My Look at the body of evidence for John Corbett and the other pathological liars in this group

[Gil Jesus]

Liar Corbett says I isolate evidence and don't look at the body of evidence as a whole.

To prove what a liar he is, here's my look at the body of evidence as a whole in the JFK assassination:

The rifle
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

The paper "gunsack"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

The rifle shells found on the sixth ffloor
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-shells-and-ammo/

The lunchroom encounter
https://gil-jesus.com/the-lunchroom-encounter/

Evidence Oswald was on the first floor
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

The bus and taxi ride
https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-escape/

The shirt fibers on the rifle
https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-shirt/

The accuracy of the rifle scope
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

The entrance wound in the front of the President's head
https://gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry/

The bevelling evidence proving an exit wound in the back of the President's head
https://gil-jesus.com/head-games/

Proof Commander Humes lied about the location of the back wound
https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

A look at "star" witness Howard Brennan
https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/

The Sixth Floor "Sniper's Nest"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-snipers-nest/

[Charles Schuyler]

Now what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 05:10:27 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

Honesty would be a start...

[Charles Schuyler]

When do you plan on starting?

Gil has a series of things he finds suspicious. So do you. Okay, now what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 08:48:55 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

>Gil has a series of things he finds suspicious. So do you. Okay, now what?

Laugh at your inability to defend what you believe.

[Steven Galbraith]

You've said the "Russians got it right" in their investigation into the assassination. They said it was the CIA. You later said you didn't know anything about the Russian investigation. The same investigation you said "got it right." Hmm, that's at odds with itself. You also say the Birchers killed JFK - they were *allowed* to do so by "the Establishment" that felt threatened by JFK's policies, chiefly foreign/military. Of course, if the Birchers killed JFK then the Russians didn't "get it right" since they said it was the CIA. The CIA is not the Birchers.
Now, you've contradicted yourself at least twice here. You can, of course, acknowledge error and withdraw the statement that "the Russians got it right." We all make errors and admitting it would solve this for you. But you're a conspiracy fanatic and fanatics cannot admit error. So here you are.
In conclusion I would suggest that before you call others "pathological liars" you stop making whoppers yourself. That's some good advice and it's free. I suggest you take it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 09:13:32 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Probablyi not... Steven is TERRIFIED of debating the evidence with
knowledgeable critics.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

You are not presenting evidence. You are presenting your excuses for dismissing the evidence
presented by the WC based on the flimsiest of grounds. You dismiss the rifle, the rifle bag, the
shells, the lunchroom encounter, Oswald's bus and cab rides, shirt fibers on the rifle, the
medical evidence, Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest, and the one witness who actually saw
the gunman fire the final shot. You twist the circumstances of the lunchroom encounter. You
present phony evidence Oswald was on the first floor during the shooting. Then you are the
rifle wasn't accurate enough to do the shooting, ignoring the fact that the only bullets recovered
from the shooting were fired by that rifle, which shoots down your argument that the rifle was
not accurate enough.

In short, rather than accept what the body of evidence clearly shows, that Oswald was the
assassin, you bend and twist the evidence to create an alternative scenario. You act as if
finding the truth is a multiple choice exercise. You ignore the fact that there can only be one
truth and in this case, the one truths is that Oswald murdered two men on 11/22/1963. You
can't handle the truth.

[Bud]

Your inability to reason doesn`t reflect on anyone but yourself.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> Liar Corbett says I isolate evidence and don't look at the body of evidence as a whole.
>
> To prove what a liar he is, here's my look at the body of evidence as a whole in the JFK assassination:

You can`t put these things together into a cohesive package explaining this event, so what is the point?

You can`t explain how such a wide variety of evidence from different sources can implicate Oswald and him still be innocent.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

And *YOU* are provably lying. I defy ANYONE to click on any of the
above links, and *NOT* find any evidence being quoted, cited and/or
shown.

You can't convince people with lies, Corbutt.

>You are presenting your excuses for dismissing the evidence
>presented by the WC based on the flimsiest of grounds.

Legal grounds... don't forget to add that.


I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy. You aren't capable of
addressing the evidence Gil referenced.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:44:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Your...

I'm not the subject, so I deleted your logical fallacy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> Liar Corbett says I isolate evidence and don't look at the body of evidence as a whole.
>>
>> To prove what a liar he is, here's my look at the body of evidence as a whole in the JFK assassination:
>
> You can`t put these things together into a cohesive package
> explaining this event, so what is the point?

