Johnny McAdams... Poor Judgment Indeed!

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:

>You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>shooting without anybody noticing."
>
>I would be an absurdly risky plan.

WHAT A MORON!!!


No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
locate a suspect.

No-one would *EVER* think to do a paraffin test to see if a police
officer had just fired a weapon.

Johnny is guilty of being stupid. He **KNOWS** that many people have
pointed to possible DPD suspects - yet he *STILL* makes this
incredibly *stupid* assertion.

There'd have been *NO RISK AT ALL* for a police officer.

(Indeed, unknown police officers *WERE* seen leaving the scene of the
crime...)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:37:04 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>
> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> >shooting without anybody noticing."
> >
> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>
> WHAT A MORON!!!
>
>
> No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> locate a suspect.

How did LBJ get the police to murder JFK?

>
> No-one would *EVER* think to do a paraffin test to see if a police
> officer had just fired a weapon.

Why?

>
> Johnny is guilty of being stupid. He **KNOWS** that many people have
> pointed to possible DPD suspects - yet he *STILL* makes this
> incredibly *stupid* assertion.

Did the cops tell Oswald to bring his rifle to work? Did anyone report policemen in the building prior to the murder?

>
> There'd have been *NO RISK AT ALL* for a police officer.

No risk at all. Easy as pie. Simple. Just go into the TSBD with your police uniform on, fire rifles at a presidential motorcade, and nonchalantly go about your business. Just another day in the life of Dallas' finest.

>
> (Indeed, unknown police officers *WERE* seen leaving the scene of the
> crime...)

Are you sure your conspiracy only had around seven people? Lay out your case.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Lord help us! It looks like Benny (Yellow Pants) Holmes is a believer in Badge Man on the grassy knoll!

Uh, Benny, ol' fella, Badge Man was a bush. Even Gary Mack abandoned the Badge Man notion in the end.

But don't worry, Holmes. You'll ALWAYS have The Lady In Yellow Pants! She awaits you on MULTIPLE threads, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's hero Mark Lane lied!!

[Bud]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>
> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> >shooting without anybody noticing."
> >
> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>
> WHAT A MORON!!!

Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.

> No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> locate a suspect.

Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.

And *anyone* involved should be worried.

> No-one would *EVER* think to do a paraffin test to see if a police
> officer had just fired a weapon.

An officer would know that false positives render that testing useless anyway, lurkers.'

> Johnny is guilty of being stupid. He **KNOWS** that many people have
> pointed to possible DPD suspects - yet he *STILL* makes this
> incredibly *stupid* assertion.

Let Ben make the case that DPD conspirator is less at risk, lurkers. Making empty claims that they would have nothing to worry about doesn`t cut it.

> There'd have been *NO RISK AT ALL* for a police officer.

If they were involved in this crime it is hard to imagine them being *more* at risk, lurkers. They put their freedom, reputation, their families and their very lives on the line on a venture that could not possibly succeed in the real world.

> (Indeed, unknown police officers *WERE* seen leaving the scene of the
> crime...)

Common for a murder scene, lurkers. Retards want to round up the cops and let the assassin go free.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:37:04 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>>
>> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> >
>> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>>
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
>> policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
>> locate a suspect.
>
>How did LBJ get the police to murder JFK?

Tut tut tut, Chuckles... you're once again trying put the cart ahead
of the horse.

Deal with the topic at hand.

**WHY** would any police officer be worried about being stopped in the
TSBD... and given a paraffin test??


Answer the question, or admit that Johnny didn't think things through.

Then tell us what *POSSIBLE* reason you can come up with to show why
planting the bullet in Parkland isn't feasible.

>> No-one would *EVER* think to do a paraffin test to see if a police
>> officer had just fired a weapon.
>
>Why?

No moron, not going to play such a silly game.

**YOU** cite for police officers suspected of a crime when seen at the
crime scene.

>> Johnny is guilty of being stupid. He **KNOWS** that many people have
>> pointed to possible DPD suspects - yet he *STILL* makes this
>> incredibly *stupid* assertion.
>
> Did the cops tell Oswald to bring his rifle to work? Did anyone
> report policemen in the building prior to the murder?

Begging the question.

And yes, unidentified cops were seen *LEAVING* the building.

>> There'd have been *NO RISK AT ALL* for a police officer.
>
> No risk at all. Easy as pie. Simple. Just go into the TSBD with your
> police uniform on, fire rifles at a presidential motorcade, and
> nonchalantly go about your business. Just another day in the life of
> Dallas' finest.

