Evidence of a Frontal Shot -- Part I / The Entry Wound

[Gil Jesus]

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/frontal-head-wound.mp4

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7:31:33 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/frontal-head-wound.mp4

Fringe reset.

There is no evidence of a frontal shot. Read the original autopsy report.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:59:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7:31:33?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/frontal-head-wound.mp4
>
>Fringe reset.

Not once... not a SINGLE TIME - has Chuckles ever cited for a "fringe
reset"...

>There is no evidence of a frontal shot.

That's a simple lie. The first contemporary reports spoke of the
entry wound in JFK's throat.

Lies won't convince anyone, Chuckles... you need to do better.

>Read the original autopsy report.

The prosectors never dissected the neck wound - which was one of the
frontal wounds.

And, of course, you don't believe the Autopsy Report.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:59:05 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> There is no evidence of a frontal shot.

Spoken like a true coward who didn't watch the video because he's afraid of the truth.
If you'd watched the video, you'd know why it wasn't in the autopsy report.

> Read the original autopsy report.

I did read the autopsy report. In fact, it's one of the over 4,000 files I have on the case.
Did YOU read it ?

Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Why is that, Chuck ?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 4:53:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:59:05 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > There is no evidence of a frontal shot.
> Spoken like a true coward who didn't watch the video because he's afraid of the truth.
> If you'd watched the video, you'd know why it wasn't in the autopsy report.

If you weren`t an idiot you`d know that it is autopsies that determine the facts about wounds.

> > Read the original autopsy report.
> I did read the autopsy report. In fact, it's one of the over 4,000 files I have on the case.
> Did YOU read it ?

Two shots from above and behind.

> Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.

Internet idiots claim to know more than the pathologists who looked at the material.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 5:57:17 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< more stupid comments and insults >

Still waiting for you to explain it. Or will you continue to run ?
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/page/2/#comment-527075

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 02:57:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 01:53:08 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Chuckles is a "hit and run" poster - he rarely sticks around to defend
his lies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:45:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 5:57:17?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< more stupid comments and insults >
>
>Still waiting for you to explain it. Or will you continue to run ?
>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/page/2/#comment-527075

A worthless question, Gil... believers are **ALL** cowards, every last
one of them.

You can ALWAYS force a believer not to answer a question - you just
ask one related to the evidence in this case.

They run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:53:09 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:59:05 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

> > There is no evidence of a frontal shot.

> Spoken like a true coward who didn't watch the video because he's afraid of the truth.

The truth that something else happened on 11/22/63? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

> If you'd watched the video, you'd know why it wasn't in the autopsy report.

"Back and to the left" has been a frequent discussion, Gil. The autopsy doctors dealt with science, not witness impressions about the direction of the shots.

> > Read the original autopsy report.

> I did read the autopsy report. In fact, it's one of the over 4,000 files I have on the case.

I can picture your filthy ramshackle trailer, stuffed with moldy yellow papers and hundreds of conspiracy books and Tom Rossley's "twenty-six volumes" he probably gifted to you upon his passing. Good God.

> Did YOU read it ?

Yes.

>
> Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.

Sez you.

> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>
> Why is that, Chuck ?

You again treat this like you're Oswald's Johnny Cochrane. Wrong approach. Assemble your hobby points from the 4,000 files you have and lay out a positive case for what you think occurred so we can compare it to the Oswald Alone case.

Stop BITCHING about what you don't like and get off your LAZY ASS and DO SOMETHING!

You were in an hysterical tizzy recently over some sort of evidence forms you said the DPD should've used on 11/22/63. Did you ever DO ANYTHING about this, like interview DPD cops of the era or contact anyone?

No? Why not?

This is really just a hobby to you, isn't it?

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< more stupid comments, insults and questions >

> > Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.

> Sez you.

No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.
It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Speaking of evidence, in what year can we expect you to post some ?
Or will you go down in USENET history as the flaming asshole who ran from the truth and posted nothing but insults ?
Time is running out, Chuck. In two weeks, your legacy of an asshole who comes here to get his jollies from insulting people will be cemented on the internet.

Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 5:34:43 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> < more stupid comments, insults and questions >
> > > Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
>
> > Sez you.
> No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.

Quote from the evidence where it says the BOH photo doesn`t match the autopsy.

