It seems McAdams` website is no longer online

[Bud]

I tried to use the resource I often use access witness testimony and it didn`t connect. As this was part of McAdams` site, I tried the main page, with the same results.

JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttps://mcadams.posc.mu.edu

Sad that so such a useful resource is no longer available. But on the other hand this hobby is on the way out, all the regular participants will soon be dead
and there will be no reason to counter the complaints and criticisms of the conspiracy crowd.

In this thread I ask .John what would happen to his website after his demise...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/9yPWy7XTR8I/m/bnh16oBOBAAJ

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Yeah, I just went there, too. Easiest Warren Commission testimony site.

[Bud]

Found it that quick on the WayBackMachine...

https://web.archive.org/web/20210525090144/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

If the link works.

[Bud]

Well, the link works, problem being each individual person would have to be searched for using this resource.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM UTC, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:22:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 7:19:03 PM UTC, Bud wrote:
> > > > I tried to use the resource I often use access witness testimony and it didn`t connect. As this was part of McAdams` site, I tried the main page, with the same results.
> > > >
> > > > JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttps://mcadams.posc.mu.edu
> > > >
> > > > Sad that so such a useful resource is no longer available. But on the other hand this hobby is on the way out, all the regular participants will soon be dead
> > > > and there will be no reason to counter the complaints and criticisms of the conspiracy crowd.
> > > >
> > > > In this thread I ask .John what would happen to his website after his demise...
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/9yPWy7XTR8I/m/bnh16oBOBAAJ
> > > Yeah, I just went there, too. Easiest Warren Commission testimony site.

> > Found it that quick on the WayBackMachine... Tomlinson, Darrell C.
> >
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20210525090144/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm m
> >
> > If the link works.Tomlinson, Darrell C.

> Well, the link works, problem being each individual person would have to be searched for using this resource.

That's good of you. The link works, but for the testimony I was looking for the link goes nowhere, Tomlinson, Darrell C.T The others I tried did work. One reason I like the McAdams site, it makes the testimony easy to find and search. I'm not interested in Tomlinson enough to try harder right now. It's just some silly topic about Mark Lane lying or not. McAdams had a nice easy DPD radio log, too, though it had problems as all the radio transcripts do. I downloaded that.

[Chuck Schuyler]

His website was a treasure. Too bad he apparently locked the keys in the car.

I remember your post asking him about what happens to the site after he's gone. It would be a shame if there isn't a way (or will) to keep it up and running.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:58:30 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 7:23:50 PM UTC, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:22:00 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 7:19:03 PM UTC, Bud wrote:
> > > > > I tried to use the resource I often use access witness testimony and it didn`t connect. As this was part of McAdams` site, I tried the main page, with the same results.
> > > > >
> > > > > JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttps://mcadams.posc.mu.edu
> > > > >
> > > > > Sad that so such a useful resource is no longer available. But on the other hand this hobby is on the way out, all the regular participants will soon be dead
> > > > > and there will be no reason to counter the complaints and criticisms of the conspiracy crowd.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this thread I ask .John what would happen to his website after his demise...
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/9yPWy7XTR8I/m/bnh16oBOBAAJ
> > > > Yeah, I just went there, too. Easiest Warren Commission testimony site.
> > > Found it that quick on the WayBackMachine... Tomlinson, Darrell C.
> > >
> > > https://web.archive.org/web/20210525090144/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm m
> > >
> > > If the link works.Tomlinson, Darrell C.
> > Well, the link works, problem being each individual person would have to be searched for using this resource.
> That's good of you. The link works, but for the testimony I was looking for the link goes nowhere, Tomlinson, Darrell C.T The others I tried did work. One reason I like the McAdams site, it makes the testimony easy to find and search.

And easy to cut and paste from.

Here is Tomlinson`s testimony on the Mary Ferrell site...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=138

But you can`t cut and paste from it. I found a PDF of the witnesses testimonies, but you have to know which witness is on which page. You can cut and paste from it, but you have to put spaces between words when you quote someone. That is here...

https://www.govinfo.gov/features/warren-commission-report-and-hearings

Here is a list of witnesses telling you what page they can be found...

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix5.html

Doing this for my benefit, so I can find the links if I need them.

[John Corbett]

Must be a recent development. I quoted from it less than a week ago. I would think Marquette University would have valued it as repository for historical data. Maybe there is some lingering bad blood over John's successful lawsuit and reinstatement. They couldn't get rid of him while he was alive but now there's nothing to stop them.