Yep. You got it.

>> (Indeed, unknown police officers *WERE* seen leaving the scene of the
>> crime...)
>
> Are you sure your conspiracy only had around seven people? Lay out
> your case.

Absolutely.

And in response to *YOUR* scenario.

Fully as detailed, and with just as many citations as **YOU** give.

Balls in your court, coward.

[donald willis]

On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> >
> > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > >
> > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> >
> > WHAT A MORON!!!
>
> Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
>
> > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > locate a suspect.
>
> Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
>

I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen. Not that Capn Fritz would ever really do that. Although, come to think of it, Fritz got in & out of the building, and his tinkering with the hulls was part & parcel of the plot, I believe. So, yes, it actually did work with ONE cop....

dcw

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:11:45 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>> >
>> > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> > >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> > >
>> > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>> >
>> > WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
>>
>> > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
>> > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
>> > locate a suspect.
>>
>> Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
>>
>I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD.

Actually, yes.

Unknown police were seen leaving the TSBD as others were coming in.

They were plainclothes, but clearly recognized as fellow cops. I was
pointing out that there was no danger at all of cops stopping other
cops... and Johnny's whining has no basis in fact.

> It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD
> happen.

That too. Johnny has proven himself to not be a very deep thinker.

But, as I point out, this isn't merely a theory with no evidence to
back it...

> Not that Capn Fritz would ever really do that. Although, come to
> think of it, Fritz got in & out of the building, and his tinkering
> with the hulls was part & parcel of the plot, I believe. So, yes, it
> actually did work with ONE cop....
>
>dcw

I believe that the evidence shows Oswald to be on the first two floors
during the shooting. I'm also quite convinced that there were two
people involved in the conspiracy who were on the 6th floor. The two
unknown and unidentified plainclothesmen would be excellent suspects
for the shooters on the 6th floor.

There's zero evidence that would exhonerate them... and, as I point
out, a policeman would never stop a fellow policeman... who can
legitimately place himself at the scene of a crime with no suspicion
directed at him.

Note the fact that a similar situation was occurring at the Grassy
Knoll, but with the "Secret Service" ... which "identification" would
be nearly as good as being a policeman.

[Mark Ulrik]

Oh my! The guy behind the "Lady in Yellow Pants" fiasco is calling someone else a shallow thinker? I think my irony meter just bust. Why don't you tell us about the deep thinking that went into that one, and why you've been running from it for the last 10 years?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

No stupid, I've PROVEN that Johnny's a light-weight thinker.

Clearly, you either agree, OR YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO REFUTE WHAT I
POINTED OUT.

Which is it?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:32:13 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:11:45 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> >> > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> >> > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> >> >
> >> > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> >> > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> >> > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> >> > >
> >> > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> >> >
> >> > WHAT A MORON!!!
> >>
> >> Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> >>
> >> > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> >> > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> >> > locate a suspect.
> >>
> >> Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> >>
> >I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD.
>
>
> Actually, yes.
>
> Unknown police were seen leaving the TSBD as others were coming in.
>
> They were plainclothes, but clearly recognized as fellow cops. I was
> pointing out that there was no danger at all of cops stopping other
> cops... and Johnny's whining has no basis in fact.
>

I have heard scuttlebutt re one deputy sheriff who might have been involved in the actual shooting--Harry Weatherford. Apparently, he belonged to some sort of vigilante group (no, not the Sheriff's Dept.!). But I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Now, I firmly believe that at least two cops--Fritz & Sawyer--and one SS agent--Sorrels--took part in the cover-up *afterwards*....

dcw

[donald willis]

That's cute. Otherwise, the usual tit for tat....

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT), donald willis

I've probably seen the same material... and like you, I don't find any
real proof.

I wouldn't discount it, but neither would I endorse it.

> Now, I firmly believe that at least two cops--Fritz & Sawyer--and
> one SS agent--Sorrels--took part in the cover-up *afterwards*....
>
>dcw

Let's not forget the man who found a palmprint that the FBI could find
no trace of...

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> > >
> > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > > >
> > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> > >
> > > WHAT A MORON!!!
> >
> > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> >
> > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > > locate a suspect.
> >
> > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> >
> I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.

Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong. But really what we are seeing is reverse-planning, where retards look at to see how it *could* have worked after the fact.

