity.
Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the investigation in any way.
Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting on of the bubble top.
Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster put it...
"Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
Ben Holmes
Feb 24, 2023, 3:47:40 PM2/24/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>I`ve been thinking...
Does it hurt?
wrote:
>I`ve been thinking...
Does it hurt?
Bud
Feb 24, 2023, 3:51:56 PM2/24/23
to
Bud
Feb 24, 2023, 6:36:28 PM2/24/23
to
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> I`ve been thinking about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>
> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>
> Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of anything your ideas suggest.
>
> Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>
> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>
> Ben wrote...
>
> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>
> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a crime Ben does not establish).
>
> Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their ideas to be valid.
>
> Ben also wrote...
>
> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
> of evidence in a murder case."
>
> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition". And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of evidence.
>
> Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea, it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo. But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what actually occurred.
Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of reasoning I might as well expand on a few things here. A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was done to obstruct anyone from finding out what actually occurred is the larger idea that the *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter. Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy. It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s consideration to such a plan. Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
> I`ve been thinking about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>
> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>
> Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of anything your ideas suggest.
>
> Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>
> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>
> Ben wrote...
>
> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>
> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a crime Ben does not establish).
>
> Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their ideas to be valid.
>
> Ben also wrote...
>
> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
> of evidence in a murder case."
>
> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition". And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of evidence.
>
> Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea, it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo. But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what actually occurred.
This is the real reason conspiracy hobbyists will never put their ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could only get more absurd with every sentence.
David Von Pein
Feb 24, 2023, 8:46:25 PM2/24/23
to
BUD SAID:
The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
DVP SAID (IN 2005):
I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
DVP SAID (IN 2005):
I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
Bud
Feb 24, 2023, 9:34:25 PM2/24/23
to
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
>
>
> DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>
> I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their families would be disgraced.
> BUD SAID:
>
> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
>
>
> DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>
> I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
> Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
Charles Schuyler
Feb 24, 2023, 11:46:57 PM2/24/23
to
How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!) from the idea that JFK survived Dallas and made his way to Argentina to finish out his days with Adolph Hitler, who had secretly made his way out Berlin in 1945? How far removed is the idea that LBJ ordered the hit on JFK (another Holmes assassination staple) from the idea that Bobby Kennedy co-planned it with LBJ out of jealousy over his brother's accomplishments, and that after he had second doubts, LBJ ordered Bobby killed, too?
Then again, there is a group of 9/11 Truthers called "No Planers" who seriously argue that no planes hit the WTCs or Pentagon. Bud, you follow chess a little bit. GM Ben Finegold (popular YouTube chess content creator) has an ex-wife who is married, arguably, to the smartest man in the world (or at least in the United States) and he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and believes all of the Truther craziness. Smartest. Man. In. The. World.
It's more proof that people like Ben Holmes can't be reached with logic or understand the concept of the burden of proof, etc. There is something visceral going on with the JFK assassination (and 9/11) that defies the ability for those caught in the grips of this conspiracism to weigh just how untenable all of this is.
Bud
Feb 25, 2023, 7:59:17 AM2/25/23
to
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:46:57 PM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:34:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BUD SAID:
> > >
> > > The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
> > >
> > >
> > > DVP SAID (IN 2005):
> > >
> > > I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> > And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their families would be disgraced.
> > > Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
> > In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
> > > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
> > They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst option.
> > > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
> > As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
> > > From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
> > >
> > > More:
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
> Not to mention the "JFK's body was diverted/kidnapped/put into a different coffin" bit that Ben buys into, courtesy of one of his buff heroes, Doug Horne, who is also somewhat a Liftonite. Imagine--separate from the goofy conspiracy they refuse to detail--an entire separate special ops type team that had the capability to swoop in somehow between Parkland and Bethesda (or any other unknown at the time place JFK would've been taken to for emergency care or the autopsy) and with pinpoint precision pull off what had to be the most brazen body snatch of all-time. Was it pre-planned? How? Was it put together ad hoc when the plotters realized they needed to "alter" wounds because the first shot missed and everyone in the plaza who was part of the kill team let loose with additional shots from the knoll, storm sewer, Dal-Tex building, "south knoll", triple underpass, and so on? How is any of this achievable? Dave Powers flat-out says the idea of JFK's coffin being swiped or swapped out or JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the entire time. No mind. Perhaps Powers was unwittingly slipped some sort of memory-erasing "mickey" developed by Judyth Vary Baker and David Ferrie that was going to be used against Castro but instead was employed against JFK's guard detail, enabling the body snatchers team to pull of their incredible mission.
And Ben says the conspiracy consisted of a handful of people, but has conspiracy activity going on everywhere. They have a Chihuahua pulling a dogsled and they keep heaping weight on it with no regard whether the sled can ever move.
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:34:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BUD SAID:
> > >
> > > The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
> > >
> > >
> > > DVP SAID (IN 2005):
> > >
> > > I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> > And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their families would be disgraced.
> > > Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
> > In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
> > > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
> > They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst option.
> > > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
> > As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
> > > From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
> > >
> > > More:
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
> Not to mention the "JFK's body was diverted/kidnapped/put into a different coffin" bit that Ben buys into, courtesy of one of his buff heroes, Doug Horne, who is also somewhat a Liftonite. Imagine--separate from the goofy conspiracy they refuse to detail--an entire separate special ops type team that had the capability to swoop in somehow between Parkland and Bethesda (or any other unknown at the time place JFK would've been taken to for emergency care or the autopsy) and with pinpoint precision pull off what had to be the most brazen body snatch of all-time. Was it pre-planned? How? Was it put together ad hoc when the plotters realized they needed to "alter" wounds because the first shot missed and everyone in the plaza who was part of the kill team let loose with additional shots from the knoll, storm sewer, Dal-Tex building, "south knoll", triple underpass, and so on? How is any of this achievable? Dave Powers flat-out says the idea of JFK's coffin being swiped or swapped out or JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the entire time. No mind. Perhaps Powers was unwittingly slipped some sort of memory-erasing "mickey" developed by Judyth Vary Baker and David Ferrie that was going to be used against Castro but instead was employed against JFK's guard detail, enabling the body snatchers team to pull of their incredible mission.
> How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!) from the idea that JFK survived Dallas and made his way to Argentina to finish out his days with Adolph Hitler, who had secretly made his way out Berlin in 1945? How far removed is the idea that LBJ ordered the hit on JFK (another Holmes assassination staple) from the idea that Bobby Kennedy co-planned it with LBJ out of jealousy over his brother's accomplishments, and that after he had second doubts, LBJ ordered Bobby killed, too?
>
> Then again, there is a group of 9/11 Truthers called "No Planers" who seriously argue that no planes hit the WTCs or Pentagon. Bud, you follow chess a little bit. GM Ben Finegold (popular YouTube chess content creator)
https://youtu.be/FpGkP19-GtQ
> has an ex-wife who is married, arguably, to the smartest man in the world (or at least in the United States)
> and he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and believes all of the Truther craziness. Smartest. Man. In. The. World.
Charles Schuyler
Feb 25, 2023, 11:13:26 AM2/25/23
to
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 6:59:17 AM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:46:57 PM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:34:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BUD SAID:
> > > >
> > > > The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DVP SAID (IN 2005):
> > > >
> > > > I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> > > And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their families would be disgraced.
> > > > Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
> > > In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
> > > > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
> > > They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst option.
> > > > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
> > > As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
> > > > From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
> > > >
> > > > More:
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
> > Not to mention the "JFK's body was diverted/kidnapped/put into a different coffin" bit that Ben buys into, courtesy of one of his buff heroes, Doug Horne, who is also somewhat a Liftonite. Imagine--separate from the goofy conspiracy they refuse to detail--an entire separate special ops type team that had the capability to swoop in somehow between Parkland and Bethesda (or any other unknown at the time place JFK would've been taken to for emergency care or the autopsy) and with pinpoint precision pull off what had to be the most brazen body snatch of all-time. Was it pre-planned? How? Was it put together ad hoc when the plotters realized they needed to "alter" wounds because the first shot missed and everyone in the plaza who was part of the kill team let loose with additional shots from the knoll, storm sewer, Dal-Tex building, "south knoll", triple underpass, and so on? How is any of this achievable? Dave Powers flat-out says the idea of JFK's coffin being swiped or swapped out or JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the entire time. No mind. Perhaps Powers was unwittingly slipped some sort of memory-erasing "mickey" developed by Judyth Vary Baker and David Ferrie that was going to be used against Castro but instead was employed against JFK's guard detail, enabling the body snatchers team to pull of their incredible mission.
> And Ben says the conspiracy consisted of a handful of people, but has conspiracy activity going on everywhere. They have a Chihuahua pulling a dogsled and they keep heaping weight on it with no regard whether the sled can ever move.
> > How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!) from the idea that JFK survived Dallas and made his way to Argentina to finish out his days with Adolph Hitler, who had secretly made his way out Berlin in 1945? How far removed is the idea that LBJ ordered the hit on JFK (another Holmes assassination staple) from the idea that Bobby Kennedy co-planned it with LBJ out of jealousy over his brother's accomplishments, and that after he had second doubts, LBJ ordered Bobby killed, too?
> >
> > Then again, there is a group of 9/11 Truthers called "No Planers" who seriously argue that no planes hit the WTCs or Pentagon. Bud, you follow chess a little bit. GM Ben Finegold (popular YouTube chess content creator)
> Never came across him.
Good player, but a raging Lib. He'd be better off just playing chess and ignoring the politics.
> On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 11:46:57 PM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:34:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BUD SAID:
> > > >
> > > > The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DVP SAID (IN 2005):
> > > >
> > > > I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> > > And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their families would be disgraced.
> > > > Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
> > > In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
> > > > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived of this plot?
> > > They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst option.
> > > > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off frame-the-lone-patsy plot really NOT consider the possibility of ALL SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza anyway)?
> > > As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
> > > > From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would consider carrying out.
> > > >
> > > > More:
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/patsy-plot-silliness-part-1.html
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html
> > Not to mention the "JFK's body was diverted/kidnapped/put into a different coffin" bit that Ben buys into, courtesy of one of his buff heroes, Doug Horne, who is also somewhat a Liftonite. Imagine--separate from the goofy conspiracy they refuse to detail--an entire separate special ops type team that had the capability to swoop in somehow between Parkland and Bethesda (or any other unknown at the time place JFK would've been taken to for emergency care or the autopsy) and with pinpoint precision pull off what had to be the most brazen body snatch of all-time. Was it pre-planned? How? Was it put together ad hoc when the plotters realized they needed to "alter" wounds because the first shot missed and everyone in the plaza who was part of the kill team let loose with additional shots from the knoll, storm sewer, Dal-Tex building, "south knoll", triple underpass, and so on? How is any of this achievable? Dave Powers flat-out says the idea of JFK's coffin being swiped or swapped out or JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the entire time. No mind. Perhaps Powers was unwittingly slipped some sort of memory-erasing "mickey" developed by Judyth Vary Baker and David Ferrie that was going to be used against Castro but instead was employed against JFK's guard detail, enabling the body snatchers team to pull of their incredible mission.
> And Ben says the conspiracy consisted of a handful of people, but has conspiracy activity going on everywhere. They have a Chihuahua pulling a dogsled and they keep heaping weight on it with no regard whether the sled can ever move.
> > How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!) from the idea that JFK survived Dallas and made his way to Argentina to finish out his days with Adolph Hitler, who had secretly made his way out Berlin in 1945? How far removed is the idea that LBJ ordered the hit on JFK (another Holmes assassination staple) from the idea that Bobby Kennedy co-planned it with LBJ out of jealousy over his brother's accomplishments, and that after he had second doubts, LBJ ordered Bobby killed, too?
> >
> > Then again, there is a group of 9/11 Truthers called "No Planers" who seriously argue that no planes hit the WTCs or Pentagon. Bud, you follow chess a little bit. GM Ben Finegold (popular YouTube chess content creator)
> Never came across him.
>This came up in my recommended yesterday, Alexandra Botez beat Magnus Carlsen (of course she had 5 minutes and he had 30 seconds). I think it helped her that Magnus` feed was muted, the chess bros couldn`t get into her head...
>
> https://youtu.be/FpGkP19-GtQ
> > has an ex-wife who is married, arguably, to the smartest man in the world (or at least in the United States)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
> > and he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and believes all of the Truther craziness. Smartest. Man. In. The. World.
> He believes in the replacement theory, so he isn`t too wacky.
Lol. True. Dems have been pushing the idea that the "browning" of America is going to create a Democrat super majority for years, and when Republicans point this belief they have out, Dems scream, "Racists!" Watch the Dems turn on a dime about open borders when they learn Hispanics are swinging towards Republicans.
> https://youtu.be/FpGkP19-GtQ
> > has an ex-wife who is married, arguably, to the smartest man in the world (or at least in the United States)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
> > and he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and believes all of the Truther craziness. Smartest. Man. In. The. World.
> He believes in the replacement theory, so he isn`t too wacky.
Bud
Feb 25, 2023, 11:52:49 AM2/25/23
to
> > https://youtu.be/FpGkP19-GtQ
> > > has an ex-wife who is married, arguably, to the smartest man in the world (or at least in the United States)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
> > > and he believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and believes all of the Truther craziness. Smartest. Man. In. The. World.
>
> > He believes in the replacement theory, so he isn`t too wacky.
> Lol. True. Dems have been pushing the idea that the "browning" of America is going to create a Democrat super majority for years, and when Republicans point this belief they have out, Dems scream, "Racists!" Watch the Dems turn on a dime about open borders when they learn Hispanics are swinging towards Republicans.
And it isn`t just here, the EU and America has been pressuring countries like Hungary and Poland to let in millions of brown muslims. They have resisted, and have been punished by the EU for not playing the game as dictated by the globalists. It seems the US is going to eventually facilitate regime change in Hungary doesn`t fall in line and play ball. After all, who are they to decide what is best for their countries?
https://youtu.be/o9aTTFtErbs
The race card being played against Hungary...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarys-orban-says-his-anti-immigration-stance-not-rooted-racism-after-backlash-2022-07-28/
Hank Sienzant
Feb 25, 2023, 1:01:46 PM2/25/23
to
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
== quote =
>Why was the secret service agent cleaning out the back of the
>limousine at Parkland hospital in full view of camermen [sic] and
>eyewitnesses?
Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence.
No evidence is provided that any Secret Service agent was "cleaning out the back of the limousine at Parkland hospital". It's an allegation that has reached mythical status among CTs and even accepted by some LNers as true, but has never been established as fact.
I'd ask Ben to establish it, but we all know he won't.
A photo of a bucket aside the limo doesn't establish it, as a bucket can be used to hold other things besides water - like the nuts & bolts for attaching the plexiglass bubbletop to the limo. If that is what the Secret Service was using the bucket for, utilizing the bucket as a temporary storage bin while attaching the bubbletop, they were - ironically enough - *preserving the evidence* - not destroying it as Conspiracy Theorists allege.
The photo linked above does show the Secret Service in the process of attaching the bubbletop to the limo. Here it is again.
https://postlmg.cc/5QtnWJpZ
And more irony - Ben's post is entitled "The Incredible STUPIDITY Of Believers..."
He's the believer in this case.
He assumes what he needs to prove throughout his posts.
And a further irony, the begged question was pointed out back in 2009 by "Drummist1965" (Steve Barber?) in the original thread here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/kFAnH2w2j_0/m/s_HadN_HKFUJ
although he offers a different explanation for what the Secret Service agent is doing in the car.
