info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chickenshit's "Quiz"
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2023, 11:58:38 AM2/3/23
to
> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>of kook belief.
>
> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>first question...
>
> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
Yes... the evidence shows this.
> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>death?"
No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
patsy.
> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
No... the evidence doesn't support it.
> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>diet of lead based paint chips?"
This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>(CE399)?:
>
>2 shots/bullets?
>3 shots/bullets?
>4 shots/bullets?
>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>
>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>
>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
evidence, and not lies and speculation.
JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
TERRIFIED of debating.)
Now, I've answered all these questions... and I'll prove beyond ANY
DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
And I only need *one* question to prove this:
Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
But, as believers do anytime questions are asked about the evidence,
Chickenshit will run.
As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>of kook belief.
>
> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>first question...
>
> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
Yes... the evidence shows this.
> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>death?"
No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
patsy.
> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
No... the evidence doesn't support it.
> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>diet of lead based paint chips?"
This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>(CE399)?:
>
>2 shots/bullets?
>3 shots/bullets?
>4 shots/bullets?
>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>
>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>
>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
evidence, and not lies and speculation.
JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
TERRIFIED of debating.)
Now, I've answered all these questions... and I'll prove beyond ANY
DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
And I only need *one* question to prove this:
Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
But, as believers do anytime questions are asked about the evidence,
Chickenshit will run.
As he does...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Bud
Feb 3, 2023, 2:37:57 PM2/3/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
> >they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
> >of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
> >misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
> >of kook belief.
> >
> > I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
> >if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
> >wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
> >they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
> >first question...
> >
> > "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>
> Yes... the evidence shows this.
Non answer. Vague, meaningless reference to "the evidence" Might as well have claimed astrology shows this.
> > It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
> >they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
> >of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
> >misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
> >of kook belief.
> >
> > I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
> >if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
> >wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
> >they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
> >first question...
> >
> > "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>
> Yes... the evidence shows this.
> > 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
> >death?"
>
> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
> patsy.
> > "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>
> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
> > "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
> >diet of lead based paint chips?"
>
> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
> >Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
> >Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
> >bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
> >(CE399)?:
> >
> >2 shots/bullets?
> >3 shots/bullets?
> >4 shots/bullets?
> >Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
> >
> >And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
> >bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
> >victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
> >
> >And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
> >these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
> >Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
>
> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
> TERRIFIED of debating.)
I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague allusions to things, but that is about it.
> Now, I've answered all these questions...
> and I'll prove beyond ANY
> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
>
> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
>
> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
Ben Holmes
Feb 3, 2023, 4:10:39 PM2/3/23
to
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:37:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
>>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>>>of kook belief.
>>>
>>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>>>first question...
>>>
>>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>>
>> Yes... the evidence shows this.
>
> Non answer...
And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Maybe.
4. I don't know.
Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
I even explained *why* I believe my answer to be correct. The fact
that you cannot answer your own question proves you a liar...
>>> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>>>death?"
>>
>> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
>> patsy.
>
> Another non answer.
Another lie.
The answer PERFECTLY answers the question. And my answer is
IRREFUTABLE... no-one else is me, and I'm the *ONLY* one who can state
authoritatively how I "feel."
So you're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar who thinks he can
pontificate on what someone else believes.
>>> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>>
>> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> Another non answer.
Another lie on your part.
It's amusing that you can't answer your own questions...
>>> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>>>diet of lead based paint chips?"
>>
>> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>
> How old is this post from. I dropped the "retard" shtick a while back for the most part.
Not a refutation.
And if the "retard shtick" were honest - there's no reason for an
honest man to "drop it." If it weren't honest from the beginning, and
you "drop it" - you've merely shown what a troll you are.
And who the true "retard" is.
>>>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>>>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>>>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>>>(CE399)?:
>>>
>>>2 shots/bullets?
>>>3 shots/bullets?
>>>4 shots/bullets?
>>>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>>>
>>>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>>>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>>>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>>>
>>>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>>>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>>>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
>>
>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
>> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
>
> I posted some of the support for it. There might be more I neglected to include.
You posted your opinions. Not a *SINGLE* citation was presented by
you.