[Bud]

And I`ve proven that Ben is a short bed-wetter, lurkers.

> Clearly, you either agree, OR YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO REFUTE WHAT I
> POINTED OUT.
>
> Which is it?

Doesn`t this look amazingly like a retard noticing an identified person in the narratives and claiming "Theres a conspirator there!", lurkers?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Notice Don Willis disagrees with Ben and Ben disagrees with Don but it's all okay in conspiratoid-land because it's really just a fantasy game played by retards. The assassination is a tinkertoy set to be endlessly reconfigured.

Why don't you conspiratards slug it out with each other before attacking the WCR findings? Come up with a case and let's compare it to the Oswald Alone narrative.

[Bud]

They both agree the Earth is flat, that`s the important part. It is allowable that they disagree whether it is a flat rectangle or a flat trapezoid.

> The assassination is a tinkertoy set to be endlessly reconfigured.
>
> Why don't you conspiratards slug it out with each other before attacking the WCR findings? Come up with a case and let's compare it to the Oswald Alone narrative.

You know you are forcing Ben to keep telling that lie about already having put a case on the table.

[donald willis]

Mirthless random put-down deleted

The assassination is a tinkertoy set to be endlessly reconfigured.
>
> Why don't you conspiratards

Supposedly clever, but objectionable insult-slinging deleted

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> > > >
> > > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > > > >
> > > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> > > >
> > > > WHAT A MORON!!!
> > >
> > > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> > >
> > > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > > > locate a suspect.
> > >
> > > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> > >
> > I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.
>
> Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong.

Looks like Bud thinks that this really got to the planning stages! Go, Bud!

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 6:02:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > > > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > > > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> > > > >
> > > > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > > > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > > > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > WHAT A MORON!!!
> > > >
> > > > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> > > >
> > > > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > > > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > > > > locate a suspect.
> > > >
> > > > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> > > >
> > > I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.
> >
> > Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong.
>
> Looks like Bud thinks that this really got to the planning stages! Go, Bud!

Not I, I don`t think anyone ever contemplated the silly ideas you guys entertain, let alone implemented them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > > > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > > > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> > > > >
> > > > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > > > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > > > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > WHAT A MORON!!!
> > > >
> > > > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> > > >
> > > > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > > > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > > > > locate a suspect.
> > > >
> > > > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> > > >
> > > I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.
> >
> > Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong.


>
> Looks like Bud thinks that this really got to the planning stages! Go, Bud!

Your fellow JFK Truther Ben Holmes thinks it did get beyond the planning stages, Don. In fact, Ben thinks the DPD murdered JFK. Bud was pointing out how ridiculous this is, not making a case for it.

Of course, you know this, but you won't confront Ben on any of his idiotic claims or theories because, 1.) The enemy of your enemy is your friend, and since your ENEMY is the WCR findings, even if you think Ben is a midget windbag full of sh!t, he's STILL your partner against the WCR, so you won't say anything against him, and 2.) You're probably kind of afraid of him.


Talk about cowards!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:15:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

> Notice Don Willis disagrees with Ben and Ben disagrees with Don...

Reasonable people can disagree about what the evidence shows without
labeling each other "retards" or other silly insults.

What reasonable people CANNOT do is lie about the case.

I note for the record that you're STILL terrified to explain any
reasons why CE-399 wasn't planted.

You lied, and got caught at it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:32:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > > > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> > > > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> > > > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> > > > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> > > > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > WHAT A MORON!!!
>> > > >
>> > > > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
>> > > >
>> > > > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
>> > > > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
>> > > > > locate a suspect.
>> > > >
>> > > > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
>> > > >
>> > > I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.
>> >
>> > Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong.
>
>
>>
>> Looks like Bud thinks that this really got to the planning stages! Go, Bud!
>
> Your fellow JFK Truther Ben Holmes thinks it did get beyond the
> planning stages, Don. In fact, Ben thinks the DPD murdered JFK.

No stupid... you're lying again.

You'll NEVER quote me saying what you're sputtering.

Amusingly, each time you lie in order to advance your case, the case
you are trying to advance slips behind a little more.

People begin to realize that you simply *can't* make a case without
lying.

And *that* tells the tale.

P.S. Still refusing to state any reason why CE-399 could not have been
planted... lied, didn't you?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Talk about cowards!

I'm just gonna go ahead and Hitchens-razor the whole SBT, since the WC only assumed it without proving it.