"Tomnln" here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/kFAnH2w2j_0/m/Ou7qc9-03BEJ
claims the evidence establishes "Parkland employees were Ordered to bring a bucket of water to 'Wash out the Limo'
SEE Volume XXI pages 217-226."
But "Tomnln" of course quotes out of context and neglects to mention that Shirley Randall (the person so ordered) goes on to say she was so excited and nervous she forgot all about it.
We can see that here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0121a.htm
It's all a chimera. The allegation is assumed as true, and conspiracy theorists accept it as true without ever checking into the veracity of the assertion (as we see Ben doing in his recent response to the 2009 thread).
I will caution everyone of either persuasion again to NOT accept anything that conspiracy theorists claim without verifying it, no matter how innocuous the claim appears. This is another example of an assertion assumed to be factual but never established as true..
Bud
Feb 25, 2023, 2:04:42 PM2/25/23
to
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0aNnn_azSts/m/eHU92DgU0q0J
This is an except from those exchanges....
"Then, further searching found this that fairly settles the matter
for me...
The Infamous Day in Dallas by Hugh Sidey
"The backseat of President John F. Kennedy`s limousine was a leather
pit of horror, flecked with bits of flesh and a crust of drying blood
that a grim young Secret Service agent was trying to wipe up with a
sponge. He seemed hesitant, cowed by the task. On the front seat lay
the crushed red roses that Jackie Kennedy had been carrying. It was a
certain and brutal end to a national drama, but none of the people
milling around on the driveway of Parkland Hospital that day wanted to
allow the curtain to fall. yet we knew it had.
I recall staring down into that miserable, tiny abbatoir..."
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2023, 9:06:27 AM2/27/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> reasoning
And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
> I might as well expand on a few things here.
Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
*************************************************
But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
*************************************************
Has anyone seen a *credible* explanation for htis wacky reasoning?
> A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was
> done to obstruct anyone from finding out what actually occurred...
That's the reason that it's considered a crime.
> is the larger idea that the *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill
> Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has
> remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter.
This has been answered so many times that one begins to wonder if
Chickenshit has memory problems as well as reasoning problems.
> Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy.
And the reason why guns were pulled on doctors at Parkland who wanted
to do the autopsy there as mandated by Texas law.
> It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s
> consideration to such a plan.
It's hard for *YOU* to imagine. But it worked, didn't it?
> Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure
> that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a
> thousand different ways.
How silly!!!
Take a look at Hilary Clinton - she violated federal law and exposed
American secrets to foreign hackers...
I don't see *her* in jail.
> This is the real reason conspiracy hobbyists will never put their
> ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could
> only get more absurd with every sentence.
The only thing you can argue are these mythical wacky ideas that
critics are afraid to post publicly.
Meanwhile, no-one can critcize *YOUR* scenario - you're afraid to post
it and cite for it.
You lose!
wrote:
> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> reasoning
> I might as well expand on a few things here.
POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
*************************************************
But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
*************************************************
Has anyone seen a *credible* explanation for htis wacky reasoning?
> A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was
That's the reason that it's considered a crime.
> is the larger idea that the *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill
> Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has
> remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter.
Chickenshit has memory problems as well as reasoning problems.
> Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy.
to do the autopsy there as mandated by Texas law.
> It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s
> consideration to such a plan.
> Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure
> that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a
> thousand different ways.
Take a look at Hilary Clinton - she violated federal law and exposed
American secrets to foreign hackers...
I don't see *her* in jail.
> This is the real reason conspiracy hobbyists will never put their
> ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could
> only get more absurd with every sentence.
critics are afraid to post publicly.
Meanwhile, no-one can critcize *YOUR* scenario - you're afraid to post
it and cite for it.
You lose!
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2023, 9:06:31 AM2/27/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
> I`ve been thinking
And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>
> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
Nothing wrong so far.
But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
> Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>
> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>
> Ben wrote...
>
> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>
> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged
> with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a
> crime Ben does not establish).
You're simply lying again, Chickenshit. I was **NOT** making any
argument, I was answering a question... and a quite reasonable answer
it was - you've been unable to touch it.
Indeed, you're forced to blatantly LIE about it here. Removing the
context, and pretending I said something I never said.
This is a constant theme for you - always LYING about what I've said,
and unable to quote me.
> Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it
> assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do
> anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their
> ideas to be valid.
Yep... everyone knows that the conspirators were going to tell
everyone what they did.
Not.
> Ben also wrote...
>
> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
>of evidence in a murder case."
>
> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition".
Which textbook would you accept as evidence? **ANYONE** who's not a
moron can Google the topic, and read as much as they want to know
about it.
> And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of
> evidence.
They all had law degrees, they were't ignorant.
> Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea,
Actually, I'm quite specific. Chickenshit just doesn't like it that
I'm not spouting wild-raving lunatic ideas, so he has to PRETEND that
I'm thinking them.
> it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo.
You're simply lying again. The proof that you're lying is a simple
one, I've challenged you time and time again to post your scenario, so
we could see *YOUR* definition of what you expect to see critics post.
You refuse.
Repeatedly.
And that fact says it all. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post anything, you
just whine about anything I post.
> But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the
> limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what
> actually occurred.
Hence "criminal."
> So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that
> Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for
> the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it).
They were.
> So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone
> with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave
> the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair
> if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because
> the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better
> not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to
> highlight the activity.
I can give you the name of a Secret Service Agent who provably was
*NOT* involved. He was scheduled to work that day, and was told to
stay at the airport.
> Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous
> risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that
> could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the
> investigation in any way.
And Chckenshit can't answer this question:
(I deleted it.)
Since he can't answer it, the question *HE* raised is demonstrated to
be something only a moron who can't reason would raise.
> Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there
> was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting
> on of the bubble top.
Nor was it being washed when it was driving on the Parkway... what's
your point, if any?
> Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea
> and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster
> put it...
That's what someone incapable of reasoning might think.
> "Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless
> assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
What has changed? What evidence did you offer a credible explanation
for? You can't answer.
wrote:
> I`ve been thinking
And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>
> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
> Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct
> context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of
> anything your ideas suggest.
Word salad.
> context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of
> anything your ideas suggest.
> Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>
> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>
> Ben wrote...
>
> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>
> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged
> with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a
> crime Ben does not establish).
argument, I was answering a question... and a quite reasonable answer
it was - you've been unable to touch it.
Indeed, you're forced to blatantly LIE about it here. Removing the
context, and pretending I said something I never said.
This is a constant theme for you - always LYING about what I've said,
and unable to quote me.
> Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it
> assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do
> anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their
> ideas to be valid.
everyone what they did.
Not.
> Ben also wrote...
>
> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
>of evidence in a murder case."
>
> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition".
moron can Google the topic, and read as much as they want to know
about it.
> And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of
> evidence.
> Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea,
I'm not spouting wild-raving lunatic ideas, so he has to PRETEND that
I'm thinking them.
> it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo.
one, I've challenged you time and time again to post your scenario, so
we could see *YOUR* definition of what you expect to see critics post.
You refuse.
Repeatedly.
And that fact says it all. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post anything, you
just whine about anything I post.
> But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the
> limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what
> actually occurred.
> So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that
> Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for
> the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it).
> So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone
> with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave
> the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair
> if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because
> the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better
> not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to
> highlight the activity.
*NOT* involved. He was scheduled to work that day, and was told to
stay at the airport.
> Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous
> risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that
> could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the
> investigation in any way.
(I deleted it.)
Since he can't answer it, the question *HE* raised is demonstrated to
be something only a moron who can't reason would raise.
> Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there
> was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting
> on of the bubble top.
your point, if any?
> Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea
> and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster
> put it...
> "Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless
> assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
for? You can't answer.
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2023, 9:06:33 AM2/27/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:46:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>BUD SAID:
>
> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a
> single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person
> giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost
> certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different
> ways.
And yet, they succeeded. Depite the errors that *DID* occur.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>BUD SAID:
>
> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a
> single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person
> giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost
> certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different
> ways.