> It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?
>
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>
> Speaking of evidence, in what year can we expect you to post some ?

I`ve posted evidence, hundreds, perhaps thousands of times over the years here. You are unaware of this.

> Or will you go down in USENET history as the flaming asshole who ran from the truth and posted nothing but insults ?
> Time is running out, Chuck. In two weeks, your legacy of an asshole who comes here to get his jollies from insulting people will be cemented on the internet.
>
> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:38:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 02:34:41 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>< more stupid comments, insults and questions >
>
>> > Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
>
>> Sez you.
>
>No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.
>It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?
>
>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Amusingly, there's not one believer who will publicly agree that much
of the evidence conflicts.

Even such obvious examples as whether or not the paper in the "paper
bag" matched the paper at the TSBD.

Cowardice runs rampant among believers...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 21:59:46 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:53:09?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 8:59:05?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>
>> > There is no evidence of a frontal shot.
>
>> Spoken like a true coward who didn't watch the video because he's afraid of the truth.
>
>The truth that something else happened on 11/22/63? Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

The truth that there *IS* evidence for a frontal shot is something you
can't be honest enough to admit.

>> If you'd watched the video, you'd know why it wasn't in the autopsy report.
>
>"Back and to the left" has been a frequent discussion, Gil. The autopsy doctors dealt with science, not witness impressions about the direction of the shots.

The autopsy doctors obeyed orders, and refused to examine a bullet
wound they knew nothing of during the autopsy.

The Parkland doctors... well, you don't believe expert opinion...

>> > Read the original autopsy report.
>
>> I did read the autopsy report. In fact, it's one of the over 4,000 files I have on the case.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Did YOU read it ?
>
>Yes.

Where was the large wound, devoid of bone and scalp, located on the
head?

>> Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
>
>Sez you.

Support your claim. What part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back
of the head, and visible in the BOH photo?

>> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>>
>> Why is that, Chuck ?

Logical fallacies deleted.

Feb 22 can't come soon enough!

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> < more stupid comments, insults and questions >
> > > Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
>
> > Sez you.
> No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.

I've looked at it. And people far smarter than you or I have looked at it. Your logical fallacy here is a version of a fallacy of composition. You take a part (supposed BoH photo differences with the autopsy report) and apply it to the whole (conclusion that JFK was only struck twice; from above and behind). The HSCA medical panel gave all of the medical evidence a hard look and also concluded JFK was struck twice, from above and behind. Game, set, match.

I believe that if we went back to the early 90s on Usenet regarding this discussion, we could find THOUSANDS of posts on this subject. You are perpetually stuck at 1230pm on 11/22/63.

> It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?

Why can't you go somewhere with the conflicts you say exist? Stop shifting the burden. Get off your LAZY ASS and make a case for something, old man. Stop treating this like you're Oswald's Johnny Cochrane and that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

>
> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>
> Speaking of evidence, in what year can we expect you to post some ?

Evidence of WHAT, bitter old man shaking his tiny fists towards the heavens, angry at the unfairness of it all? You're CHALLENGING, not me. You're saying Oswald was 100% an innocent patsy, not guilty of shooting JFK and wounding JBC or shooting JDT. You are on the far fringes of even the conspiracy community. You carry a TREMENDOUS burden, not me.

> Or will you go down in USENET history as the flaming asshole who ran from the truth and posted nothing but insults ?

Lol. Usenet history? Ran from WHAT truth? That some people did something on 11/22/63? You're DELUSIONAL.

> Time is running out, Chuck. In two weeks, your legacy of an asshole who comes here to get his jollies from insulting people will be cemented on the internet.

I think you fear the disappearance of your critics more than your critics fear this dusty little corner of the internet fading away. You look at us as Warren Commission proxy stand-ins. Without your critics around to bounce your speculative hobby point nit-picks off of, you're just as finished here as we are. All of your so-called brilliant observations will circle down the drain as digital flotsam and jetsam, effectively lost forever. This bothers me not at all because I was here for amusement and regard nothing I've written here as impactful or important, but you and Ben fancy yourselves as some sort of intellectual counter narrative truth tellers. You are both DELUSIONAL. Spark a bowl, hippie, and spin a Grateful Dead record amidst the clutter of 4,000 yellowing files in your ramshackle trailer.

>
> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?