You're lying again, Chickenshit.

> You can`t explain how such a wide variety of evidence from
> different sources can implicate Oswald and him still be innocent.

Cite just *ONE* that doesn't originate from the FBI.

[Bud]

You removed what I wrote because you hate the truth.

[Steven Galbraith]

He goes over the DPD and Warren Commission investigations with the proverbial microscope, seizing upon any discrepancy, any contradictory piece of evidence and then using that to dispel the other evidence and the conclusions made from it.
Meanwhile he uncritically - completely uncritically - accepts "the Russian investigation." No questions asked, no examination of their methods. One standard versus literally no standard.
You cannot in any way reason with this mindset. Whatever evidence is presented of Oswald's guilt will be dismissed out of hand; whatever evidence - even none! - that is presented of a government conspiracy will be accepted tout court. There, that's our French for today.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:21:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> Liar Corbett says I isolate evidence and don't look at the body of evidence as a whole.
> >>
> >> To prove what a liar he is, here's my look at the body of evidence as a whole in the JFK assassination:
> >
> > You can`t put these things together into a cohesive package
> > explaining this event, so what is the point?
> You're lying again, Chickenshit.

The truth looks that way to a dishonest person like yourself.

> > You can`t explain how such a wide variety of evidence from
> > different sources can implicate Oswald and him still be innocent.
> Cite just *ONE* that doesn't originate from the FBI.

Non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 1:12:48?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

These aren't minor issues that Gil is pointing out. You can't address
them... Your cowardice is clear...

The rest of your logical fallacy deleted...

[Charles Schuyler]

Okay, granting his points--or your points--what's next?

Where does Team Oswald even start when the entirety of the case is--in your collective opinions--full of planted evidence, false evidence, false testimony, and so on? Gil's hobby point screed includes problems with the rifle, the gun sack, the sixth floor shells, the lunchroom encounter, Oswald on the first floor, the bus and taxi rides, fibers on the rifle, accuracy of the rifle scope, the wound entrance on JFK Gil says was from the front, the beveled JFK head wound Gil says proves an exit, not an entrance, Commander Humes lying, and star witness Howard Brennan.

>You can't address
> them... Your cowardice is clear...

What do you mean by "address" the points? These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others) countless times. The hobby points have been addressed, but obviously not to your satisfaction. Just because Team Oswald doesn't like the way the issues you raise have been addressed doesn't mean they haven't been addressed.

Now what?

>
> The rest of your logical fallacy deleted...

Forward your blockbuster information here:

Address & Main Telephone
The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
Columbia Point
Boston, MA 02125
1.866.JFK.1960
1.617.514.1600
TDD line: 617.514.1573

Website Questions & Feedback
If you have questions about our website or would like to report a bug or security issue, please use our Website Feedback Form.

Contacts by Department
Department Phone Email
Administration 617.514.1541
Archives Reference, Research Room, and Reproduction (textual) kennedy...@nara.gov
Archives Reference, Research Room, and Reproduction (audiovisual) JFK.AVa...@nara.gov
Catering Services 617.514.1585
Education & Public Programs 617.514.1581 educat...@nara.gov
Ernest Hemingway Collection kennedy...@nara.gov
Group Tours 617.514.1589 kennedy.g...@nara.gov
JFK Library Foundation 617.514.1550 found...@jfklfoundation.org
Membership 617.514.1659 membe...@jfklfoundation.org
Museum Collection muse...@nara.gov
Press and Public Information 617.514.1574 pr...@jfklfoundation.org
Profile in Courage Essay Contest prof...@nara.gov
Social Media socia...@jfklfoundation.org
Space Rental 617.514.1588 nancy...@nara.gov
Visitor Services 617.514.1569 kennedy.g...@nara.gov

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:



>

> The lunchroom encounter
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-lunchroom-encounter/
>

Here is another example of CT-ers being the people who attack the correct evidence rather than the Lone Nutters...


Gil just brazenly ignores my discovery of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he intended to go back in to the Break Room...I have been posting the evidence that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room for several years now...Gil just ignores it and posts a spun version of events that caters to Oswald being on the 1st Floor during the assassination despite the real evidence that shows Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room the whole time during the assassination...