[Hank Sienzant]

I couldn't find Tomlinson's either, although I did find Nurse Wester's testimony about what was on Connally's stretcher:

[Bud]

I just found both from a post...

Nurse Jane Westers description of the gurney Connally was on...

"rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying which was covered
with blood, along with several pieces of paper and placed it on one end of
the stretcher. She then placed some tools, which she cannot identify, on
the other end of the stretcher" and asked orderly Jimison to take it to
the elevator. Jimison said he saw the nurse roll up the bloody sheets and
put them on the stretcher.

Tomlinson`s description of the gurney he found the bullet, as told to the Secret Service...

"At the time he arrived at the elevator, a stretcher was on the elevator.
The stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball, some medical
tools, two bandage pads, and a glove. Mr. Tomlinson stated that he removed
the stretcher from the elevator and placed it in a foyer ...."

[Hank Sienzant]

The bigger problem, which no conspiracy theorist wants to discuss, is that no other solution makes sense.

If CTs argue the bullet was just planted there - as seen in "JFK" (the movie) - that makes no sense because the conspirators couldn't be certain what bullets or bullet fragments would be found in the President or Connally. If *they* were intent on framing Oswald, having too many bullets (or bullet fragments) recovered would indicate a conspiracy, not cover up one.

If CTs argue the bullet was from a different victim and swapped later (I believe this is Ben's theory, but he hates to get pinned down), then the argument by CTs that CT399 couldn't hit a victim and survive in that nearly intact shape is established as nonsense, because the bullet recovered by Tomlinson was an apparently undamaged one. If a bullet could survive a different shooting victim, then it could survive Connally being the victim.

And of course, some argue for both the planting of a bullet and then swapping it later in the evidence trail, which makes even less sense.

When we examine all the evidence without the conspiracy blinders on, we see the evidence indicates it was Oswald's bullet from Oswald's rifle that was found, and it was found on Connally's stretcher.

But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.

Clearly, Lane didn't want that.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

I'll have to look into that stretcher thing, someday. I've seen so much on it from post WC, that I don't know what to think about it.

[Bud]

That is the problem with a lot of conspiracy thinking. They have people diving in *immediately* and tampering with evidence, before the dust has even begins to settle.

> And of course, some argue for both the planting of a bullet and then swapping it later in the evidence trail, which makes even less sense.

My understanding of what some say is that there *happened* to be a bullet on stretcher and the conspiracy used that opportunity to insert a bullet fired from the rifle found in the TSBD into the evidential record. I know Ronnie Fuller wasn`t shot, but they seem to think that since Parkland saw so many shooting events it would be hard to find a gurney that didn`t have a bullet on it.

> When we examine all the evidence without the conspiracy blinders on, we see the evidence indicates it was Oswald's bullet from Oswald's rifle that was found, and it was found on Connally's stretcher.
>
> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.

Lane cherry picks to satisfy his core audience, morons.

[Bud]

Seems that each individual witness can be search for and found on the WayBackMachine, here is Tomlinson...

https://web.archive.org/web/20021227091404/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm

[Hank Sienzant]

Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?

> > When we examine all the evidence without the conspiracy blinders on, we see the evidence indicates it was Oswald's bullet from Oswald's rifle that was found, and it was found on Connally's stretcher.
> >
> > But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
> Lane cherry picks to satisfy his core audience, morons.

I'd say "the uninformed" - those who don't know the evidence (or don't want to acknowledge that evidence because their mind is made up).

[Bud]

I think their argument (Devil`s advocate) would be that they aren`t arguing that there can`t be a pristine bullet involved in a shooting, just not one that did the damage CE399 was purported to have done. The one found on the stretcher would be a pristine bullet from a different shooting. Since the bullet found was in good shape it would make sense to switch it with a bullet fired from the assassination rifle that was in relatively good shape.

But as you pointed out, inserting a whole bullet into the evidential record comes with it`s own perils.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.

Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?

Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

no sweat, I'm sure someone just mis-remembered something.... Corbi da chUMP wil getter' fixed

[Hank Sienzant]

The ones you just used are two-fold:
1. Begging the Question (you're asserting I committed a logical fallacy, but haven't established that).
2. Shifting the Burden of Proof: You're trying to move the obligation to prove your assertion onto me to disprove.