Jackie insisting that they take the ambulance is one example where
everything almost fell apart.
>DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>
> I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee
> Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon
> the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing
> through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown
> plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that
> featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
> Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these
> plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such
> a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize
> three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL
> be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short
> 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming
> from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
die. **THAT** was the primary concern.
They succeeded.
> Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
> pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
> Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue
> someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
> President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived
> of this plot?
described essentially what happened.
People were threatened with guns... you can't explain that fact. The
S.S. agents violently forced JFK's body out of the one place a
legitimate (and legal) autopsy would have been performed - AND YOU
CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THAT FACT.
And you won't even try...
You lose.
> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
> frame-the-lone-patsy plot
see.
> really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
> SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
> President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
> anyway)?
planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
the "investigation?"
> From a PRE-November 22nd point-of-view, any "patsy" plot that
> involves multiple gunmen firing at the VERY SAME TARGET from a variety
> of different directions is a plot that only a crazy person would
> consider carrying out.
eyes to the evidence that shows this.
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2023, 9:06:36 AM2/27/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 20:46:56 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> Not to mention ...
Then don't mention it.
> JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the
> entire time.
A statement you cannot support with evidence.
> How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret
> autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!)
Hey moron - the HISTORICAL autopsy took place **AFTER** the
pre-autopsy autopsy.
Your argument doesn't make any sense! You can't reason...
> It's more proof that people like Ben Holmes can't be reached with
> logic or understand the concept of the burden of proof, etc.
What time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
The fact that you and every other believer refuses to answer this, and
support it with evidence, shows that *YOU* Know you lost.
> There is something visceral going on with the JFK assassination (and
> 9/11) that defies the ability for those caught in the grips of this
> conspiracism to weigh just how untenable all of this is.
If this were true, you wouldn't be afraid of the evidence.
But you run.
EVER
SINGLE
TIME
(Just as you will again this time too!)
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
> Not to mention ...
Then don't mention it.
> JFK's body being removed is impossible because it was watched the
> entire time.
> How far removed is the idea that JFK's body was stolen for a secret
> autopsy to alter wounds (after rigor mortis had began to set in!)
pre-autopsy autopsy.
Your argument doesn't make any sense! You can't reason...
> It's more proof that people like Ben Holmes can't be reached with
> logic or understand the concept of the burden of proof, etc.
The fact that you and every other believer refuses to answer this, and
support it with evidence, shows that *YOU* Know you lost.
> There is something visceral going on with the JFK assassination (and
> 9/11) that defies the ability for those caught in the grips of this
> conspiracism to weigh just how untenable all of this is.
But you run.
EVER
SINGLE
TIME
(Just as you will again this time too!)
Ben Holmes
Feb 27, 2023, 9:06:52 AM2/27/23
to
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 10:01:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worse yet, the initial question (repeated below) is begged:
>
>== quote =
>>Why was the secret service agent cleaning out the back of the
>>limousine at Parkland hospital in full view of camermen [sic] and
>>eyewitnesses?
>
>Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence.
>== unquote ==
You'll have to address your complaint to Steve.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Worse yet, the initial question (repeated below) is begged:
>
>== quote =
>>Why was the secret service agent cleaning out the back of the
>>limousine at Parkland hospital in full view of camermen [sic] and
>>eyewitnesses?
>
>Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence.
>== unquote ==
>
> No evidence is provided that any Secret Service agent was "cleaning
> out the back of the limousine at Parkland hospital". It's an
> allegation that has reached mythical status among CTs and even
> accepted by some LNers as true, but has never been established as
> fact.
Secret Service attempted to clean out the limo. Tell us Huckster, are
you a stupid enough liar to publicly say this?
>I'd ask Ben to establish it, but we all know he won't.
> A photo of a bucket aside the limo doesn't establish it
Are you really stupid enough to post that the "photo of a bucket" is
all the evidence there is that the Secret Service attempted to wash
out the limo???
If so, say it right here... don't hide your beliefs - post 'em for all
to laugh at...
Bud
Feb 27, 2023, 1:57:54 PM2/27/23
to
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> > reasoning
> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
How so?
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> > Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> > reasoning
> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
> > I might as well expand on a few things here.
> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
>
> *************************************************
> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>
> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>
> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>
> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
> *************************************************
> Has anyone seen a *credible* explanation for htis wacky reasoning?
> > A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was
> > done to obstruct anyone from finding out what actually occurred...
>
>
> That's the reason that it's considered a crime.
> > is the larger idea that the *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill
> > Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has
> > remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter.
> This has been answered so many times that one begins to wonder if
> Chickenshit has memory problems as well as reasoning problems.
> > Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy.
> And the reason why guns were pulled on doctors at Parkland who wanted
> to do the autopsy there as mandated by Texas law.
> > It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s
> > consideration to such a plan.
> It's hard for *YOU* to imagine. But it worked, didn't it?
> > Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure
> > that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a
> > thousand different ways.
> How silly!!!
>
> Take a look at Hilary Clinton - she violated federal law and exposed
> American secrets to foreign hackers...
>
> I don't see *her* in jail.
> > This is the real reason conspiracy hobbyists will never put their
> > ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could
> > only get more absurd with every sentence.
> The only thing you can argue are these mythical wacky ideas that
> critics are afraid to post publicly.
> Meanwhile, no-one can critcize *YOUR* scenario -
Bud
Feb 27, 2023, 2:27:19 PM2/27/23
to
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I`ve been thinking
>
> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
Yes, I was thinking about whether it was worth the bother.
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I`ve been thinking
>
> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
> > about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
> > something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
> > starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
> >
> > "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
> Nothing wrong so far.
> But let's take a look at CE399...
Let us instead focus on the points I made.
>*PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>
> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>
> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
> > Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct
> > context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of
> > anything your ideas suggest.
> Word salad.
> > Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
> >
> > Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
> >
> > Ben wrote...
> >
> > "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
> >
> > This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged
> > with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a
> > crime Ben does not establish).
> You're simply lying again, Chickenshit. I was **NOT** making any
> argument, I was answering a question... and a quite reasonable answer
> it was - you've been unable to touch it.
> Indeed, you're forced to blatantly LIE about it here. Removing the
> context, and pretending I said something I never said.
> This is a constant theme for you - always LYING about what I've said,
> and unable to quote me.
"Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
> > Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it
> > assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do
> > anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their
> > ideas to be valid.
> Yep... everyone knows that the conspirators were going to tell
> everyone what they did.
Address or contest what was written.
Do you deny you were giving unnamed people the power to insure this activity wouldn`t be prosecuted, and that the only reason it was offered is because it is what your idea requires.
> Not.
> > Ben also wrote...
> >
> > "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
> >of evidence in a murder case."
> >
> > Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition".
> Which textbook would you accept as evidence? **ANYONE** who's not a
> moron can Google the topic, and read as much as they want to know
> about it.
> > And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of
> > evidence.
> They all had law degrees, they were't ignorant.
You are alleging criminal activity by the SS, are you not?
> > Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea,
> Actually, I'm quite specific.
> Chickenshit just doesn't like it that
> I'm not spouting wild-raving lunatic ideas, so he has to PRETEND that
> I'm thinking them.
> > it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo.
> You're simply lying again. The proof that you're lying is a simple
> one, I've challenged you time and time again to post your scenario, so
> we could see *YOUR* definition of what you expect to see critics post.
You don`t seem to be making counter arguments to the points I am making, why is that?
> You refuse.
>
> Repeatedly.
>
> And that fact says it all. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post anything, you
> just whine about anything I post.
> > But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the
> > limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what
> > actually occurred.
> Hence "criminal."
> > So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that
> > Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for
> > the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it).
> They were.
> > So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone
> > with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave
> > the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair
> > if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because
> > the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better
> > not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to
> > highlight the activity.