I will continue to accomplish nothing, and you will continue to accomplish nothing. I understand this, you don't. And the coward part? C'mon, desperate old man. No one has ever "run" from you or Ben. You're both delusional baby boomers with too much time on your hands.

Flush.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> < more stupid comments, insults and questions >
>>>> Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
>>
>>> Sez you.
>> No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.
>
>I've looked at it.

And been completely unable to explain it.

> And people far smarter than you or I have looked at it.

None of whom have explained it.


> Your logical fallacy...


Nope.

> I believe that if we went back to the early 90s on Usenet regarding
> this discussion, we could find THOUSANDS of posts on this subject.

You *CONSTANTLY* make this claim, and yet, you've not a *SINGLE TIME*
ever cited for your claim.

No stupid, it's NEVER been explained by any believer... early 90's or
at ANYTIME.

>> It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?
>

>Why...


And Chuckles runs again.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

>> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
>>
>> Speaking of evidence, in what year can we expect you to post some ?
>

>Evidence of WHAT...


Who killed JFK. Getting senile?

>> Or will you go down in USENET history as the flaming asshole who ran from the truth and posted nothing but insults ?
>
>Lol. Usenet history? Ran from WHAT truth?

The list is long. Here in this thread, it's your inability to
acknowledge that the Autopsy Report conflicts with the alleged BOH
photo.

>> Time is running out, Chuck. In two weeks, your legacy of an asshole who comes here to get his jollies from insulting people will be cemented on the internet.
>

>I think ...


No, you don't.

>> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
>

>I will continue to accomplish nothing....


Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:59:47?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> >> < more stupid comments, insults and questions >
> >>>> Apparently not, because if you did, you'd know that the Back Of Head ( BOH ) autopsy photo does not match the autopsy report.
> >>
> >>> Sez you.
> >> No, sez the evidence you refuse to look at.
> >
> >I've looked at it.
> And been completely unable to explain it.

To the satisfaction of delusional idiots.

> > And people far smarter than you or I have looked at it.
> None of whom have explained it.

To the satisfaction of delusional idiots.

> > Your logical fallacy...
>
>
> Nope.
> > I believe that if we went back to the early 90s on Usenet regarding
> > this discussion, we could find THOUSANDS of posts on this subject.
> You *CONSTANTLY* make this claim, and yet, you've not a *SINGLE TIME*
> ever cited for your claim.
>
> No stupid, it's NEVER been explained

To the satisfaction of delusional idiots.

>by any believer... early 90's or
> at ANYTIME.
> >> It's YOUR evidence, Chuck. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?
> >
> >Why...
>
>
> And Chuckles runs again.
>
> As he does...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!

They have their own little worlds going on.

> >> https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
> >>
> >> Speaking of evidence, in what year can we expect you to post some ?
> >
> >Evidence of WHAT...
>
>
> Who killed JFK.

Oswald. I guess we`re done here.

>Getting senile?
> >> Or will you go down in USENET history as the flaming asshole who ran from the truth and posted nothing but insults ?
> >
> >Lol. Usenet history? Ran from WHAT truth?
> The list is long. Here in this thread, it's your inability to
> acknowledge that the Autopsy Report conflicts with the alleged BOH
> photo.

You refuse to show that it does. Hot air doesn`t count for anything.

Gil says it is what the evidence says, but he can`t quote the evidence saying this.

> >> Time is running out, Chuck. In two weeks, your legacy of an asshole who comes here to get his jollies from insulting people will be cemented on the internet.
> >
> >I think ...
>
>
> No, you don't.

We reason. You guys think reasoning is something to be avoided at all cost. It is a hindrance to getting to the places you are desperate to go.

> >> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
> >
> >I will continue to accomplish nothing....
>
>
> Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.

He accomplished his own amusement. Something beats nothing.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
They've ignored the way the authorities handled Oswald.
They've ignored the way the authorities handled the evidence.
They've ignored they way the authorities handled the witnesses.

All of these tactics, which one would not find in a normal criminal investigation, is completely acceptable to them.
Why ? Because they're cowards afraid of the truth. They're afraid to look under their beds to see if there's a monster there.
They're afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the truth.

Especially in today's political climate, where the "swamp" or "deep state" or whatever you want to call it, is doing everything it can to keep one Presidential candidate out of the White House,
they can't see that this corruption started way back in 1963.