You lose!
>> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
>> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
>> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
>> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
>
> You guys look at the wrong things incorrectly.
Not a refutation. Nor is your opinion worth much...
Note folks that Chickenshit couldn't deny my truthful and correct
statement that " nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts involved
- contradict the SBT"
That fact tells the tale...
>> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
>> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
>> TERRIFIED of debating.)
>
> Ideas that can be expressed without evidence can be dismissed
> without evidence.
Sadly for you, YOU YOURSELF prove that you know the evidence exists...
this is why you insistently refuse to state where the largest bullet
fragment seen in the trail of fragments is located.
And, as you asked for my *OPINION* - you're quiite stupid when you try
to deny that this is my opinion. I have no need of posting the
additional evidence that my opinion is based on. Only a moron like
you thinks I need to "convince" myself.
> I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear
> you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for
> it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague
> allusions to things, but that is about it.
As I've stated many times before, I can post a scenario EQUALLY as
long, with JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citations as you
can...
But you *KNOW* this to be true, so you refuse to meet the challenge.
Only Conan had balls enough, and he ended up running away from my
response.
*YOU* prove yourself to be a liar.
>> Now, I've answered all these questions...
>
> You made noise but offered nothing that can be examined.
You've lied about the questions being answered.
And cannot answer the same questions yourself.
>> and I'll prove beyond ANY
>> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
>> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
>>
>> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
>>
>> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
>> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
>> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>
> Be a man and gather all the evidence and advance an idea using that evidence.
Been there, done that, you PROVABLY ran away...
Here it is again:
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
And despite the dozens of times I've cited these posts, not a *SINGLE*
believer has responded, or admitted that I've posted a scenario.
That fact means one thing:
You lose.
>> But, as believers do anytime questions are asked about the evidence,
>> Chickenshit will run.
>>
>> As he does...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME.
And did again this time...
wrote:
>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
>>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>>>of kook belief.
>>>
>>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>>>first question...
>>>
>>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>>
>> Yes... the evidence shows this.
>
And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Maybe.
4. I don't know.
Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
I even explained *why* I believe my answer to be correct. The fact
that you cannot answer your own question proves you a liar...
>>> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>>>death?"
>>
>> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
>> patsy.
>
> Another non answer.
The answer PERFECTLY answers the question. And my answer is
IRREFUTABLE... no-one else is me, and I'm the *ONLY* one who can state
authoritatively how I "feel."
So you're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar who thinks he can
pontificate on what someone else believes.
>>> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>>
>> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
>
> Another non answer.
It's amusing that you can't answer your own questions...
>>> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>>>diet of lead based paint chips?"
>>
>> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>
> How old is this post from. I dropped the "retard" shtick a while back for the most part.
And if the "retard shtick" were honest - there's no reason for an
honest man to "drop it." If it weren't honest from the beginning, and
you "drop it" - you've merely shown what a troll you are.
And who the true "retard" is.
>>>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>>>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>>>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>>>(CE399)?:
>>>
>>>2 shots/bullets?
>>>3 shots/bullets?
>>>4 shots/bullets?
>>>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>>>
>>>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>>>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>>>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>>>
>>>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>>>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>>>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
>>
>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
>> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
>
> I posted some of the support for it. There might be more I neglected to include.
you.
You lose!
>> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
>> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
>> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
>> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
>
> You guys look at the wrong things incorrectly.
Note folks that Chickenshit couldn't deny my truthful and correct
statement that " nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts involved
- contradict the SBT"
That fact tells the tale...
>> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
>> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
>> TERRIFIED of debating.)
>
> Ideas that can be expressed without evidence can be dismissed
> without evidence.
this is why you insistently refuse to state where the largest bullet
fragment seen in the trail of fragments is located.
And, as you asked for my *OPINION* - you're quiite stupid when you try
to deny that this is my opinion. I have no need of posting the
additional evidence that my opinion is based on. Only a moron like
you thinks I need to "convince" myself.
> I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear
> you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for
> it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague
> allusions to things, but that is about it.
long, with JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citations as you
can...