> I can give you the name of a Secret Service Agent who provably was
> *NOT* involved. He was scheduled to work that day, and was told to
> stay at the airport.
> > Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous
> > risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that
> > could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the
> > investigation in any way.
> And Chckenshit can't answer this question:
>
> (I deleted it.)
>
> Since he can't answer it, the question *HE* raised is demonstrated to
> be something only a moron who can't reason would raise.
> > Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there
> > was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting
> > on of the bubble top.
> Nor was it being washed when it was driving on the Parkway... what's
> your point, if any?
> > Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea
> > and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster
> > put it...
> That's what someone incapable of reasoning might think.
> > "Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless
> > assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
> What has changed? What evidence did you offer a credible explanation
> for? You can't answer.
Charles Schuyler
Feb 27, 2023, 11:15:24 PM2/27/23
to
Really?
Why not wait eleven months and see if JFK even gets reelected?
Why not have a doctor inject him with something to induce a heart attack?
>
> They succeeded.
> > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
> > pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
> > Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue
> > someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
> > President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived
> > of this plot?
> A logical fallacy on your part, particularly since you've just
> described essentially what happened.
>
> People were threatened with guns... you can't explain that fact. The
> S.S. agents violently forced JFK's body out of the one place a
> legitimate (and legal) autopsy would have been performed - AND YOU
> CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THAT FACT.
>
> And you won't even try...
>
> You lose.
> > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
> > frame-the-lone-patsy plot
> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
> see.
What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
> They succeeded.
> > Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
> > pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
> > Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue
> > someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
> > President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived
> > of this plot?
> A logical fallacy on your part, particularly since you've just
> described essentially what happened.
>
> People were threatened with guns... you can't explain that fact. The
> S.S. agents violently forced JFK's body out of the one place a
> legitimate (and legal) autopsy would have been performed - AND YOU
> CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THAT FACT.
>
> And you won't even try...
>
> You lose.
> > Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
> > frame-the-lone-patsy plot
> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
> see.
Ben: Something else happened, somehow.
> > really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
> > SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
> > President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
> > anyway)?
> What would it matter? When are you going to figure out that those who
> planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
> the "investigation?"
Bud
Feb 28, 2023, 6:43:48 AM2/28/23
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 28, 2023, 9:02:16 AM2/28/23
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:06:33?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:46:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BUD SAID:
>>>
>>> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a
>>> single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person
>>> giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost
>>> certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different
>>> ways.
>> And yet, they succeeded. Depite the errors that *DID* occur.
>>
>> Jackie insisting that they take the ambulance is one example where
>> everything almost fell apart.
It's amusing that not a *SINGLE* believer has commented or responded
to this... one must presume that no-one understands this point, or was
aware of this fact.
>>>DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>>>
>>> I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon
>>> the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing
>>> through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown
>>> plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that
>>> featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
>> I certainly know that *YOU* haven't.
>>> Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these
>>> plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such
>>> a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize
>>> three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL
>>> be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short
>>> 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming
>>> from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
>
>> This has been answered before. They were thinking that JFK had to
>> die. **THAT** was the primary concern.
Logical fallacies deleted.
I answered the question - I understand that you don't like the answer.
Who cares?
>> They succeeded.
>>> Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
>>> pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
>>> Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue
>>> someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
>>> President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived
>>> of this plot?
>>
>> A logical fallacy on your part, particularly since you've just
>> described essentially what happened.
>>
>> People were threatened with guns... you can't explain that fact. The
>> S.S. agents violently forced JFK's body out of the one place a
>> legitimate (and legal) autopsy would have been performed - AND YOU
>> CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THAT FACT.
>>
>> And you won't even try...
>>
>> You lose.
>>> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
>>> frame-the-lone-patsy plot
>
>> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
>> see.
>
>What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
Sure:
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
posts...
>>> really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
>>> SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
>>> President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
>>> anyway)?
>
>> What would it matter? When are you going to figure out that those who
>> planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
>> the "investigation?"
>
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 8:06:33?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:46:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BUD SAID:
>>>
>>> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a
>>> single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person
>>> giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost
>>> certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different
>>> ways.
>> And yet, they succeeded. Depite the errors that *DID* occur.
>>
>> Jackie insisting that they take the ambulance is one example where
>> everything almost fell apart.
to this... one must presume that no-one understands this point, or was
aware of this fact.
>>>DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>>>
>>> I've often wondered if ANYONE who believes in the idea that Lee
>>> Harvey Oswald was nothing but a mere patsy has ever even pondered upon
>>> the pre-assassination thought process that must have been dancing
>>> through the collective conspiratorial craniums of those unknown
>>> plotters who were the brilliant architects of the incredible plot that
>>> featured a lone patsy being framed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
>> I certainly know that *YOU* haven't.
>>> Even in a perfect conspiracy world, how in the heck could these
>>> plotters possibly have thought (on November 21st, the day before such
>>> a nutty plan would be taking place) that it was a GOOD idea to utilize
>>> three different assassins [per the Oliver Stone film], who would ALL
>>> be drilling JFK's body (potentially) with many bullets in just a short
>>> 6-to-8-second time period -- with several of these missiles coming
>>> from OBVIOUS non-Oswald (non-patsy) locations?
>
>> This has been answered before. They were thinking that JFK had to
>> die. **THAT** was the primary concern.
I answered the question - I understand that you don't like the answer.
Who cares?
>> They succeeded.
>>> Were these conspirators of the opinion (somehow) that JFK would be
>>> pronounced dead right there in the limousine, right there in Dealey
>>> Plaza, and would then be driven IMMEDIATELY to some Conspiracy Morgue
>>> someplace where ALL the wounds that have just been inflicted upon the
>>> President would be controlled by the same evil plotters who conceived
>>> of this plot?
>>
>> A logical fallacy on your part, particularly since you've just
>> described essentially what happened.
>>
>> People were threatened with guns... you can't explain that fact. The
>> S.S. agents violently forced JFK's body out of the one place a
>> legitimate (and legal) autopsy would have been performed - AND YOU
>> CAN'T EXPLAIN AWAY THAT FACT.
>>
>> And you won't even try...
>>
>> You lose.
>>> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
>>> frame-the-lone-patsy plot
>
>> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
>> see.
>
>What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
posts...
>>> really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
>>> SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
>>> President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
>>> anyway)?
>
>> What would it matter? When are you going to figure out that those who
>> planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
>> the "investigation?"
>
Charles Schuyler
Feb 28, 2023, 11:24:08 AM2/28/23
to
But you won't.
Hank Sienzant
Feb 28, 2023, 7:54:32 PM2/28/23
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:02:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> >What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
> Sure:
>
> My Scenario - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
I've covered this ground on numerous occasions.
> Sure:
>
> My Scenario - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
Here's a recent one, from about five weeks ago:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ljErO4BHpQk/m/-9mh_TnmAgAJ
You never even tried to defend the inclusion of the unsourced and undocumented story that your Part 1 leads off with.
>
>
> I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
> posts...
But you're the one not responding here. You simply ignore the points made and repost the same claims repeatedly.
A fine example of a fringe reset.
Your points don't get stronger by ignoring the criticism.
Bud
Feb 28, 2023, 8:12:39 PM2/28/23
to
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 7:54:32 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:02:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> > >What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
> > Sure:
> >
> > My Scenario - Part 1
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
> I've covered this ground on numerous occasions.
>
> Here's a recent one, from about five weeks ago:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ljErO4BHpQk/m/-9mh_TnmAgAJ
>
> You never even tried to defend the inclusion of the unsourced and undocumented story that your Part 1 leads off with.
> >
> >
> > I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
> > posts...
> I'm more than willing to go through these one at a time, starting with the first link in your first post.
It`ll be no different than when you respond to the Mark Lane series, just fighting the tar baby.
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:02:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> > >What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
> > Sure:
> >
> > My Scenario - Part 1
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
> I've covered this ground on numerous occasions.