[Hank Sienzant]

I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ben is the only guy I know who can commit logical fallacies while claiming others are committing logical fallacies.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben will claim now I didn't answer his loaded question and am running away and am a coward.

Just more logical fallacies, in other words.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

nutters are obsessed with Ben Holmes, or is that shorthand for being obsessed with Mark Lane. Their most impulsive topic -- they simply can't get enough of either....

[Bud]

You probably don`t realize that Ben starts posts about Mark Lane and badgers people to respond to them. You probably don`t realize it is Wednesday.

> Their most impulsive topic -- they simply can't get enough of either....

Less and less participation by Ben these days, he basically just pops in to remove what other people write. I suppose the beat downs are taking a toll.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:13:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
>>> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
>>> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
>>> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
>>> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
>>> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?
>>
>> Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?
>

>The ones you...

No Huckster - I asked you if you could name the logical fallacy that
*YOU* just used.

If you are having problems reading, you should take your time before
responding.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
>>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
>>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
>> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
>
> I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
> information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
> judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.

You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.

That is an act of cowardice.

As was your lying about Mark Lane, and when I corrected you, you ran.
Remember that post?

[Bud]

Begged.

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:48:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> >>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
> >>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
> >> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
> >
> > I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> > adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
> > information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
> > judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.
> You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
> from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.

Lane avoid the evidence that does.

> That is an act of cowardice.

On Lane`s part.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ben is obsessed with Mark Lane.

I think we've moved on from Mark Lane. He's been dead for years and his book R2J is as out of date and filled with Lane's patented lies of omission.

If Ben didn't bring up Lane, he'd probably rarely get a mention here.

Take it up with your boy Ben. Tell Ben to lay off the Lane posts, and try something new.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 08:51:16 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:23:12 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 5:27:49 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:25:12 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 7:20:52 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:13:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
>>>>>>> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
>>>>>>> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
>>>>>>> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
>>>>>>> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
>>>>>>> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?
>>>>>> Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The ones you just used are two-fold:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1. Begging the Question (you're asserting I committed a logical fallacy, but haven't established that).
>>>>> 2. Shifting the Burden of Proof: You're trying to move the obligation to prove your assertion onto me to disprove.
>>>> Ben is the only guy I know who can commit logical fallacies while claiming others are committing logical fallacies.
>>> Ben will claim now I didn't answer his loaded question and am running away and am a coward.
>>>
>>> Just more logical fallacies, in other words.
>
>> nutters are obsessed with Ben Holmes, or is that shorthand for being obsessed with Mark Lane. Their most impulsive topic -- they simply can't get enough of either....
>

>Ben is ...

Logical fallacies deleted. Where's Huckster when you need him?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:13:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
> >>> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
> >>> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
> >>> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
> >>> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
> >>> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?
> >>
> >> Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?
> >

> > The ones you just used are two-fold:
> > 1. Begging the Question (you're asserting I committed a logical fallacy, but haven't established that).
> > 2. Shifting the Burden of Proof: You're trying to move the obligation to prove your assertion onto me to disprove.
>

> No Huckster - I asked you if you could name the logical fallacy that
> *YOU* just used.

I pointed out the ones you used because you didn't establish I used any.
In other words, you resorted to the logical fallacy of a begged question.

>
> If you are having problems reading, you should take your time before
> responding.

I understood your question perfectly well and pointed out the two logical fallacies inherent in it.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:48:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> >>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
> >>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
> >> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
> >
> > I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> > adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
> > information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
> > judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.
> You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
> from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.

Begged question logical fallacy ("repeat your logical fallacy") and ad hominem ("running away") and a red herring logical fallacy ("medical and ballistic evidence"). Three logical fallacies in one sentence! Would you like to go for more?

>
> That is an act of cowardice.

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

>
> As was your lying about Mark Lane, and when I corrected you, you ran.

Ad hominem logical fallacy (lying, running). Begged question logical fallacy (when I corrected you)


> Remember that post?

Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy.

Sometimes Ben's posts reduce to absurdities.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 12:00:15 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:48:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> > <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> > >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> > >>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
> > >>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
> > >> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
> > >
> > > I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
> > > adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
> > > information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
> > > judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.
> > You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
> > from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.

> Begged question logical fallacy ("repeat your logical fallacy") and ad hominem ("running away") and a red herring logical fallacy ("medical and ballistic evidence"). Three logical fallacies in one sentence! Would you like to go for more?