But you *KNOW* this to be true, so you refuse to meet the challenge.
Only Conan had balls enough, and he ended up running away from my
response.
*YOU* prove yourself to be a liar.
>> Now, I've answered all these questions...
>
> You made noise but offered nothing that can be examined.
And cannot answer the same questions yourself.
>> and I'll prove beyond ANY
>> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
>> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
>>
>> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
>>
>> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
>> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
>> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>
> Be a man and gather all the evidence and advance an idea using that evidence.
Here it is again:
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
And despite the dozens of times I've cited these posts, not a *SINGLE*
believer has responded, or admitted that I've posted a scenario.
That fact means one thing:
You lose.
>> But, as believers do anytime questions are asked about the evidence,
>> Chickenshit will run.
>>
>> As he does...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME.
Bud
Feb 3, 2023, 4:50:46 PM2/3/23
to
On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:37:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
> >>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
> >>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
> >>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
> >>>of kook belief.
> >>>
> >>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
> >>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
> >>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
> >>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
> >>>first question...
> >>>
> >>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
> >>
> >> Yes... the evidence shows this.
> >
> > Non answer...
>
>
> And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
>
> 1. Yes.
> 2. No.
> 3. Maybe.
> 4. I don't know.
>
> Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:37:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
> >>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
> >>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
> >>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
> >>>of kook belief.
> >>>
> >>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
> >>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
> >>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
> >>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
> >>>first question...
> >>>
> >>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
> >>
> >> Yes... the evidence shows this.
> >
> > Non answer...
>
>
> And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
>
> 1. Yes.
> 2. No.
> 3. Maybe.
> 4. I don't know.
>
> Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
"Non answer. Vague, meaningless reference to "the evidence" Might as well have claimed astrology shows this."
Trying to talk over the point made doesn`t make it disappear.
> I even explained *why* I believe my answer to be correct. The fact
> that you cannot answer your own question proves you a liar...
> >>> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
> >>>death?"
> >>
> >> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
> >> patsy.
> >
> > Another non answer.
> Another lie.
>
> The answer PERFECTLY answers the question. And my answer is
> IRREFUTABLE... no-one else is me, and I'm the *ONLY* one who can state
> authoritatively how I "feel."
It is a non answer.
> So you're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar who thinks he can
> pontificate on what someone else believes.
> >>> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
> >>
> >> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
> >
> > Another non answer.
> Another lie on your part.
>
> It's amusing that you can't answer your own questions...
> >>> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
> >>>diet of lead based paint chips?"
> >>
> >> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
> >
> > How old is this post from. I dropped the "retard" shtick a while back for the most part.
> Not a refutation.
> And if the "retard shtick" were honest - there's no reason for an
> honest man to "drop it." If it weren't honest from the beginning, and
> you "drop it" - you've merely shown what a troll you are.
> And who the true "retard" is.
> >>>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
> >>>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
> >>>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
> >>>(CE399)?:
> >>>
> >>>2 shots/bullets?
> >>>3 shots/bullets?
> >>>4 shots/bullets?
> >>>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
> >>>
> >>>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
> >>>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
> >>>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
> >>>
> >>>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
> >>>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
> >>>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
> >>
> >> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
> >> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
> >
> > I posted some of the support for it. There might be more I neglected to include.
> You posted your opinions. Not a *SINGLE* citation was presented by
> you.
> You lose!
> >> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
> >> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
> >> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
> >> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
> >
> > You guys look at the wrong things incorrectly.
> Not a refutation. Nor is your opinion worth much...
> Note folks that Chickenshit couldn't deny my truthful and correct
> statement that " nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts involved
> - contradict the SBT"
> That fact tells the tale...
> >> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
> >> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
> >> TERRIFIED of debating.)
> >
> > Ideas that can be expressed without evidence can be dismissed
> > without evidence.
> Sadly for you, YOU YOURSELF prove that you know the evidence exists...
> this is why you insistently refuse to state where the largest bullet
> fragment seen in the trail of fragments is located.
> And, as you asked for my *OPINION* - you're quiite stupid when you try
> to deny that this is my opinion. I have no need of posting the
> additional evidence that my opinion is based on. Only a moron like
> you thinks I need to "convince" myself.
