Survey for the LNers

[Gil Jesus]

Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:

Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?

[BT George]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 6:33:06 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>
> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?

In my case, no. (Though I have probably read or been exposed to large excerpts of nearly all of it + the HSCA volumes.) What part tells you Oz is innocent? Also, whether we have or haven't, there are LNs that arrive at the same conclusion, likewise on the CT side. So what's the point being made?

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>
> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?

You don't need to read the entire Warren Report to prove a conspiracy...



The Lone Nutters never gave an adequate answer to the fact the overpressure from the shot to the head dispersed brain matter in a way that could not possibly result in the mostly intact brain that was substituted in to evidence...Knudsen said he was shown an autopsy photo where an intact brain was on a metal tray next to Kennedy BEFORE the brain autopsy...That was the 1500 gram substitute brain, which is why that photo disappeared...This, and the Cerebellum being intact on the brain in evidence, proves that a fraudulent, Intelligence-controlled autopsy took place where they altered forensic evidence and substituted the brain (which is why they lost it)...Clint Hill saw a tunnel-like void in the back of Kennedy's head from the exit wound and that area was totally intact on the bogus brain in evidence...For 6 decades people have been arguing the details of the corrupted evidence...It is time the public realizes that the reason there is so much controversy is because there was a massive fraud and cover-up in the investigation with the brain being one of the foremost examples...

[Bud]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>
> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?

Hell no. the only way I would is if you locked me in a room, and told me I wouldn`t be released until I did.

How many people do you suppose have read the Bible cover to cover?

[Steven Galbraith]

I have to admit that I haven't read all 26 volumes either. Just the main account and some of the testimony. But not all of it.
Even worse I haven't read a single page of the Soviet investigation into the assassination. Not one word of it.
I plead guilty: I am a worthless sheeple.
Do me a favor: ask him if he's read the Soviet report? He doesn't like me, he likes you so maybe he'll respond.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Since I know you're all mentally challenged,

Ad hominem and poisoning the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.

I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>
> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?

Yes. And the HSCA 12 volumes.

I have two questions for you:
Have you read the 26 volumes & the HSCA 12 volumes ?

Can you write a post without any logical fallacies?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:23:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>>
>> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
>
> Hell no.

This tells you all you need to know about Chickenshit.

> the only way I would is if you locked me in a room, and told me I
> wouldn`t be released until I did.

The only way to get an honest reply out of you as well.

> How many people do you suppose have read the Bible cover to cover?

Few indeed are the atheist's who have...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 10:07:17 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 12:23:47?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>>>
>>> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
>> Hell no. the only way I would is if you locked me in a room, and told me I wouldn`t be released until I did.
>>
>> How many people do you suppose have read the Bible cover to cover?
>
> I have to admit that I haven't read all 26 volumes either. Just the
> main account and some of the testimony. But not all of it.

This would be typical for a troll.

Someone truly interested in the TRUTH would dig quite a bit deeper.

Or, like Huckster, *claim* to have done so...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:21:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Ad hominem and poisening the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.

It seems that Huckster can't avoid what he so quickly points out in
others...

And the question then asserts itself, why can Huckster not see the
many inconsistencies between what the eyewitnesses said, and what the
WCR said they said? Illiteracy, inability to reason, or simply
dishonest... I see no other possibilities.

[Bud]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:23:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
> >>
> >> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
> >
> > Hell no.
> This tells you all you need to know about Chickenshit.

Yes, honest and to the point.

> > the only way I would is if you locked me in a room, and told me I
> > wouldn`t be released until I did.
> The only way to get an honest reply out of you as well.

You just got one from me. You just have a fanatical aversion to the truth.

> > How many people do you suppose have read the Bible cover to cover?
> Few indeed are the atheist's who have...

Or the Christians. Would you say that someone can`t believe in the existence of God without reading the entire Bible?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:32:48 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:21:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Since I know you're all mentally challenged,
> >
> >Ad hominem and poisoning the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.
> >
> >> I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
> >>
> >> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
> >
> >Yes. And the HSCA 12 volumes.
> >
> >I have two questions for you:
> >Have you read the 26 volumes & the HSCA 12 volumes ?
> >
> >Can you write a post without any logical fallacies?
> Ad hominem and poisening the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.
>

Asking the same question of Gil that he asked and I answered is a logical fallacy?
Pointing out the ad hominem ("Since I know you're all mentally challenged") in Gil's initial post and asking if he can write a post without one is a logical fallacy?