Gil's Lunch Room section is pure garbage...It ignores the fact that many researchers say Couch/Darnell is 25 to 30 seconds after the shots...It can't be 10 seconds after the shots because Gloria Calvery is done talking to Lovelady & Shelley and is climbing the front steps...Lovelady & Shelley themselves are on their way up the Elm St extension...These events are well past 10 seconds after the shots...

Gil is misrepresenting the evidence and ignoring that Fritz said directly that Oswald told him he was eating lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...Gil ignores Jack Dougherty who also said outright that Oswald was up eating his lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his down below in the Domino Room...And, finally, Gil commits the worst Judas offense a CT-er can commit by backing the FBI's lies against Carolyn Arnold and ignoring her insistence that she saw Oswald eating lunch alone in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at 12:25...

Gil is too dumb to realize that when Baker says "I cannot say" he is sending the message that he saw Oswald stationary in the Vestibule window and saw him flinch back...Baker then saw Oswald's lunch on the table just like Carolyn Arnold...Gil never questions why the Commission never asked Baker if he witnessed anything that showed that Oswald was in the 2nd Floor eating lunch the whole time...Gil then ignores Buell Frazier who recently mentioned on a radio show that a Depository employee told him a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple were seen on the 2nd Floor Lunch Room table after the assassination...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 12:06:52 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

You've lost.

The *MOMENT* you grant Gil's points, you've proven Oswald's innocence,
and DESTROYED any belief in the wacky theory put forth by the WCR.


>Where does Team Oswald even start...


With the evidence you're so terrified of...

>>You can't address
>> them... Your cowardice is clear...
>
>What do you mean by "address" the points?

Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
"Hidell?"

I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.

> These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
> countless times.

Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
believer.


> The hobby points have been addressed...


No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.

>> The rest of your logical fallacy deleted...
>

>Forward your blockbuster information here...


Indeed, that's what we are doing... and all you can do is run.

[Bud]

Produce part three.

> I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.
> > These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
> > countless times.
> Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
> believer.
>
>
> > The hobby points have been addressed...
>
>
> No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
> inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
> been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.

Goalpost move.

[John Corbett]

I'm glad you told us that was French. At first look, I thought it was a typo.

[Charles Schuyler]

Johnny Cochrane: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

Sorry, we're not in court, and granting a point is a polite discussion technique to try and move the conversation forward, not a concession of Oswald's innocence.

> and DESTROYED any belief in the wacky theory put forth by the WCR.
>
>
> >Where does Team Oswald even start...
>
>
> With the evidence you're so terrified of...

...that leads you to believe that on 11/22/63, something else happened, somehow?

> >>You can't address
> >> them... Your cowardice is clear...
> >
> >What do you mean by "address" the points?

> Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
> infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
> "Hidell?"

What evidence would you accept? Surprise! Ben thinks something's fishy about how Oswald received the rifle, or if he even owned a rifle. NOW WHAT???????????????????

>
> I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.
> > These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
> > countless times.

> Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
> believer.

Your hobby points are a series of logical fallacies based on subjective inferences. There. That's my answer, the same answer you've received dozens of times. You don't get to demand your hobby points be addressed individually or in a certain manner; they can all be handled by pointing out the flaws in the whining and ranting. Assemble your hobby point complaints into something we can compare to the WCR and your critics will be happy to question you about what you've produced.

>
>
> > The hobby points have been addressed...
>
>
> No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
> inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
> been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.

Above. Your hobby points are a series of logical fallacies based on subjective inferences.

[John Corbett]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:21:21 AM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:

> What evidence would you accept?

This is an excellent question and I want to focus solely on that. The evidence we have is
exactly what we would expect the evidence to be if Oswald was the assassin. We have a paper
trail of evidence that establishes Oswald was the owner of the rifle found on the sixth floor. We
have photos of him with that rifle. We have his palm print on the underside of the barrel. We have
fibers matching his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. We have shells that could only have been
fired by his rifle found at the location several witnesses saw the rifle. The only two recovered
bullets were also proven to have been fired by that rifle. We have Oswald's fingerprints on the
top of the box that had been stacked to form a rifle rest oriented as they would be if he was
facing in the direction of fire. We have a bag near that location large enough to hold the
disassembled rifle that had both Oswald's finger and palm prints and fibers matching the
blanket he used to store his rifle. The only witness who saw the gunman fire the final shot
IDed Oswald as the shooter. What more does anyone need to be convinced Oswald was the
shooter? What is missing from the body of evidence that we would expect to have if Oswald
was the assassin?