No, they might be corrupt today, but they'd never do that back in 1963.
They might lie to the people today, but not in 1963.
They might remove a President from office today, but not in 1963.

These Lone Nutters are either naive or in denial.
They can't see that the reason why we are in the position we're in today is because elements of the CIA got away with murder in 1963.
The corruption in government allowed them to get away with it.
Once you get away with murder, you can do whatever you want.

You can break the laws of the land without fear of prosecution.
You can steal from the people and subsequent generations.
You can fix elections.

You can open the borders to allow millions of new "voters" into the country, voters who will be grateful to you for letting them in.
Ply them with thousands of dollars of benefits, essentially buying their votes.
Then after the election, leave them hanging like you do to your citizens.

When you're corrupt and free from the fear of prosecution, you can get away with any crime, including murder.
The murder of John Kennedy proved that.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> > <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> > >> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
> > >
> > >I will continue to accomplish nothing....
> >
> >
> > Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.
> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.

Against what?

> They've ignored the way the authorities handled Oswald.
> They've ignored the way the authorities handled the evidence.
> They've ignored they way the authorities handled the witnesses.

We look at things correctly.

> All of these tactics, which one would not find in a normal criminal investigation, is completely acceptable to them.

Circular and begged argument.

> Why ? Because they're cowards afraid of the truth. They're afraid to look under their beds to see if there's a monster there.
> They're afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the truth.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

> Especially in today's political climate, where the "swamp" or "deep state" or whatever you want to call it, is doing everything it can to keep one Presidential candidate out of the White House,
> they can't see that this corruption started way back in 1963.

Your "this is something they would do" is meaningless unless you can show "this is what they did".

> No, they might be corrupt today, but they'd never do that back in 1963.
> They might lie to the people today, but not in 1963.
> They might remove a President from office today, but not in 1963.
>
> These Lone Nutters are either naive or in denial.

Your delusional.

> They can't see that the reason why we are in the position we're in today is because elements of the CIA got away with murder in 1963.
> The corruption in government allowed them to get away with it.

Blanket claim that doesn`t even being to explain what happened on 11-22-63. An explanation none of your ilk will ever produce.

> Once you get away with murder, you can do whatever you want.
>
> You can break the laws of the land without fear of prosecution.
> You can steal from the people and subsequent generations.
> You can fix elections.
>
> You can open the borders to allow millions of new "voters" into the country, voters who will be grateful to you for letting them in.
> Ply them with thousands of dollars of benefits, essentially buying their votes.
> Then after the election, leave them hanging like you do to your citizens.
>
> When you're corrupt and free from the fear of prosecution, you can get away with any crime, including murder.
> The murder of John Kennedy proved that.

You misdirect everywhere because you have nothing. Never did, never will.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> > <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> > >> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
> > >
> > >I will continue to accomplish nothing....
> >
> >
> > Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.
> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.

According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes, so you aren’t exactly the best judge of who is doing a piss-poor job, are you?

> They've ignored the way the authorities handled Oswald.

Pretty much as other defendants were handled in that era.

> They've ignored the way the authorities handled the evidence.

Pretty much as other evidence was handled in that era.


> They've ignored the way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Pretty much as other witnesses were handled in that era.

Your beef is with the era, not the case. You simply don’t realize that.

>
> All of these tactics, which one would not find in a normal criminal investigation, is completely acceptable to them.

What tactics? Do spell it out, be willing to present evidence that Oswald was treated differently than other defendants of that era, that the evidence was treated differently, and the witnesses as well, *in that era*.

Thus far, I have seen you compare apples to oranges, and compare modern practices to those of 60 years ago, and find the old practices wanting. So what?

> Why ? Because they're cowards afraid of the truth. They're afraid to look under their beds to see if there's a monster there.
> They're afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the truth.

No, Gil. Maybe we’ve looked under the bed and realized you are imagining Boogie Men Conspirators where none exist.

>
> Especially in today's political climate, where the "swamp" or "deep state" or whatever you want to call it, is doing everything it can to keep one Presidential candidate out of the White House,
> they can't see that this corruption started way back in 1963.

Which candidate in1963 was kept off the ballot in the1964 election?