Better skip ahead on your Phrase of the Month calendar, and think twice before using a throwaway talking point, because THAT one will come back to haunt you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Not my job to prove it wasn't planted, and not giving you reasons why it wasn't planted is not proof it was planted. Another logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. If you think a bullet was swapped and a new one planted, you need to make a positive case for it, and you need to answer crucial questions such as why anyone would plant a bullet (supposedly pristine and without blood or tissue on it per your fellow JFK Truther Boris) when this planted bullet could have been the one bullet that hangs the conspiracy out to dry.

Poor Ben. Did I hurt your feelings? They guy who calls people child molesters is suddenly wilting over the insults at the Nut House? Boo Hoo!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:00:46 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:


<Don's vacuous, contentless and insipid observations deleted.>

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I doubt it, Truther. And we can apply Hitchen's Razor to the entirety of your 911 Troofer nonsense, too.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I doubt it, Truther.

I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.

>
> And we can apply Hitchen's Razor to the entirety of your 911 Troofer nonsense, too.

Which nonsense is that? Cite. And BTW, you're being forced to change the subject, and I'm even INVITING YOU to do so....and you still won't. You're pathetic.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

>Not my job to prove it wasn't planted...

Yes moron, it is.

It became your job the first time you lied about it.

You lose!

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:52:33 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I doubt it, Truther.
>
> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.

A moron stands in front of an elephant, closes his eyes and says "Elephant, I don`t see no elephant!".

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I doubt it, Truther.
>
> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.

Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way through JBC.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What proof would you accept?

>
> It became your job the first time you lied about it.

FringeReset/Holmes Pivot. "Prove to me this freaky lookin' sh!t didn't happen."
>
> You lose!

It's all a game to Yellow Pants.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:46:32 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

I won't accept *ANYTHING* that isn't reasonable. Go ahead coward, GIVE
ME A REASONABLE REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE BULLET WAS PLANTED.

One that explains the known evidence better than the obvious one.

But I'm not the one you'll be addressing... You'll be addressing
lurkers wondering about the evidence... people who've not made up
their minds, and are searching the Internet for the details that will
allow them to decide.

It's not up to me to accept or not accept the inevitable lie you'll
spout if you gather enough courage to answer. It's only up to me to
point out your lies.

But I predict that you'll run again.

>> It became your job the first time you lied about it.
>
>FringeReset/Holmes Pivot. "Prove to me this freaky lookin' sh!t didn't happen."

You pretend that this gets you off the hook. **YOU** made a claim,
you've been running ever since.

It's *THIS* fact that shows you know and fully understand your lie.

>> You lose!
>
>It's all a game to Yellow Pants.

You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I doubt it, Truther.
>>
>> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>
> Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
> through JBC.

It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
no evidence for the SBT.

Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT. Chuckles knows
this too, but you'd never hear those words escape his lying lips.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Looks like you're running.

I make no claims. I have no case outside of what the WC concluded. I carry no burden.

>
> It's *THIS* fact that shows you know and fully understand your lie.
>
>
> >> You lose!
> >
> >It's all a game to Yellow Pants.
>
> You lose!

Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

I'm not taking the bait. Not my job to prove the SBT wrong or that CE399 was swapped or planted, etc. You know this is what the WC concluded, so it's your job to put up a competing theory that supplants the SBT (single bullet FACT in reality)and/or show CE399 was planted.

History records Oswald as JFK's killer, and Tippit's killer. No help. No Jack Thompson, no cops firing from the TSBD or opposite the knoll, no Z film alteration, no kidnapped presidential corpse, nada. Zilch.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
> >>
> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
> >
> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
> > through JBC.
>
>
> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
> no evidence for the SBT.

Argumentum e Silentio.

> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT. Chuckles knows
> this too, but you'd never hear those words escape his lying lips.

Yet this is what the WC signed off on, its shot conclusions buttressed by the HSCA years later. Ben thinks he's smarter than the WC, smarter than the HSCA. Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

**YOU** refuse to answer the question, and **I** look like I'm
running? What perverted logic is that?

But it doesn't matter, you were dumb enough to finally answer...

You lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 09:51:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 11:22:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
>> >>
>> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>> >
>> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
>> > through JBC.
>>
>>
>> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
>> no evidence for the SBT.
>
>Argumentum e Silentio.

Notice too, that AFTER Chuckles has been given the opportunity to
publicly deny that there's no evidence for the SBT, that he REMAINS
silent on the issue.