Actually, Ben hit for the cycle if you want to count "failing to show any SBT" as a separate fallacy, number four, all in the same sentence. That would be Ben's favorite fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. The WC: "Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds."

> >
> > That is an act of cowardice.
> Ad hominem logical fallacy.
> >
> > As was your lying about Mark Lane, and when I corrected you, you ran.
> Ad hominem logical fallacy (lying, running). Begged question logical fallacy (when I corrected you)
>
>
> > Remember that post?
>
> Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy.
>
> Sometimes Ben's posts reduce to absurdities.

Sometimes? You're being very charitable.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you flying fuck-wad, anything to run from case evidence. And the old Hankster is a great master-bator... and continues pulling your pud.... Are your arms too short or sumpin'? I know, I know--it begs the question...

[John Corbett]

HHHHIIIICCCCUUUUPPPP!!!!!

[Chuck Schuyler]

((!!**BURP**!!))

[healyd...@gmail.com]

ahhh.... doesn't take much to yank these .john mcadams yahoo's chain... introducing the Pale White Thigh's twins -- the Queen and her consort... carry on bucky!

[John Corbett]

Probably only going to take a couple more boilermakers before healy passes out for the night. We won't hear from him again until about noon tomorrow.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 09:54:31 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:13:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
>>>>> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
>>>>> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
>>>>> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
>>>>> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
>>>>> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?
>>>>
>>>> Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?
>>>

>>> The ones you ...

>>
>> No Huckster - I asked you if you could name the logical fallacy that
>> *YOU* just used.
>

>I pointed out ...


IOW's, you simply refused to answer the question. It's PROVABLY a
"begging the question" fallacy... you're presuming that the bullet
found by Tomlinson - and you're presuming for the sake of the
statement that it's *NOT* CE399 - struck a person.

That's CLEARLY begging the question - you've presented ZERO evidence
that any bullet found must have struck someone.


So in addition to being a coward, you're a proven liar.

You'll **NEVER** be able to show how your statement does **NOT** beg
the question.

>> If you are having problems reading, you should take your time before
>> responding.
>

>I understood your question perfectly ...

And no doubt, are intelligent enough to recognize the logical fallacy
you employed.

Just too dishonest and too much a coward to acknowledge it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:00:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:48:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
>>>>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
>>>>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
>>>
>>> I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
>>> adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
>>> information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
>>> judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.
>>
>> You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
>> from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.
>

>Begged...


INDEED IT IS! THAT **IS** THE CORRECT RESPONSE!!

You used a begged fallacy to slam Mark Lane, while completely unable
to support your claim.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It seems that that Rossley fellow had a better postmortem plan than the Professor.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

chump.... you wish... kinda tough dealing with age isn't it, tootsie-roll? Eyesight starts going, forget a few things, blood pressure up, sugar levels off-the-chart, no one to piss off cause you aren't in charge of anything, your life is like a 8mm film, old, grainy and out of focus.... fucking prostate enlarged, haven't been laid in 8 years, what the fuck was this balls and strikes nonsense... Eh, Chump? Ask Gorgeous Georgie Puddin-n-pie Brockster.... he'll tell ya. No more bullshit, you sphincter exercising fraud you... Enjoy the short comings! lmfao...

[Chuck Schuyler]

TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE!!!!!!!!!

((!!**HICCUP**!!))

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> In this thread I ask .John what would happen to his website after his demise...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/9yPWy7XTR8I/m/bnh16oBOBAAJ
Maybe you folks can organize a seance.

[Bud]

Dead .John is smarter than you.

[x]

On 9/8/2021 2:19 PM, Bud wrote:
> I tried to use the resource I often use access witness testimony and it didn`t connect. As this was part of McAdams` site, I tried the main page, with the same results.
>
> JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttps://mcadams.posc.mu.edu
>
> Sad that so such a useful resource is no longer available. But on the other hand this hobby is on the way out, all the regular participants will soon be dead
> and there will be no reason to counter the complaints and criticisms of the conspiracy crowd.

>
> In this thread I ask .John what would happen to his website after his demise...
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/9yPWy7XTR8I/m/bnh16oBOBAAJ

It's not online, but the DNS queries for mcadams.posc.mu.edu still point
to an address, so I figure that the server crashed. If they'd
decomissioned it, I figure they would have killed the DNS A record as well.

Who can be contacted to restore the thing. And is there anyone who can
and will preserve the data stored there?