Any objective analysis of he above facts would lead a rational person to conclude Oswald was
the assassin. The only way you are not going to reach that conclusion is if you don't want to
reach that conclusion. If that is your mindset you are going to find whatever excuses you need
to dismiss each and every piece of evidence that indicates Oswald was the assassin. This is
what Gil does. This is what Benny and his idol Mark Lane do. It's what conspiracy hobbyists
have spent the last six decades doing. They are so determined to find an alternative truth of
the assassin that they don't even realize they are accomplishing absolutely nothing with their
silly efforts. When they die, nothing will have come from their life long quest. History will still
identify Oswald as the assassin and no one else. It will also record that there was a large
segment of the population that didn't accept that Oswald acted alone, but it will never identify
any accomplices because there simply is no evidence that there were any.

[Charles Schuyler]

Of course they reject ALL of the evidence, which leaves one to wonder how they would ever manage to "solve" anything if the entire case is corrupted.

The ONE THING that would liven up this place is if these guys would actually try and argue in favor of something instead of playing Johnny Cochrane with isolated pieces of evidence and claiming that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

This only happened ONE WAY. How? The vast majority of the evidence is known--whether they reject it or not--so if it's rejected by Team Oswald, what do they have to use as building blocks to assemble a case?

I'd have a little more respect for them if they just threw in the towel and said, "Hey, we have no clue what happened. We're just alarmed by a bunch of stuff that looks freaky to us."

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 05:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

Okay moron... grant all these issues that Gil pointed out, AND SHOW
HOW OSWALD IS GUILTY.

You won't...

You can't...

Thus proving me right...

>> and DESTROYED any belief in the wacky theory put forth by the WCR.
>>
>>
>>>Where does Team Oswald even start...
>>
>>
>> With the evidence you're so terrified of...

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>>You can't address
>>>> them... Your cowardice is clear...
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "address" the points?
>
>> Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
>> infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
>> "Hidell?"
>
>What evidence would you accept?

ANYTHING YOU'RE BRAVE ENOUGH TO CITE!!!

But you ran... as I knew you would. You're a coward.



Notice folks, that Chuckles proved beyond all doubt that he is **NOT**
willing to address the evidence.

>> I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.
>>
>>> These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
>>> countless times.
>
>> Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
>> believer.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chuckles just proved himself a liar... and my point stands, unrefuted.

>>> The hobby points have been addressed...
>>
>>
>> No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
>> inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
>> been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.
>
>Above.

You're lying again.

You've provided *NO* citation to any previous answer by ANY believer
in ANY online forum.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:15:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 8:21:21?AM UTC-4, Charles Schuyler wrote:
>
>> What evidence would you accept?
>
>This is an excellent question and I want to focus solely on that.

Of course.

You CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

Such amusing cowardice & dishonesty!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:


>Of course they reject ALL of the evidence...

Your refusal to answer proves that you're lying. And indeed, it hints
that *YOU* refuse to accept the evidence.

[Charles Schuyler]

To your satisfaction? Impossible. To Gil's satisfaction? Impossible.

Neither one of you guys will EVER be convinced your personal hero Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of killing JFK, wounding JBC and killing JDT on 11/22/63.

And since you both think nearly ALL of the evidence was tainted, planted, forged, misused, switched out, improperly tested, altered, lost, destroyed, hidden, flushed, remade, etc. it's hard to even see what would CONVINCE you.

The better route would be for Team Oswald to come up with some sort of solution so we can compare it against the historical null hypothesis: Oswald alone, no KNOWN help. It's what the DPD figured out, it's what the FBI figured out, it's the conclusion the WC reached, it's the conclusion the HSCA reached. They all thought Oswald was the shooter, including the HSCA, and no one could find any confederates that assisted him.

>
> You won't...
>
> You can't...
>
> Thus proving me right...
> >> and DESTROYED any belief in the wacky theory put forth by the WCR.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Where does Team Oswald even start...
> >>
> >>
> >> With the evidence you're so terrified of...
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >>>>You can't address
> >>>> them... Your cowardice is clear...
> >>>
> >>>What do you mean by "address" the points?
> >
> >> Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
> >> infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
> >> "Hidell?"
> >
> >What evidence would you accept?