Took me ten whole seconds to confirm this...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/s_aYNZm0bmk/m/B1ejAWX0IiEJ
> > I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear
> > you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for
> > it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague
> > allusions to things, but that is about it.
> As I've stated many times before, I can post a scenario EQUALLY as
> long, with JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citations as you
> can...
> But you *KNOW* this to be true, so you refuse to meet the challenge.
> Only Conan had balls enough, and he ended up running away from my
> response.
>
> *YOU* prove yourself to be a liar.
> >> Now, I've answered all these questions...
> >
> > You made noise but offered nothing that can be examined.
> You've lied about the questions being answered.
> And cannot answer the same questions yourself.
> >> and I'll prove beyond ANY
> >> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
> >> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
> >>
> >> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
> >>
> >> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
> >> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
> >> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
> >
> > Be a man and gather all the evidence and advance an idea using that evidence.
> Been there, done that, you PROVABLY ran away...
> Here it is again:
When I ask you to link to a mish-mash of talking points, fallacies and hot air then you can offer this.
Ben Holmes
Mar 8, 2023, 9:04:04 AM3/8/23
to
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:50:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> I even explained *why* I believe my answer to be correct. The fact
>> that you cannot answer your own question proves you a liar...
Notice folks, that Chickenshit STILL couldn't answer his own
questions...
>>>>> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>>>>>death?"
>>>>
>>>> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
>>>> patsy.
>>>
>>> Another non answer.
>> Another lie.
>>
>> The answer PERFECTLY answers the question. And my answer is
>> IRREFUTABLE... no-one else is me, and I'm the *ONLY* one who can state
>> authoritatively how I "feel."
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> So you're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar who thinks he can
>> pontificate on what someone else believes.
Note folks, no refutation...
>>>>> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>>>>
>>>> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
>>>
>>> Another non answer.
>> Another lie on your part.
>>
>> It's amusing that you can't answer your own questions...
>
> The challenge...
Is something you refuse to meet... Why can't you answer your own
questions? Don't you know the answers???
>>>>> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>>>>>diet of lead based paint chips?"
>>>>
>>>> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>>>
>>> How old is this post from. I dropped the "retard" shtick a while back for the most part.
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>
> 2008 was the correct answer.
Not a refutation.
>> And if the "retard shtick" were honest - there's no reason for an
>> honest man to "drop it." If it weren't honest from the beginning, and
>> you "drop it" - you've merely shown what a troll you are.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> And who the true "retard" is.
>>>>>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>>>>>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>>>>>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>>>>>(CE399)?:
>>>>>
>>>>>2 shots/bullets?
>>>>>3 shots/bullets?
>>>>>4 shots/bullets?
>>>>>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>>>>>
>>>>>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>>>>>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>>>>>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>>>>>
>>>>>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>>>>>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>>>>>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
>>>>
>>>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
>>>> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
>>>
>>> I posted some of the support for it. There might be more I neglected to include.
>>
>> You posted your opinions. Not a *SINGLE* citation was presented by
>> you.
>
> You are simply lying.
And yet, you can't cite your citations.
>> You lose!
And *PROVABLY* so...
>>>> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
>>>> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
>>>> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
>>>> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
>>>
>>> You guys look at the wrong things incorrectly.
>>
>> Not a refutation. Nor is your opinion worth much...
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Note folks that Chickenshit couldn't deny my truthful and correct
>> statement that " nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts involved
>> - contradict the SBT"
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> That fact tells the tale...
And indeed, Chickenshit's cowardice tells the true story here...
>>>> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
>>>> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
>>>> TERRIFIED of debating.)
>>>
>>> Ideas that can be expressed without evidence can be dismissed
>>> without evidence.
>>
>> Sadly for you, YOU YOURSELF prove that you know the evidence exists...
>> this is why you insistently refuse to state where the largest bullet
>> fragment seen in the trail of fragments is located.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> And, as you asked for my *OPINION* - you're quiite stupid when you try
>> to deny that this is my opinion. I have no need of posting the
>> additional evidence that my opinion is based on. Only a moron like
>> you thinks I need to "convince" myself.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>>> I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear
>>> you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for
>>> it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague
>>> allusions to things, but that is about it.