[Bud]

No idea. Here is a link to Marquette contacts...

https://www.marquette.edu/tools/campus-contacts.php

McAdams was in the political science department, that might be a place to start.

[BT George]

I saw a message from his daughter on a FB Group. They are trying to get it restored.

[Mark Ulrik]

That is good news. CT riffraff like Ben and Gil will hate it which makes it even better.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

c'mon child, you know you miss'em... Purgatory isn't such a bad place, consider it a jumping off point --a cleansing exercise, lord knows he needed that...

[Mark Ulrik]

søndag den 12. september 2021 kl. 22.41.13 UTC+2 skrev BT George:

Posted by Nick Nalli yesterday:

============================================================
As some of you may know, the McAdams Kennedy Assassination website, a mainstay for JFK assassination buffs and those otherwise interested in the history of the case, was recently taken down from the Marquette University web server (probably as a routine university policy and not a Conspiracy), some 5 months after the founder and webmaster, Prof. John McAdams, passed away this past April.
On behalf of the McAdams family, I am happy to relay to you that the website is back online at the new URL:

http://www.jfk-assassination.net

Please be sure to update your bookmarks. Please note that they are still in the process of ironing out all the kinks (e.g., there are still some broken links, etc.).
Thanks goes out to John’s wife Lynda, and his children John, Laura, and Amy, for being proactive in restoring the website to its rightful place as an invaluable, academic internet resource.
============================================================

[healyd...@gmail.com]

a message from purgatory -- update your book marks pussies.... get busy now.... lmfao!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Glad to hear it! It's more than propaganda, which is more than can be said for most Nutters.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

It's also wonderfully old school interwebs, with no ads or memory-hogging attention-grabbing bullshit. My old pos computer can handle it while I run wacky leftist Lee Camp videos. Nice that it abstains from capitalism. Maybe that's more Marquette than McAdams. If it becomes monetized then it will become less useful.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But my two favorite features, the Warren Commission Testimony and the DPD radio transcript do not seem to be accessible from the new McAdams page. I used to get to them by Google Search instead of home page links, but Google still returns the old Marquette links. His heirs should do something about that.

[Mark Ulrik]

For the time being, you can just combine with the new domain name.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/wit.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Thanks. I don't remember whether there were links to these on the original home page, but there ought to be. Most of the rest of the site is opinion, and a good scholarly site should have lots of original source material, too.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

The DPD radio transcript is linked to the newly current McAdams page. The page provided above, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/, has a link on it to the "Home Page," https://www.jfk-assassination.net/home.htm, and this has a link called, "Hear History Happen," which links to the first transcript page, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:24:23 AM UTC, Mark Ulrik wrote:

I'm going to put this at the top again, since I don't currently do bookmarks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 06:53:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:48:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:23:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:12:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> But Ben will go on pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
>> >>> adequately, didn't leave out any pertinent information, and simply
>> >>> wanted informed readers to judge the evidence fairly.
>> >> Tell us Huckster - which logical fallacy would this fall under?
>> >
>> > I'm not certain pretending Mark Lane covered this subject
>> > adequately, pretending Lane didn't leave out any pertinent
>> > information, and pretending Lane simply wanted informed readers to
>> > judge the evidence fairly is a logical fallacy.
>> You merely repeat your logical fallacy - while provably running away
>> from the medical and ballistic evidence failing to show any SBT.
>

> Lane avoid the evidence that does.


You really should stop and think before you post. That sentence makes
no sense at all.

One would presume you meant to say that "Lane avoided the evidence
that does show the SBT."

In which case, you've committed the logical fallacy of begging the
question.

>> That is an act of cowardice.
>>

>> As was your lying about Mark Lane, and when I corrected you, you ran.

>> Remember that post?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 06:51:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 9:26:00 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 6:13:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but then the problem is one of the arguments used against
>>>>> CE399 goes away. CTs argue the bullet could not have survived in
>>>>> nearly pristine condition after hitting Connally. But if the bullet
>>>>> found by Tomlinson had an undamaged nose as Tomlinson admitted, then
>>>>> that means a bullet can survive hitting a person and remain intact and
>>>>> nearly undamaged. And if "a" bullet can do that, why not CE399?
>>>>
>>>> Can you name the logical fallacy you just used?
>>>
>>>The ones you...
>>
>> No Huckster - I asked you if you could name the logical fallacy that
>> *YOU* just used.
>

> Begged.


I see Chickenshit knows the answer. Now all I need to do is force
Huckster to give that correct answer...