That fact tells the tale...

>> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT. Chuckles knows
>> this too, but you'd never hear those words escape his lying lips.
>
>

> Yet...


This is as good an admission as Chuckles is capable of...

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 3:32:13 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 12:55:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 1:11:46 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 9:54:49 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> > > > > > owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> > > > > > statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> > > > > > >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> > > > > > >shooting without anybody noticing."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WHAT A MORON!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers. All the hundreds of people the retards imagine were involved in this would be putting their lives at the risk of almost certain death. There would be a conga line leading to the electric chair.
> > > > >
> > > > > > No policeman would *ever* be worried about a plan that involved a
> > > > > > policeman ... they have a natural alibi... they rushed in to the
> > > > > > locate a suspect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where did this strawman about "policemen" come from, lurkers? Certainly nothing .John said. It seems obvious that if you are going to natch content away to a place the original poster might not read you should at least represent the argument honestly.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't think that Ben intended to say that a gaggle of cops actually snuck in & out of the TSBD. It was just an example re how getting assassins in & out COULD happen.
> > >
> > > Now look at it as key component of a pre-planned plot. This was the *plan*? Everyone`s life was on the line with this going off without a hitch? Just think if one curious law enforcement officer (a real one) decides to get a closer look. All that *massive* planning hinges on nothing going wrong.
>
>
> >
> > Looks like Bud thinks that this really got to the planning stages! Go, Bud!
>
>
>
>
> Your fellow JFK Truther Ben Holmes thinks it did get beyond the planning stages, Don. In fact, Ben thinks the DPD murdered JFK.

If by DPD, you mean Capt Fritz, I agree....

Bud was pointing out how ridiculous this is, not making a case for it.
>
> Of course, you know this, but you won't confront Ben on any of his idiotic claims or theories because, 1.) The enemy of your enemy is your friend, and since your ENEMY is the WCR findings, even if you think Ben is a midget windbag full of sh!t, he's STILL your partner against the WCR, so you won't say anything against him, and 2.) You're probably kind of afraid of him.
>

Sounds like you're projecting your feelings re Bud onto us!

dcw
0

[donald willis]

We have a winner in our Tortured English contest! Not just a double negative, not just a triple negative, but a quadruple negative! I will check with the Smithsonian, but I think that is, in fact, A RECORD! Huzzah!

dcw

[donald willis]

On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 6:45:53 PM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 5:00:46 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:
>
>
> <Don's vacuous, contentless and insipid observations deleted.>

Ah! Poirot, I think this is a case of Monkey See Monkey Say!

[donald willis]

Sorting out this sentence would be like trying to unwind the inside of a golf ball (thank you, Hagar Wilde)....

[Bud]

Thats where I come in, lurkers, in case any such animal does exist I am here to make it clear that these retards have no answers for you.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
> >>
> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
> >
> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
> > through JBC.
>
>
> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
> no evidence for the SBT.
>
> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.

Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...

One, Ben is an intellectual coward who couldn`t argue an idea to save his life.

Two, see number one.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben adheres to an endless stream of fantastic things, lurkers. No he is trying to pass himself off as reasonable.

> Go ahead coward, GIVE
> ME A REASONABLE REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE BULLET WAS PLANTED.

Lurkers, it is a fantastic idea, and it requires multiple people to risk their careers and freedom for some unknown reward. Keep in mind that this is the highest profile case imaginable. Also keep in mind that a bullet unconnected to the case being swapped with one that is connected with the case comes with all sorts of dangers, not the least of which is another bullet that could be matched to Oswald`s rifle turning up.

> One that explains the known evidence better than the obvious one.
>
> But I'm not the one you'll be addressing... You'll be addressing
> lurkers wondering about the evidence... people who've not made up
> their minds, and are searching the Internet for the details that will
> allow them to decide.

Lurkers can look up the Warren Commission report. The can find the review of the known evidence and the conclusions drawn. They will see how a case is made drawing conclusions from the known evidence and put out for consideration. They will never see anything like these produced by the conspiracy retards. Those that can, do, those that can`t rail against those that can.

> It's not up to me to accept or not accept the inevitable lie you'll
> spout if you gather enough courage to answer. It's only up to me to
> point out your lies.

It`s not up to us to do anything, lurkers. They need to string all these fantastic ideas they have running around in their heads together into a cohesive narrative explaining this event better than what is *actually* available for consideration.