>>
>> As I've stated many times before, I can post a scenario EQUALLY as
>> long, with JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citations as you
>> can...
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> But you *KNOW* this to be true, so you refuse to meet the challenge.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Only Conan had balls enough, and he ended up running away from my
>> response.
Chickenshit couldn't deny it.
>> *YOU* prove yourself to be a liar.
>>>> Now, I've answered all these questions...
>>>
>>> You made noise but offered nothing that can be examined.
>>
>> You've lied about the questions being answered.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> And cannot answer the same questions yourself.
And *still* no answers...
>>>> and I'll prove beyond ANY
>>>> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
>>>> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
>>>>
>>>> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
>>>>
>>>> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
>>>> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
>>>> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>>>
>>> Be a man and gather all the evidence and advance an idea using that evidence.
>>
>> Been there, done that, you PROVABLY ran away...
>
> Link...
Just below.
>> Here it is again:
wrote:
>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:37:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
>>>>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>>>>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>>>>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>>>>>of kook belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>>>>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>>>>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>>>>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>>>>>first question...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>>>>
>>>> Yes... the evidence shows this.
>>>
>>> Non answer...
>>
>>
>> And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
>>
>> 1. Yes.
>> 2. No.
>> 3. Maybe.
>> 4. I don't know.
>>
>> Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:10:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:37:56 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> It is difficult sometimes to tell what kook thinks what (or even if
>>>>>they think at all) about certain aspects of the case. I think a series
>>>>>of simple questions posed to them might alleviate some of the
>>>>>misunderstanding that occur when LN try to delve into the murky waters
>>>>>of kook belief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I invite my fellow LN to submit their own questions in this series
>>>>>if they like. Remember, keep them simple, the kook mind is prone to
>>>>>wandering. I also think it best to name all the regular CT posters, so
>>>>>they can insert their answer under their own name. Ready, heres the
>>>>>first question...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do you believe any shots were fired from the TSBD?"
>>>>
>>>> Yes... the evidence shows this.
>>>
>>> Non answer...
>>
>>
>> And you're a liar. There are only *FOUR* possible answers:
>>
>> 1. Yes.
>> 2. No.
>> 3. Maybe.
>> 4. I don't know.
>>
>> Any one of those four answers IS A LEGITIMATE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> I even explained *why* I believe my answer to be correct. The fact
>> that you cannot answer your own question proves you a liar...
questions...
>>>>> 'Do you feel Oswald was actively involved in causing Kennedy`s
>>>>>death?"
>>>>
>>>> No... the evidence tends to indicate that he is what he claimed, a
>>>> patsy.
>>>
>>> Another non answer.
>> Another lie.
>>
>> The answer PERFECTLY answers the question. And my answer is
>> IRREFUTABLE... no-one else is me, and I'm the *ONLY* one who can state
>> authoritatively how I "feel."
>> So you're not just a liar, you're a STUPID liar who thinks he can
>> pontificate on what someone else believes.
>>>>> "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>>>>
>>>> No... the evidence doesn't support it.
>>>
>>> Another non answer.
>> Another lie on your part.
>>
>> It's amusing that you can't answer your own questions...
>
Is something you refuse to meet... Why can't you answer your own
questions? Don't you know the answers???
>>>>> "Do you attribute your mental retardation to a steady childhood
>>>>>diet of lead based paint chips?"
>>>>
>>>> This shows just what is needed to defend the WCR's theory.
>>>
>>> How old is this post from. I dropped the "retard" shtick a while back for the most part.
>>
>> Not a refutation.
>
> 2008 was the correct answer.
>> And if the "retard shtick" were honest - there's no reason for an
>> honest man to "drop it." If it weren't honest from the beginning, and
>> you "drop it" - you've merely shown what a troll you are.
>> And who the true "retard" is.
>>>>>Since you (a conspiracy-happy kook) believe that the Single-Bullet
>>>>>Theory is really the POST (Pile Of Shit Theory), how many shots/
>>>>>bullets do you think must replace the SBT's one single bullet
>>>>>(CE399)?:
>>>>>
>>>>>2 shots/bullets?