>
> Here's a recent one, from about five weeks ago:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ljErO4BHpQk/m/-9mh_TnmAgAJ
>
> You never even tried to defend the inclusion of the unsourced and undocumented story that your Part 1 leads off with.
> >
> >
> > I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
> > posts...
> I'm more than willing to go through these one at a time, starting with the first link in your first post.
Ben Holmes
Mar 1, 2023, 9:21:43 AM3/1/23
to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 08:24:07 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
Just cited above. And the PROOF that you're lying is your abject
refusal to respond to any of them.
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
refusal to respond to any of them.
Ben Holmes
Mar 1, 2023, 9:21:45 AM3/1/23
to
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:54:30 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:02:16?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
>> >What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
>> Sure:
>>
>> My Scenario - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>
>I've covered this ground on numerous occasions.
You have ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to respond to a single one of those posts.
That's a fact you CANNOT deny. And since you snipped the links, here
they are again so everyone can see the magnitude of your cowardice:
You've run from EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above cited posts.
>> I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
>> posts...
>
> I'm more than willing to go through these one at a time, starting
> with the first link in your first post.
Stop bragging and DO IT!
I've been challenging believers **FOREVER** to post their scenario,
and I'd match in in length, detail, and number of citations...
But you're simply a coward, Huckster... you refuse to do it.
And you've REPEATEDLY refused to respond to a *SINGLE* one of the
posts cited (and snipped by you.)
>But you're the one not responding here.
You're lying again, coward.
And lest you forget - here's just ONE post that you keep running from:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/b24KjHCeP6M/m/24XquGtNAwAJ
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:02:16?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:15:23 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
>> >What happened? Be specific. Provide tests. Invite criticism.
>> Sure:
>>
>> My Scenario - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>
>I've covered this ground on numerous occasions.
That's a fact you CANNOT deny. And since you snipped the links, here
they are again so everyone can see the magnitude of your cowardice:
>> I can't help it if you're too much a coward to respond to these
>> posts...
>
> I'm more than willing to go through these one at a time, starting
> with the first link in your first post.
I've been challenging believers **FOREVER** to post their scenario,
and I'd match in in length, detail, and number of citations...
But you're simply a coward, Huckster... you refuse to do it.
And you've REPEATEDLY refused to respond to a *SINGLE* one of the
posts cited (and snipped by you.)
>But you're the one not responding here.
And lest you forget - here's just ONE post that you keep running from:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/b24KjHCeP6M/m/24XquGtNAwAJ
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:04:08 AM3/8/23
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I`ve been thinking
>>
>> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
>> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
>
> Yes...
Good of you to admit it.
>> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
>>
>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>
>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>>> Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct
>>> context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of
>>> anything your ideas suggest.
>> Word salad.
wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I`ve been thinking
>>
>> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
>> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
>
Good of you to admit it.
>> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
>>
>>> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
>>> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
>>> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>>>
>>> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>>
>> Nothing wrong so far. But let's take a look at CE399...
>>> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
>>> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>>>
>>> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>>
>> Nothing wrong so far. But let's take a look at CE399...
>>*PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fired out of
>> Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND THIS FACT ALONE - is
>> all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that a single bullet
>> went through JFK and Connally ...
>>
>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>
> Where?
ROTFLMAO!!! Call me a liar and I'll be happy to cite it.
>> Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND THIS FACT ALONE - is
>> all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that a single bullet
>> went through JFK and Connally ...
>>
>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>
> Where?
>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>
>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>>> Now, to do this you have to look at information in the correct
>>> context, and you have to be able to understand the implications of
>>> anything your ideas suggest.
>> Word salad.
>>> Ok, with that groundwork, let`s look at Ben`s ability to reason he exhibited in this post he started...
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>>>
>>> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>>>
>>> Ben wrote...
>>>
>>> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>>>
>>> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged
>>> with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a
>>> crime Ben does not establish).
>> You're simply lying again, Chickenshit. I was **NOT** making any
>> argument, I was answering a question... and a quite reasonable answer
>> it was - you've been unable to touch it.
>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/MMyfKcjQJG8/m/gzGDA6aqAgAJ
>>>
>>> Let`s highlight a few of the things he said, and examine their implications...
>>>
>>> Ben wrote...
>>>
>>> "Because they'd never face prison time for destroying evidence."
>>>
>>> This is, of course, a circular argument. Them not being charged
>>> with a crime is seen as evidence of protection from that crime (a
>>> crime Ben does not establish).
>> You're simply lying again, Chickenshit. I was **NOT** making any
>> argument, I was answering a question... and a quite reasonable answer
>> it was - you've been unable to touch it.
>>
>> Indeed, you're forced to blatantly LIE about it here. Removing the
>> context, and pretending I said something I never said.
>>
>> context, and pretending I said something I never said.
>>
>> This is a constant theme for you - always LYING about what I've said,
>> and unable to quote me.
>>
>> and unable to quote me.
>>
>>> Besides that, this shows a real flaw in conspiracy approaches, it
>>> assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do
>>> anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their
>>> ideas to be valid.
>> Yep... everyone knows that the conspirators were going to tell
>> everyone what they did.
>>
>>> assumes powers that can`t be shown in any real way. "They" can do
>>> anything a conspiracy hobbyist needs them to be able to do for their
>>> ideas to be valid.
>> Yep... everyone knows that the conspirators were going to tell
>> everyone what they did.
>>
>> Not.
>>> Ben also wrote...
>>>
>>> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
>>>of evidence in a murder case."
>>>
>>> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition".
>> Which textbook would you accept as evidence? **ANYONE** who's not a
>> moron can Google the topic, and read as much as they want to know
>> about it.
>>
>>> Ben also wrote...
>>>
>>> "This is, of course, nearly a textbook description of the destruction
>>>of evidence in a murder case."
>>>
>>> Note Ben offers no such "textbook definition".
>> Which textbook would you accept as evidence? **ANYONE** who's not a
>> moron can Google the topic, and read as much as they want to know
>> about it.
>>
>>> And of course what he is alleging is *criminal* destruction of
>>> evidence.
>> They all had law degrees, they were't ignorant.
>>
>>> evidence.
>> They all had law degrees, they were't ignorant.
>>
>>> Now Ben will take great pains never to actually spell out an idea,
>> Actually, I'm quite specific.
>>
>> Actually, I'm quite specific.
>>
>> Chickenshit just doesn't like it that
>> I'm not spouting wild-raving lunatic ideas, so he has to PRETEND that
>> I'm thinking them.
>>> it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo.
>> You're simply lying again. The proof that you're lying is a simple
>> one, I've challenged you time and time again to post your scenario, so
>> we could see *YOUR* definition of what you expect to see critics post.
>>
>> I'm not spouting wild-raving lunatic ideas, so he has to PRETEND that
>> I'm thinking them.
>>> it it always vaguely alluding and innuendo.
>> You're simply lying again. The proof that you're lying is a simple
>> one, I've challenged you time and time again to post your scenario, so
>> we could see *YOUR* definition of what you expect to see critics post.
>>
>> You refuse.
>>
>> Repeatedly.
>>
>> And that fact says it all. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post anything, you
>> just whine about anything I post.
>>
>>
>> Repeatedly.
>>
>> And that fact says it all. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to post anything, you
>> just whine about anything I post.
>>
>>> But the underlying idea is that the SS was purposely cleaning the
>>> limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what
>>> actually occurred.
>> Hence "criminal."
>>
>>> limo to obstruct the ability of investigators to determine what
>>> actually occurred.
>> Hence "criminal."
>>
>>> So the problem with that is that someone with foreknowledge that
>>> Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for
>>> the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it).
>> They were.
>>
>>> Kennedy was going to be killed had to be in a position to order for
>>> the cleaning to be done (unless they were all in on it).
>> They were.