> ANYTHING YOU'RE BRAVE ENOUGH TO CITE!!!

Na. The WC extensively looked into the Hidell alias, the PO Box issue, the shipment of the rifle from the sporting goods store, and on and on, and you don't buy ANY of their explanations or evidence, so what can I possibly provide that would convince you? You've already dismissed all of it.

[Bud]

That case was made almost 60 years ago.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

Just another evasion on your part. Why don't you be honest, and just
admit that you can't answer?

>> You won't...
>>
>> You can't...
>>
>> Thus proving me right...

Yep... You've proven me right yet again...

>>>> and DESTROYED any belief in the wacky theory put forth by the WCR.
>>>>
>>>>>Where does Team Oswald even start...
>>>>
>>>> With the evidence you're so terrified of...
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>>You can't address
>>>>>> them... Your cowardice is clear...
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you mean by "address" the points?
>>>
>>>> Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
>>>> infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
>>>> "Hidell?"
>>>
>>>What evidence would you accept?
>>
>> ANYTHING YOU'RE BRAVE ENOUGH TO CITE!!!
>

>Na...


Nothing I do can force you to answer... you can't... you're simply a
dishonest coward.

>> But you ran... as I knew you would. You're a coward.
>>
>> Notice folks, that Chuckles proved beyond all doubt that he is **NOT**
>> willing to address the evidence.

And did so AGAIN!!

>>>> I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.
>>>>
>>>>> These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
>>>>> countless times.
>>>
>>>> Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
>>>> believer.
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>> Chuckles just proved himself a liar... and my point stands, unrefuted.
>>
>>>>> The hobby points have been addressed...
>>>>
>>>> No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
>>>> inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
>>>> been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.
>>>
>>>Above.
>> You're lying again.
>>
>> You've provided *NO* citation to any previous answer by ANY believer
>> in ANY online forum.

And never will...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You ...

Aren't the topic. I'm examining *YOUR* cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 13:24:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Notice that Chickenshit couldn't deny it.

>>>Where does Team Oswald even start...
>>
>> With the evidence you're so terrified of...
>>
>>>> You can't address
>>>> them... Your cowardice is clear...
>>>
>>>What do you mean by "address" the points?
>>
>> Here's a simple one: Did Oswald's post office information (the
>> infamous "Part Three") allow him to accept a rifle addressed to
>> "Hidell?"
>
> Produce part three.

No need to... you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to state that there's no
evidence for Part Three.

And amusingly, you refused to answer the question.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

>> I predict that you'll refuse to answer, thus proving my point.

And Chuckles hasn't answered... and Chickenshit refused to answer...

Looks like I was right ... AGAIN!!!

>>> These have been brought up at this discussion board (and others)
>>> countless times.
>>
>> Cite just *ONE* place that the example above has been addressed by any
>> believer.

Chickenshit couldn't help out Chuckles here...

>>> The hobby points have been addressed...
>>
>>
>> No, you're lying. And you will PROVE that you're lying by your
>> inability to respond to this challenge with a citation to where it's
>> been answered by *ANY* believer in *ANY* forum.
>
> Goalpost move.

No moron... this was what CHUCKLES asserted.

There's no moving of the goalposts, I'm asking him EXACTLY what you
ask critics all the time... to SUPPORT WHAT HE SAID.

So you're a liar.

>>>> The rest of your logical fallacy deleted...
>>>
>>>Forward your blockbuster information here...
>>
>> Indeed, that's what we are doing... and all you can do is run.

And all Chickenshit could do was run...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Logical fallacy deleted.

Chickenshit couldn't do it either...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 2:21:54?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 5:47:21?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> Liar Corbett says I isolate evidence and don't look at the body of evidence as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> To prove what a liar he is, here's my look at the body of evidence as a whole in the JFK assassination:
>>>
>>> You can`t put these things together into a cohesive package
>>> explaining this event, so what is the point?
>>
>> You're lying again, Chickenshit.
>>

>>> You can`t explain how such a wide variety of evidence from
>>> different sources can implicate Oswald and him still be innocent.
>>
>> Cite just *ONE* that doesn't originate from the FBI.
>
> Non sequitur.

Notice that Chickenshit was COMPLETELY unable to support his lie.