>>>>>3 shots/bullets?
>>>>>4 shots/bullets?
>>>>>Or 5 or more shots/bullets?
>>>>>
>>>>>And please elaborate on just exactly how these 2, 3, 4, or more shots/
>>>>>bullets somehow lined themselves up to form a wound pattern on the two
>>>>>victims' bodies [JFK/JBC] that aligns itself very nicely with the SBT?
>>>>>
>>>>>And also please state your opinion as to what happened to each of
>>>>>these mystery bullets after pelting President Kennedy and/or Governor
>>>>>Connally? Where did all of these missiles go?
>>>>
>>>> This is a simple logical fallacy. You *presume* that the SBT is the
>>>> gold standard, YET YOU REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.
>>>
>>> I posted some of the support for it. There might be more I neglected to include.
>>
>> You posted your opinions. Not a *SINGLE* citation was presented by
>> you.
>
> You are simply lying.
>> You lose!
And *PROVABLY* so...
>>>> The evidence, to include nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts
>>>> involved - contradict the SBT. Even though you can't get any
>>>> believers to publicly acknowledge this fact - critics rely on the
>>>> evidence, and not lies and speculation.
>>>
>>> You guys look at the wrong things incorrectly.
>>
>> Not a refutation. Nor is your opinion worth much...
>> Note folks that Chickenshit couldn't deny my truthful and correct
>> statement that " nearly all the doctors and ballistic experts involved
>> - contradict the SBT"
>> That fact tells the tale...
>>>> JFK was hit most likely twice from behind, and three times from the
>>>> front. This is what the evidence shows. (Evidence that Chickenshit is
>>>> TERRIFIED of debating.)
>>>
>>> Ideas that can be expressed without evidence can be dismissed
>>> without evidence.
>>
>> Sadly for you, YOU YOURSELF prove that you know the evidence exists...
>> this is why you insistently refuse to state where the largest bullet
>> fragment seen in the trail of fragments is located.
>> And, as you asked for my *OPINION* - you're quiite stupid when you try
>> to deny that this is my opinion. I have no need of posting the
>> additional evidence that my opinion is based on. Only a moron like
>> you thinks I need to "convince" myself.
>>> I don`t even know what all this noise is about, it is quite clear
>>> you are never going to put your shooting scenario and the support for
>>> it on the table for consideration. You might through out some vague
>>> allusions to things, but that is about it.
>>
>> As I've stated many times before, I can post a scenario EQUALLY as
>> long, with JUST as much detail, and with JUST as many citations as you
>> can...
>> But you *KNOW* this to be true, so you refuse to meet the challenge.
>> Only Conan had balls enough, and he ended up running away from my
>> response.
>> *YOU* prove yourself to be a liar.
>>>> Now, I've answered all these questions...
>>>
>>> You made noise but offered nothing that can be examined.
>>
>> You've lied about the questions being answered.
>> And cannot answer the same questions yourself.
>>>> and I'll prove beyond ANY
>>>> DOUBT WHATSOEVER that although critics can answer any reasonable
>>>> question asked by believers, the same isn't true of believers.
>>>>
>>>> And I only need *one* question to prove this:
>>>>
>>>> Cite **ALL** the evidence for JFK's arrival at Bethesda... then put
>>>> it together and answer the question USING the cited evidence: What
>>>> time did JFK's body arrive at Bethesda?
>>>
>>> Be a man and gather all the evidence and advance an idea using that evidence.
>>
>> Been there, done that, you PROVABLY ran away...
>
Just below.
>> Here it is again:
Ben Holmes
Mar 13, 2023, 1:20:35 PM3/13/23
to
As cowards do...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Bud
Mar 13, 2023, 1:25:01 PM3/13/23
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 7, 2023, 4:00:09 PM4/7/23
to
On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Notice that logical fallacies are all Chickenshit has.
Chickenshit got spanked... and he's hiding in his safe place now.
wrote:
Chickenshit got spanked... and he's hiding in his safe place now.
0 new messages