>>
>>> So you would think this is a golden opportunity to identify someone
>>> with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave
>>> the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair
>>> if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because
>>> the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better
>>> not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to
>>> highlight the activity.
>> I can give you the name of a Secret Service Agent who provably was
>> *NOT* involved. He was scheduled to work that day, and was told to
>> stay at the airport.
>>
>>> with direct knowledge of the assassination, just find the guy who gave
>>> the order for the limo to be cleaned (who is surely going to the chair
>>> if his role is uncovered). But no, they can`t go that route because
>>> the whole idea is a crock. Also one of the agents might say "We better
>>> not, we don`t want to disturb evidence". Insistence will only serve to
>>> highlight the activity.
>> I can give you the name of a Secret Service Agent who provably was
>> *NOT* involved. He was scheduled to work that day, and was told to
>> stay at the airport.
>>
>>> Besides this a reasoning person might wonder why such an enormous
>>> risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that
>>> could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the
>>> investigation in any way.
>> And Chckenshit can't answer this question:
>>
>> (I deleted it.)
>>
>> Since he can't answer it, the question *HE* raised is demonstrated to
>> be something only a moron who can't reason would raise.
>>
>>> risk would be undertaken unless there was some great benefit that
>>> could be attained. Ben can`t even say what was done compromised the
>>> investigation in any way.
>> And Chckenshit can't answer this question:
>>
>> (I deleted it.)
>>
>> Since he can't answer it, the question *HE* raised is demonstrated to
>> be something only a moron who can't reason would raise.
>>
>>> Other things a reasoning person might consider would be if there
>>> was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting
>>> on of the bubble top.
>> Nor was it being washed when it was driving on the Parkway... what's
>> your point, if any?
>>
>>> was a connection between the stopping of the cleaning and the putting
>>> on of the bubble top.
>> Nor was it being washed when it was driving on the Parkway... what's
>> your point, if any?
>>
>>> Now you can expect Ben to ignore every challenge made to his idea
>>> and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster
>>> put it...
>> That's what someone incapable of reasoning might think.
>>
>>> and just mindlessly repeat "destruction of evidence", as new poster
>>> put it...
>> That's what someone incapable of reasoning might think.
>>
>>> "Apparently, all you can do is agitatedly repeat the same baseless
>>> assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
>> What has changed? What evidence did you offer a credible explanation
>> for? You can't answer.
>
> My explanation is this...
>>> assertion over and over like Dustin Hoffman at half past Wopner."
>> What has changed? What evidence did you offer a credible explanation
>> for? You can't answer.
>
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:04:09 AM3/8/23
to
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:05:29 AM3/8/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 12:51:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:47:40?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I`ve been thinking...
>>
>> Does it hurt?
>
> At least you couldn`t ...
Didn't bother, and "couldn't" are two different things.
You are indeed showing how *YOU* can't reason.
wrote:
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 3:47:40?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I`ve been thinking...
>>
>> Does it hurt?
>
> At least you couldn`t ...
Didn't bother, and "couldn't" are two different things.
You are indeed showing how *YOU* can't reason.
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:05:32 AM3/8/23
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 18:34:23 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25?PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> BUD SAID:
>>
>> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
>>
>>
>> DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>>
>> I've often wondered ...
The FACTS show that you're wrong... and you know it.
>> Even in a perfect conspiracy world...
The media vehicle, normally right behind the Presidential limo, was
moved back in the lineup - you can't offer any credible explanation
for that... witnesses report film being taken in Dealey Plaza, you
can't explain that...
You lose.
>> Were these conspirators of the opinion..
taken at gunpoint BEFORE JACKIE HAD ANY SAY WHATSOEVER.
You cannot offer any credible explanation for breaking Texas law.
Nor can you explain your nonstop lying about the evidence in this
case.
You lose.
>> Did the people who dreamed up this...
accept a shooter from the front.
So your wild speculation doesn't even work...
wrote:
>On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 8:46:25?PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> BUD SAID:
>>
>> The *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill Kennedy...but frame a single, rear shooter. .... It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second's consideration to such a plan...that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a thousand different ways.
>>
>>
>> DVP SAID (IN 2005):
>>
>
> And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in
> the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their
> families would be disgraced.
So what happened to the S.S. agents who got drunk the night before?
> And keep in mind the consequences. Anyone found to be involved in
> the assassination would be executed, no question. Beyond that their
> families would be disgraced.
The FACTS show that you're wrong... and you know it.
>> Even in a perfect conspiracy world...
>
> In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be
> present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be
> standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
There's sufficient evidence to show that these issues were addressed.
> In addition they would have no idea how many cameras would be
> present, if some of the media would film here or where people would be
> standing. Almost none of this could be preplanned.
The media vehicle, normally right behind the Presidential limo, was
moved back in the lineup - you can't offer any credible explanation
for that... witnesses report film being taken in Dealey Plaza, you
can't explain that...
You lose.
>> Were these conspirators of the opinion..
>
> They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it
> be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst
> option.
Now you're simply lying. It wasn't up to Jackie. JFK's body was
> They wouldn`t even know who would be doing the autopsy. Would it
> be Rose, Bethesda or Walter Reed? Unfortunately Jackie chose the worst
> option.
taken at gunpoint BEFORE JACKIE HAD ANY SAY WHATSOEVER.
You cannot offer any credible explanation for breaking Texas law.
Nor can you explain your nonstop lying about the evidence in this
case.
You lose.
>> Did the people who dreamed up this...
>
> As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t
> exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
Why not? JFK took a bullet to the throat - and you *STILL* can't
> As you say, if Jackie takes a bullet to the forehead that doesn`t
> exit, all the patsy planning goes out the window.
accept a shooter from the front.
So your wild speculation doesn't even work...
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:05:48 AM3/8/23
to
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:57:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
>>> reasoning
>> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
>
> How so?
No need to repetitively prove something to a coward who'll refuse to
acknowledge the sun shining...
>>> I might as well expand on a few things here.
>> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
>> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
>>
>> *************************************************
>> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
>> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
>> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
>> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>>
>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>
>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>
>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>> *************************************************
>
> Wrong thread. Do try to focus.
Chickenshit ran again. As Chickenshit does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
>> Has anyone seen a *credible* explanation for htis wacky reasoning?
If there is, you won't hear it from Chickenshit or Davy Von Penis.
>>> A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was
>>> done to obstruct anyone from finding out what actually occurred...
>>
>> That's the reason that it's considered a crime.
>>
about logical fallacies, and can explain it to you.
>> Meanwhile, no-one can critcize *YOUR* scenario -
>>
wrote:
>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
>>> reasoning
>> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
>
> How so?
acknowledge the sun shining...
>>> I might as well expand on a few things here.
>> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
>> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
>>
>> *************************************************
>> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
>> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
>> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
>> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>>
>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>
>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>
>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>> *************************************************
>
> Wrong thread. Do try to focus.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
>> Has anyone seen a *credible* explanation for htis wacky reasoning?
>>> A idea connected to the idea that this destruction of evidence was
>>> done to obstruct anyone from finding out what actually occurred...
>>
>> That's the reason that it's considered a crime.
>>
>>> is the larger idea that the *plan* was to have multiple shooters kill
>>> Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has
>>> remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter.
>> This has been answered so many times that one begins to wonder if
>> Chickenshit has memory problems as well as reasoning problems.
>>> Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy.
>> And the reason why guns were pulled on doctors at Parkland who wanted
>> to do the autopsy there as mandated by Texas law.
>>> It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s
>>> consideration to such a plan.
>> It's hard for *YOU* to imagine. But it worked, didn't it?
>>> Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure
>>> that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a
>>> thousand different ways.
>> How silly!!!
>>
>> Take a look at Hilary Clinton - she violated federal law and exposed
>> American secrets to foreign hackers...
>>
>> I don't see *her* in jail.
>>
>>> Kennedy where many people were filming the event (an idea DVP has
>>> remarked on often), but frame a single, rear shooter.