How so?

> It seems that Huckster can't avoid what he so quickly points out in
> others...

It seems that you don't know the difference between committing a logical fallacy and pointing one out to the offender.

>
> And the question then asserts itself, why can Huckster not see the
> many inconsistencies between what the eyewitnesses said, and what the
> WCR said they said? Illiteracy, inability to reason, or simply
> dishonest... I see no other possibilities.

Those spell out exactly the conspiracy theorists issues accessing the evidence.

Are all witnesses always presumed correct by you? It appears I must inform you of the unfortunate happenstance that all the witnesses happened to be human, and some of them erred in their recollections.

Some witnesses heard no shots. Others heard four or more.
They can't both be correct. They can both be wrong, however.

There are numerous inconsistencies between what some of the eyewitnesses said and what some other eyewitnesses said.
Critics select judiciously from the record and stress only those that point to more than three shots, but the vast majority of witnesses (90% by one count) claimed they heard only three shots.

Three shots.

Ben above references only the witnesses whose testimony was different than the Commission conclusions, pretending all the eyewitnesses uniformly disagreed with the Commission (they didn't) and the Commission didn't rely on solid evidence to reach their conclusions.

It only happened one way, Ben. Which way?

How many shots were fired in Dealey Plaza at the Presidential limo?
Include in your count all shots from all locations, whether they struck anything or not.
List the evidence in support of your number.

You won't spell it out, because you know the evidence doesn't support your case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 02:38:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:32:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 13:21:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> Since I know you're all mentally challenged,
>>>
>>>Ad hominem and poisoning the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.
>>>
>>>> I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>>>>
>>>> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
>>>
>>>Yes. And the HSCA 12 volumes.
>>>
>>>I have two questions for you:
>>>Have you read the 26 volumes & the HSCA 12 volumes ?
>>>
>>>Can you write a post without any logical fallacies?
>>
>> Ad hominem and poisening the well LOGICAL FALLACIES.
>

>Asking the same question...


YOU"RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!

The question you raised above was not posted by Gil. Only by you.

>> It seems that Huckster can't avoid what he so quickly points out in
>> others...
>

>It seems that you don't know the difference...


Lie again, Huckster... and try to claim that *YOUR* statement isn't a
logical fallacy, and that Gil had said it first.

>> And the question then asserts itself, why can Huckster not see the
>> many inconsistencies between what the eyewitnesses said, and what the
>> WCR said they said? Illiteracy, inability to reason, or simply
>> dishonest... I see no other possibilities.

Logical fallacies deleted.

Huckster was unable to offer any other alternatives, nor admit that
the WCR conflicts with testimony.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 16:56:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:32:42?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:23:46 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 7:33:06?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> Since I know you're all mentally challenged, I'll make it a simple yes or no question:
>>>>
>>>> Have you read the 26 volumes ? Yes or No ?
>>>
>>> Hell no.
>>
>> This tells you all you need to know about Chickenshit.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> the only way I would is if you locked me in a room, and told me I
>>> wouldn`t be released until I did.
>> The only way to get an honest reply out of you as well.

Logical fallacies deleted.

>>> How many people do you suppose have read the Bible cover to cover?
>>
>> Few indeed are the atheist's who have...
>

> Would you say that someone can`t believe in the existence of God
> without reading the entire Bible?

Of course not. The Bilble teaches otherwise.

[Bud]

Then what is the significance of reading or not reading the 26 volumes?

> The Bilble teaches otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 06:49:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Because those who don't read the Bible aren't in forums asserting that
the Bible is right, or the Bible is wrong.

But cowards like you are here asserting that the WCR got it right, and
refuse to acknowledge the outright lies told by the WCR.

Indeed, you absolutely REFUSE to defend your own theory of what
happened on 11/22/63.

Quite the coward, aren't you?


>> The Bilble teaches otherwise.