>
> No, they might be corrupt today, but they'd never do that back in 1963.
> They might lie to the people today, but not in 1963.
> They might remove a President from office today, but not in 1963.
>
> These Lone Nutters are either naive or in denial.
> They can't see that the reason why we are in the position we're in today is because elements of the CIA got away with murder in 1963.

You say this, but you’ve never come close to marshalling the evidence to support that claim.

> The corruption in government allowed them to get away with it.
> Once you get away with murder, you can do whatever you want.

No, even a Ted Bundy eventually gets caught, tried, and convicted. When do you think one of your supposed conspirators will find himself behind bars, Gil? Anytime in the next century?

>
> You can break the laws of the land without fear of prosecution.
> You can steal from the people and subsequent generations.
> You can fix elections.
>
> You can open the borders to allow millions of new "voters" into the country, voters who will be grateful to you for letting them in.
> Ply them with thousands of dollars of benefits, essentially buying their votes.
> Then after the election, leave them hanging like you do to your citizens.

None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination. But I admire your imagination.

>
> When you're corrupt and free from the fear of prosecution, you can get away with any crime, including murder.
> The murder of John Kennedy proved that.

The murderer was dead within 48 hours of committing the murder of JFK and Tippit. He didn’t get away with it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:00:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>>>>> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
>>>>
>>>>I will continue to accomplish nothing....
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.
>> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
>

>According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...

Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a
mispelling by me?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:30:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:51:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

You misspelled “mispelling”.

You jumping to conclusions again? A misspelling doesn’t imply or lead inexorably to the conclusion of “moron”. So your response is simply the logical fallacy of ad hominem once more.

[Hank Sienzant]

And of course, Ben ignored all the points I made in the original post he was responding to. Gil will treat them as toxic waste as well:

== quote ==

> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.

== unquote ==

Ben is constantly trying to sidetrack the discussion because he can’t defend his beliefs.

[Gil Jesus]

This is why I don't respond to them. Their offerings are nothing more than bullshit.
I don't have time to participate in a bullshit session.
I don't have time for their nonsensical speculation, comments, insults and questions.
I deal in official records and I expect those who want to have a civil debate on the evidence to do so as well.
These people are frauds. They're only here for "entertainment".

Engaging them with evidence is like trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old.

Can't wait for Feb. 22nd, when the adults take over the discussion.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:24:41 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:03:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...
> >
> > Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a mispelling by me?
> This is why I don't respond to them. Their offerings are nothing more than bullshit.
> I don't have time to participate in a bullshit session.
> I don't have time for their nonsensical speculation, comments, insults and questions.
> I deal in official records and I expect those who want to have a civil debate on the evidence to do so as well.

No, you won’t engage with me whatsoever, especially when I quote from the official records to show exactly how you are misusing them. I quote from law books to further establish how you don’t understand what constitutes chain of custody. You ran screaming as if your hair was on fire.

> These people are frauds. They're only here for "entertainment".
>
> Engaging them with evidence is like trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old.

I was a college physics major. That’s a particularly poor analogy for you to use.
What was your major?

>
> Can't wait for Feb. 22nd, when the adults take over the discussion.

Translation: Can't wait for Feb. 22nd, when I don’t have to see how wrong I am pointed out on a daily basis.


Meanwhile, as just one example from this thread of what you are running from, there’s this:

— quote —

> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.

According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes, so you aren’t exactly the best judge of who is doing a piss-poor job, are you?


> They've ignored the way the authorities handled Oswald.

Pretty much as other defendants were handled in that era.


> They've ignored the way the authorities handled the evidence.

Pretty much as other evidence was handled in that era.


> They've ignored the way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Pretty much as other witnesses were handled in that era.

Your beef is with the era, not the case. You simply don’t realize that.


>
> All of these tactics, which one would not find in a normal criminal investigation, is completely acceptable to them.

What tactics? Do spell it out, be willing to present evidence that Oswald was treated differently than other defendants of that era, that the evidence was treated differently, and the witnesses as well, *in that era*.

Thus far, I have seen you compare apples to oranges, and compare modern practices to those of 60 years ago, and find the old practices wanting. So what?


> Why ? Because they're cowards afraid of the truth. They're afraid to look under their beds to see if there's a monster there.
> They're afraid of the dark. They're afraid of the truth.

No, Gil. Maybe we’ve looked under the bed and realized you are imagining Boogie Men Conspirators where none exist.