> But I predict that you'll run again.
>
>
> >> It became your job the first time you lied about it.
> >
> >FringeReset/Holmes Pivot. "Prove to me this freaky lookin' sh!t didn't happen."
>
>
> You pretend that this gets you off the hook. **YOU** made a claim,
> you've been running ever since.
>
> It's *THIS* fact that shows you know and fully understand your lie.
>
>
> >> You lose!
> >
> >It's all a game to Yellow Pants.
>
> You lose!

Ben doesn`t realize he can`t win this way, lurkers. They only way he can win is knock the WCR out of contention with a superior case explaining the known evidence. As it is, only one thing can happen. Ben will die, and the WCR will remain, as if he never existed.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I'm not taking the bait. Not my job to prove the SBT wrong or that CE399 was swapped or planted, etc.

But it was the WC's, and they failed. No evidence from them whatsoever to support the SBT. None. Nothing. So...

Hitchen Razor, circa 1964.

Cite otherwise, or see ya later.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
>> >>
>> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>> >
>> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
>> > through JBC.
>>
>>
>> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
>> no evidence for the SBT.
>>
>> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.
>
> Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these
> experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce
> them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...

No need to "prove" to dufus something he already knows to be a fact.

All you have to do, stump... is say "That's a lie," and I'll be more
than happy to cite the relevant evidence.

> One, Ben is an intellectual coward who couldn`t argue an idea to
> save his life.

Just did, and you ran. What does *that* fact say?



> Two, see number one.


Ad hominem shows that you don't have the facts on your side.

>> Chuckles knows
>> this too, but you'd never hear those words escape his lying lips.

Another perfect prediction...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>>
>> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> >
>> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>>
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>
> Only a moron would contest this, lurkers.

And yet, here you are, "contesting" it. (Moron, aren't you?)

But not using logic and argument, as I did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:50:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Dufus feels compelled to argue against even the most obvious and
reasonable statements.

>> Go ahead coward, GIVE
>> ME A REASONABLE REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE BULLET WAS PLANTED.
>
> Lurkers, it is a fantastic idea, and it requires multiple people
> to risk their careers and freedom for some unknown reward.

How silly! No-one in their right mind would deny that even the police
will plant evidence from time to time.

I've even seen recorded examples on Youtube.

It takes a true believer to whine as stumpy is doing here...

> Keep in
> mind that this is the highest profile case imaginable.

Is the penalty any different from a case involving a street bum?

> Also keep in
> mind that a bullet unconnected to the case being swapped with one that
> is connected with the case comes with all sorts of dangers, not the
> least of which is another bullet that could be matched to Oswald`s
> rifle turning up.

How **STUPID** of you!

When you swap out a bullet, YOU'VE REMOVED THE ONLY BULLET THAT COULD
PROVE THAT A BULLET WAS SWAPPED IN.

No other bullet turning up would be *capable* of proving that a bullet
had been swapped in.

>> One that explains the known evidence better than the obvious one.
>>
>> But I'm not the one you'll be addressing... You'll be addressing
>> lurkers wondering about the evidence... people who've not made up
>> their minds, and are searching the Internet for the details that will
>> allow them to decide.
>
> Lurkers can look up the Warren Commission report. The can find the
> review of the known evidence and the conclusions drawn. They will see
> how a case is made drawing conclusions from the known evidence and put
> out for consideration. They will never see anything like these
> produced by the conspiracy retards. Those that can, do, those that
> can`t rail against those that can.

They'll also see that the Warren Commission came to "conclusions"
contrary to the evidence & expert testimony that they had.

The SBT is a good example...

>> It's not up to me to accept or not accept the inevitable lie you'll
>> spout if you gather enough courage to answer. It's only up to me to
>> point out your lies.
>
> It`s not up to us to do anything, lurkers.

Yes moron, it is. You have to defend your bible.

> They need to string all these fantastic ideas they have running
> around in their heads together into a cohesive narrative explaining
> this event better than what is *actually* available for consideration.

Already been done. See Douglas Horne's 5 volume set.

>> But I predict that you'll run again.

Another successful prediction.