>> This has been answered so many times that one begins to wonder if
>> Chickenshit has memory problems as well as reasoning problems.
>>> Part of this apparent plan was to fix everything at the autopsy.
>> And the reason why guns were pulled on doctors at Parkland who wanted
>> to do the autopsy there as mandated by Texas law.
>>> It is hard to imagine any sane person giving one second`s
>>> consideration to such a plan.
>> It's hard for *YOU* to imagine. But it worked, didn't it?
>>> Everyone involved is putting their life on the line on an adventure
>>> that would almost certainly end up blowing up in their faces in a
>>> thousand different ways.
>> How silly!!!
>>
>> Take a look at Hilary Clinton - she violated federal law and exposed
>> American secrets to foreign hackers...
>>
>> I don't see *her* in jail.
>>
>>> This is the real reason conspiracy hobbyists will never put their
>>> ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could
>>> only get more absurd with every sentence.
>> The only thing you can argue are these mythical wacky ideas that
>> critics are afraid to post publicly.
Logical fallacy deleted. Check with John Burroughs... he knows all
>>> ideas out for consideration, they start out patently absurd and could
>>> only get more absurd with every sentence.
>> The only thing you can argue are these mythical wacky ideas that
>> critics are afraid to post publicly.
about logical fallacies, and can explain it to you.
>> Meanwhile, no-one can critcize *YOUR* scenario -
>>
Bud
Mar 8, 2023, 12:30:01 PM3/8/23
to
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:04:08 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I`ve been thinking
> >>
> >> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
> >> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
> >
> > Yes...
>
>
> Good of you to admit it.
I never disputed that I had been thinking.
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I`ve been thinking
> >>
> >> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
> >> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
> >
> > Yes...
>
>
> Good of you to admit it.
> >> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
> >>
> >>> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
> >>> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
> >>> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
> >>>
> >>> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
> >>
> >> Nothing wrong so far. But let's take a look at CE399...
> >>*PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fired out of
> >> Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND THIS FACT ALONE - is
> >> all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that a single bullet
> >> went through JFK and Connally ...
> >>
> >> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
> >
> > Where?
> ROTFLMAO!!! Call me a liar and I'll be happy to cite it.
And apparently you respond so people can see you run from everythjing anyone says.
Bud
Mar 8, 2023, 12:31:08 PM3/8/23
to
Bud
Mar 8, 2023, 12:35:51 PM3/8/23
to
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:05:48 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:57:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> >>> reasoning
> >> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
> >
> > How so?
> No need to repetitively prove something to a coward who'll refuse to
> acknowledge the sun shining...
You don`t support anything you say, that has nothing to do with me.
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:57:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
> >>> reasoning
> >> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
> >
> > How so?
> No need to repetitively prove something to a coward who'll refuse to
> acknowledge the sun shining...
> >>> I might as well expand on a few things here.
> >> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
> >> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
> >>
> >> *************************************************
> >> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
> >> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
> >> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
> >> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
> >>
> >> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
> >>
> >> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
> >>
> >> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
> >> *************************************************
> >
> > Wrong thread. Do try to focus.
> Chickenshit ran again. As Chickenshit does...
Ben Holmes
Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:05 PM4/7/23
to
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:31:06 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Notice folks, that my prediction was 100% true...
>>>>> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
>>>>> frame-the-lone-patsy plot
>>>> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
>>>> see.
>>>>> really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
>>>>> SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
>>>>> President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
>>>>> anyway)?
>>>> What would it matter? When are you going to figure out that those who
>>>> planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
>>>> the "investigation?"
>> Logical fallacy deleted...
Logical fallacy deleted.
wrote:
>>>>> Did the people who dreamed up this impossible-to-pull-off
>>>>> frame-the-lone-patsy plot
>>>> Wasn't impossible. It happened. The evidence is there for anyone to
>>>> see.
>>>>> really NOT consider the possibility of ALL
>>>>> SIX of the bullets being fired by the three assassins striking
>>>>> President Kennedy (or all six shots hitting SOMEBODY in Dealey Plaza
>>>>> anyway)?
>>>> What would it matter? When are you going to figure out that those who
>>>> planned the execution of JFK were also the same ones who controlled
>>>> the "investigation?"
>> Logical fallacy deleted...
Ben Holmes
Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:05 PM4/7/23
to
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:35:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:05:48?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:57:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
>>>>> reasoning
>>>> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
>>>
>>> How so?
>> No need to repetitively prove something to a coward who'll refuse to
>> acknowledge the sun shining...
Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>> I might as well expand on a few things here.
>>>> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
>>>> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************
>>>> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
>>>> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
>>>> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
>>>> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>>>>
>>>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>>>
>>>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>>>> *************************************************
>>>
>>> Wrong thread. Do try to focus.
>> Chickenshit ran again. As Chickenshit does...
>>
Logical fallacy deleted.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:05:48?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:57:53 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 15:36:27 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Since Ben quite wisely chose to avoid attempting a display of
>>>>> reasoning
>>>> And you've now been proven a liar, haven't you?
>>>
>>> How so?
>> No need to repetitively prove something to a coward who'll refuse to
>> acknowledge the sun shining...
>>>>> I might as well expand on a few things here.
>>>> Certainly! Because no-one thinks you'll ever explain the examples of
>>>> POOR reasoning that I've offered. As I already posted:
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************
>>>> But let's take a look at CE399... *PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt
>>>> that it was fired out of Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND
>>>> THIS FACT ALONE - is all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that
>>>> a single bullet went through JFK and Connally ...
>>>>
>>>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>>>
>>>> So what is reasonable about Bugsliosi's and Chickenshit's reasoning?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing. It's wacky and downrigh STUPID.
>>>> *************************************************
>>>
>>> Wrong thread. Do try to focus.
>> Chickenshit ran again. As Chickenshit does...
>>
Ben Holmes
Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:06 PM4/7/23
to
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 09:30:00 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:04:08?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I`ve been thinking
>>>>
>>>> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
>>>> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
>>>
>>> Yes...
>>
>> Good of you to admit it.
>
> I never disputed that I had been thinking.
I, on the other hand, am happy to point out your lack of thinking time
and time again...
>>>> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
>>>>
>>>>> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
>>>>> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
>>>>> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>>>>>
>>>>> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong so far. But let's take a look at CE399...
>>>>*PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fired out of
>>>> Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND THIS FACT ALONE - is
>>>> all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that a single bullet
>>>> went through JFK and Connally ...
>>>>
>>>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>>
>>> Where?
>> ROTFLMAO!!! Call me a liar and I'll be happy to cite it.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit refuses to call me a liar for this
statement, he knows how easily I can cite him doing so.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 9:04:08?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:27:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:06:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 11:52:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I`ve been thinking
>>>>
>>>> And apparently, Chickenshit is unable to do this on the fly, when
>>>> something is first posted... he needs time to "think" about it.
>>>
>>> Yes...
>>
>> Good of you to admit it.
>
> I never disputed that I had been thinking.
and time again...
>>>> Highlighting how slow his thought processes are.
>>>>
>>>>> about making this post highlighting Ben`s inability to reason, and
>>>>> something he said in another post motivated me to actually do it. For
>>>>> starters, let`s look at the definition of "reasoning"...
>>>>>
>>>>> "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way."
>>>>
>>>> Nothing wrong so far. But let's take a look at CE399...
>>>>*PROVEN* beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fired out of
>>>> Mannlicher Carcano C2766. This fact... AND THIS FACT ALONE - is
>>>> all that Bugliosi said he needed to *proved* that a single bullet
>>>> went through JFK and Connally ...
>>>>
>>>> And this sloppy and silly reasoning was embraced by Chickenshit.
>>>
>>> Where?
>> ROTFLMAO!!! Call me a liar and I'll be happy to cite it.
statement, he knows how easily I can cite him doing so.
0 new messages