>
> Especially in today's political climate, where the "swamp" or "deep state" or whatever you want to call it, is doing everything it can to keep one Presidential candidate out of the White House,
> they can't see that this corruption started way back in 1963.

Which candidate in 1963 was kept off the ballot in the 1964 election?

>
> No, they might be corrupt today, but they'd never do that back in 1963.
> They might lie to the people today, but not in 1963.
> They might remove a President from office today, but not in 1963.
>
> These Lone Nutters are either naive or in denial.
> They can't see that the reason why we are in the position we're in today is because elements of the CIA got away with murder in 1963.

You say this, but you’ve never come close to marshalling the evidence to support that claim.


> The corruption in government allowed them to get away with it.
> Once you get away with murder, you can do whatever you want.

No, even a Ted Bundy eventually gets caught, tried, and convicted. When do you think one of your supposed conspirators will find himself behind bars, Gil? Anytime in the next century?


>
> You can break the laws of the land without fear of prosecution.
> You can steal from the people and subsequent generations.
> You can fix elections.
>
> You can open the borders to allow millions of new "voters" into the country, voters who will be grateful to you for letting them in.
> Ply them with thousands of dollars of benefits, essentially buying their votes.
> Then after the election, leave them hanging like you do to your citizens.

None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination. But I admire your imagination.


>
> When you're corrupt and free from the fear of prosecution, you can get away with any crime, including murder.
> The murder of John Kennedy proved that.

The murderer was dead within 48 hours of committing the murder of JFK and Tippit. He didn’t get away with it.

— unquote —

[Bud]

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:24:41 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:03:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...
> >
> > Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a mispelling by me?
> This is why I don't respond to them. Their offerings are nothing more than bullshit.

Often they apply reason and critical thinking to your ideas. They don`t fare well.

> I don't have time to participate in a bullshit session.

You have plenty of time. Too much, in fact.

> I don't have time for their nonsensical speculation, comments, insults and questions.

You want to scrutinize the ideas of others, but you don`t want your ideas scrutinized. They don`t fare well.

> I deal in official records and I expect those who want to have a civil debate on the evidence to do so as well.

Tell Ben this.

> These people are frauds. They're only here for "entertainment".

You say it like it is a bad thing.

> Engaging them with evidence is like trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old.

Yes Gil, your thinking is so far above us.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

> Can't wait for Feb. 22nd, when the adults take over the discussion.

Then it will be farewell to your ideas that don`t fare well.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:18:14 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:24:41?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:03:37?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...
>> >
>> > Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a mispelling by me?
>> This is why I don't respond to them. Their offerings are nothing more than bullshit.
>> I don't have time to participate in a bullshit session.
>> I don't have time for their nonsensical speculation, comments, insults and questions.
>> I deal in official records and I expect those who want to have a civil debate on the evidence to do so as well.
>
>No, you won’t engage with me whatsoever

Says the coward who's been running from this for months:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 05:09:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:24:41?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:03:37?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...
>>>
>>> Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a mispelling by me?
>> This is why I don't respond to them. Their offerings are nothing more than bullshit.
>

> Often they apply reason and critical thinking:

Go for it:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 02:24:39 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Amusingly, Huckster can't recognize his hypocrisy... Matthew 7:3-5
comes to mind.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:47:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:45:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:00:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>>>>> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
>>>>
>>>>I will continue to accomplish nothing....
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.
>> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
>
>According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...

Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a
mispelling by me?

It's my believe that you're a moron, Huckster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:43:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Hank Sienzant]

You can believe anything you want, regardless of whether there is any basis in reality for said belief.
A conspiracy to kill JFK, for instance.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:40:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 12:00:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 11:20:28?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:07:42 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 4:34:43?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>>>>> Will you finally post evidence, or will you continue to accomplish nothing by running like the coward you are ?
>>>>
>>>>I will continue to accomplish nothing....
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally! Chuckles slips up and tells the truth.
>> Over the last 20 or 25 years in this newsgroup, these people as a group have done a piss-poor job of defending the Warren Commission's case against Oswald.
>
>According to you. But you’re biased in favor of your own believes...

Isn't this the same moron who just got through pointing out a
mispelling by me?


It's my believe that you're a moron, Huckster.

(Huckster can't read and reason, either...)