>> >> It became your job the first time you lied about it.
>> >
>> >FringeReset/Holmes Pivot. "Prove to me this freaky lookin' sh!t didn't happen."
>>
>>
>> You pretend that this gets you off the hook. **YOU** made a claim,
>> you've been running ever since.
>>
>> It's *THIS* fact that shows you know and fully understand your lie.
>>
>>
>> >> You lose!
>> >
>> >It's all a game to Yellow Pants.
>>
>> You lose!
>
> Ben doesn`t realize he can`t win this way, lurkers.

I *HAVE* already won. The MAJORITY of Americans agree with me that
there was a conspiracy in this case.

Indeed, that's also the government's position.

> They only way he can win is knock the WCR out of contention

The HSCA already accomplished this...

> with a superior case explaining the known evidence.

Already done.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> Notice Don Willis disagrees with Ben and Ben disagrees with Don but it's all okay in conspiratoid-land because it's really just a fantasy game played by retards.
>
> They both agree the Earth is flat...


Dufus never seems to realize what he's actually proving.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:52:33 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > I doubt it, Truther.
>>
>> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>
> A moron stands in front of an elephant, closes his eyes and says
> "Elephant, I don`t see no elephant!".

Whereas most Americans, not being morons, look at the evidence in this
case, and see a conspiracy.

[Bud]

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
> >> >>
> >> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
> >> >
> >> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
> >> > through JBC.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
> >> no evidence for the SBT.
> >>
> >> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.
> >
> > Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these
> > experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce
> > them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...
>
>
> No need to "prove" to dufus something he already knows to be a fact.

If I knew it to be true I wouldn`t challenge him to support it, lurkers.

> All you have to do, stump... is say "That's a lie," and I'll be more
> than happy to cite the relevant evidence.

Cart before the horse, lurkers. Ben has to support his claims, then I will look at see if the support is valid.

>
> > One, Ben is an intellectual coward who couldn`t argue an idea to
> > save his life.
>
>
> Just did,

Did you lurkers see Ben support his claims, lurkers. I know you didn`t.

[Bud]

Ben is an idiot, lurkers. I am not contesting that it would be an absurdly risky plan. Ben is.

> (Moron, aren't you?)
>
> But not using logic and argument, as I did.

Ben was forced to cut and run from the arguments I made and the logic I employed, lurkers. Simple logic should tell you he is an intellectual coward.

[Bud]

Ben feels compelled to run from the things I write, lurkers.

He is a retard who believe an endless stream of unreasonable things, then wants to set himself up as judge of what is reasonable. He says, apparently with a straight face...

"I won't accept *ANYTHING* that isn't reasonable."

But what he *won`t* do is put the endless stream of fantastic things he *does* find reasonable into a cohesive package and put them on the table for consideration.

> >> Go ahead coward, GIVE
> >> ME A REASONABLE REASON TO DISBELIEVE THAT THE BULLET WAS PLANTED.
> >
> > Lurkers, it is a fantastic idea, and it requires multiple people
> > to risk their careers and freedom for some unknown reward.
>
> How silly! No-one in their right mind would deny that even the police
> will plant evidence from time to time.

Nobody can deny that political crackpots will occasionally try to assassinate political figures, so therefore Oswald is guilty, lurkers.

But let Ben apply this idea to this specific case and see if it holds water, lurkers. This is the President of United States being murdered. As high a profile case as can be imagined. Evidence is piling up at a rapid rate. Let him explain how this could be a valid idea in this particular case.

> I've even seen recorded examples on Youtube.
>
> It takes a true believer to whine as stumpy is doing here...

It takes a true retard to try and pass this apple off as an orange, lurkers.

>
> > Keep in
> > mind that this is the highest profile case imaginable.
>
>
> Is the penalty any different from a case involving a street bum?

When I said "highest profile case imaginable", I clearly wasn`t talking about the penalty, lurkers. Let Ben speak to what I did say.

> > Also keep in
> > mind that a bullet unconnected to the case being swapped with one that
> > is connected with the case comes with all sorts of dangers, not the
> > least of which is another bullet that could be matched to Oswald`s
> > rifle turning up.
>
> How **STUPID** of you!
>
> When you swap out a bullet, YOU'VE REMOVED THE ONLY BULLET THAT COULD
> PROVE THAT A BULLET WAS SWAPPED IN.
>
> No other bullet turning up would be *capable* of proving that a bullet
> had been swapped in.

Not when you have a pretty good idea of how many shots were fired, lurkers. Taking a bullet not connected to the assassination and swapping it with a bullet connected to the assassination *adds* an assassination bullet into the mix. This could blow up in your face if other bullets connected to the assassination surfaced.

