Facts LNT'ers Just HATE! (#5)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
David Von Pein
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Marty Baughman
Miss Rita
Much...@Gmail.com
Muc...@Hotmail.com
Sam Brown
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
**********************************************************************
The closest eyewitness to the murder who was not in the limo - happened to be a
police officer, James Chaney.
Strangely enough, he was a leper as far as the Warren Commission and FBI went,
completely untouchable... no-one wanted to hear what he saw.
Understandable, since what we *do* know of what his testimony would have been
completely destroys the SBT, and ultimately proves a conspiracy.
This embarrassing fact that Chaney was never questioned in the investigation has
*never* been explained by any LNT'er, and indeed, simply has no explanation
*OTHER* than a cover up.
Sorta like having a Police officer stand on the sidewalk while O.J. Simpson
murdered two people, then never questioning him. Completely inexplicable.
And because facts like this illustrate the conspiracy, LNT'ers just hate it...
Bud
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
>
> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> Baldoni
> Bigdog
> Bill
> Bud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> Chu...@amcmn.com
> David Von Pein
> Grizzlie Antagonist
> Justme1952
> Marty Baughman
> Miss Rita
> Much...@Hotmail.com
> Sam Brown
> Timst...@Gmail.com
> Todd W. Vaughan
> YoHarvey
>
> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
> **********************************************************************
>
> The closest eyewitness to the murder who was not in the limo - happened to be a
> police officer, James Chaney.
>
> Strangely enough, he was a leper as far as the Warren Commission and FBI went,
> completely untouchable... no-one wanted to hear what he saw.
>
> Understandable, since what we *do* know of what his testimony would have been
> completely destroys the SBT, and ultimately proves a conspiracy.
>
> This embarrassing fact that Chaney was never questioned in the investigation has
> *never* been explained by any LNT'er, and indeed, simply has no explanation
> *OTHER* than a cover up.
>
> Sorta like having a Police officer stand on the sidewalk while O.J. Simpson
> murdered two people, then never questioning him. Completely inexplicable.
>
> And because facts like this illustrate the conspiracy, LNT'ers just hate it...
Second-guessing is meaningless, even an investigation done to Ben
Holmes`s personal specification would be open to criticism.
The kooks think the government performed a coup. If the pussies
really believe this, this is their reaction? Posting inane questions
on an obscure newsgroup? For shame, you cowards, do your patriotic
duty and get your asses up in a clock tower.
aeffects
and you, a Lone Nut KOOKSTER, have sent how many years on this obscure
USENET board? Ya can't close the LN deal, ya moron.... you simply
display incompetence at every turn....
Carry on son, oh, you do have your draft-card handy, right...
ROTFLMFAO! Hopefully, we'll finally get constructive use out of your
sorry ass -- there's always hope!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
No "second-guessing" required.
These are historical FACTS that you have no reasonable explanation for.
The *obvious* explanation isn't one that you'd like.
>> The kooks think the government performed a coup.
This is, indeed, what the historical evidence leads to. This explains why
trolls run away from the evidence in this case.
>> If the pussies
>> really believe this, this is their reaction? Posting inane questions
>> on an obscure newsgroup? For shame, you cowards, do your patriotic
>> duty and get your asses up in a clock tower.
Coward, aren't you?
>and you, a Lone Nut KOOKSTER, have sent how many years on this obscure
>USENET board? Ya can't close the LN deal, ya moron.... you simply
>display incompetence at every turn....
>
>Carry on son, oh, you do have your draft-card handy, right...
>ROTFLMFAO! Hopefully, we'll finally get constructive use out of your
>sorry ass -- there's always hope!
Strangely enough, the troll couldn't provide a reasonable explanation... the
facts are still there, and have nothing whatsoever to do with me... I merely
point them out.
The trolls can't deal with the evidence, however, and are far more interested in
"shooting the messenger".
Bud
You think I`m here to try to talk sense into kooks?
> Carry on son, oh, you do have your draft-card handy, right...
What, are you having an LSD flashback to the eighties?
> ROTFLMFAO! Hopefully, we'll finally get constructive use out of your
> sorry ass -- there's always hope!
Yah, maybe they`ll legalize the drugs you take also.
Bud
> In article <cdc4694f-5858-44d7-ac4d-e1c052fc4...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
I didn`t say it was required. I said it was what you were doing.
> These are historical FACTS that you have no reasonable explanation for.
Chaney wasn`t called to testify, that is a historical fact,
unlikely to change. You want to assign an reason for that fact, but
you really can`t, because you have no inside information to cite. No
memo, no testimony, no official reason given. So, you take the kook
approach, and assign a reason. "This must mean this" is always the
only way kooks can approach the evidence, because it is the only
approach available to them. If these things actually occurred as the
kooks claim, they might on occasion be able to produce something
supporting their claims, but they didn`t, so they can`t.
> The *obvious* explanation isn't one that you'd like.
No, the kook explanation is the one I`m not fond of.
> >> The kooks think the government performed a coup.
>
> This is, indeed, what the historical evidence leads to. This explains why
> trolls run away from the evidence in this case.
Says the kook afraid to support the ideas he raises.
> >> If the pussies
> >> really believe this, this is their reaction? Posting inane questions
> >> on an obscure newsgroup? For shame, you cowards, do your patriotic
> >> duty and get your asses up in a clock tower.
>
> Coward, aren't you?
No, that was the point, you are. You think the rule of this country
was usurped, and your response is to compose lists of questions?
Shooting spitballs at an tank, isn`t it.
> >and you, a Lone Nut KOOKSTER, have sent how many years on this obscure
> >USENET board? Ya can't close the LN deal, ya moron.... you simply
> >display incompetence at every turn....
>
> >Carry on son, oh, you do have your draft-card handy, right...
> >ROTFLMFAO! Hopefully, we'll finally get constructive use out of your
> >sorry ass -- there's always hope!
>
> Strangely enough, the troll couldn't provide a reasonable explanation...
If the WC did say why they didn`t call Chaney, you wouldn`t have to
ask. if they didn`t say why, then no answer is available.
> the
> facts are still there, and have nothing whatsoever to do with me... I merely
> point them out.
The fact, Chaney wasn`t called. You act as if that is a destination
to something. You have to pretend in this manner, because you cannot
establish the motivations you assign. So you try to force your
opponent to unprove the motivations you assign.
It`s a common kook approach, you see it all the time. Chaney should
have been called to testify, since he wasn`t, that proves maleficence.
Oswald should not have been left back into the country. Since he was,
that proves maleficence. If government always worked perfectly, if
mistakes were never made by bueracrats, and information never fell
through cracks, they might have a point. That just isn`t the world we
live in.
> The trolls can't deal with the evidence, however, and are far more interested in
> "shooting the messenger".
it is important to the context of the discussion to point out the
messenger is an asshole.
And just a note, I was under the impression that Ben said recently
that his killfilter even filters out when someone responds to someone
he had killfiled. Yet he saw this.