> >> One that explains the known evidence better than the obvious one.
> >>
> >> But I'm not the one you'll be addressing... You'll be addressing
> >> lurkers wondering about the evidence... people who've not made up
> >> their minds, and are searching the Internet for the details that will
> >> allow them to decide.
> >
> > Lurkers can look up the Warren Commission report. The can find the
> > review of the known evidence and the conclusions drawn. They will see
> > how a case is made drawing conclusions from the known evidence and put
> > out for consideration. They will never see anything like these
> > produced by the conspiracy retards. Those that can, do, those that
> > can`t rail against those that can.
>
>
> They'll also see that the Warren Commission came to "conclusions"
> contrary to the evidence & expert testimony that they had.

Lurkers might ask themselves why Ben doesn`t put a superior case on the table using the known evidence. The answer is that he can`t, it could only be a mish mash of fantastic ideas strung together that nobody could seriously consider.

> The SBT is a good example...

Lurkers can see the two men being struck by the same bullet with their own eyes...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
>> >> > through JBC.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
>> >> no evidence for the SBT.
>> >>
>> >> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.
>> >
>> > Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these
>> > experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce
>> > them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...
>>
>> No need to "prove" to dufus something he already knows to be a fact.
>
> If I knew it to be true I wouldn`t challenge him to support it, lurkers.

If you knew it wasn't true, and you were an honest person, you'd
publicly state so.

*THEN* I would have the pleasure of proving you a liar again.

But your cowardice shows that I don't need to waste time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:22:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> >> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> >> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>> >>
>> >> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> >> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> >> >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> >> >
>> >> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>> >>
>> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >
>> > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers.
>>
>> And yet, here you are, "contesting" it.
>

> I'm an idiot, lurkers. I am not contesting...


Yes you are. Moron, aren't you?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
> >> >> > through JBC.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
> >> >> no evidence for the SBT.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these
> >> > experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce
> >> > them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...
> >>
> >> No need to "prove" to dufus something he already knows to be a fact.
> >
> > If I knew it to be true I wouldn`t challenge him to support it, lurkers.
>
>
> If you knew it wasn't true,

I expect it is experts not in relevant fields, but until Ben produces it I can`t be sure, lurkers. And we all know Ben won`t produce it.

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. This was the idea...

"I [sic] would be an absurdly risky plan."

I am not contesting that it would be a risky plan, I agree that it would be. Ben is an idiot. But more than that, he is dishonest, because he wants to misdirect away from some of the silly ideas he expressed about cops having nothing to worry about and whatnot.


> Moron, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:21:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 10:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 12:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 03:42:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I doubt it, Truther.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I just did. I have just dismissed the SBT terminally. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's nothing the WC did about it. There was no evidence.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yet the WCR concluded CE399 did indeed pierce JFK and tumble its way
>> >> >> > through JBC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's good to see that Chuckles agrees (by his silence) that there was
>> >> >> no evidence for the SBT.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Most of the expert testimony also rejected the SBT.
>> >> >
>> >> > Lurkers might be wondering why Ben doesn`t compile a list of these
>> >> > experts (watch as many aren`t even in the proper fields) and produce
>> >> > them and make an actual argument. The answer is twofold...
>> >>
>> >> No need to "prove" to dufus something he already knows to be a fact.
>> >
>> > If I knew it to be true I wouldn`t challenge him to support it, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> If you knew it wasn't true,
>

> I expect ...

Clearly, you're still too dishonest to publicly deny it.

You know that wihat I stated is true.

Can you *NAME* the relevant experts who provided testimony bearing on
the SBT?

Or will you run away again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:22:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
>> >> >> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
>> >> >> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
>> >> >> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
>> >> >> >shooting without anybody noticing."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> >> >
>> >> > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> And yet, here you are, "contesting" it.
>> >
>> > I'm an idiot, lurkers. I am not contesting...
>>
>> Yes you are.
>

> I love to lie, lurkers.

Yes.

And the fact remains that what would be difficult and risky for an
ordinary person wouldn't be risky at all for a policeman.

And dufus has been COMPLETELY unable to refute that simple fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:31:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Dufus can't accept this ENTIRELY reasonable statement. What a maroon!

[Bud]

Lurkers must be wondering what I wrote that Ben was forced to flee from...

"I expect it is experts not in relevant fields, but until Ben produces it I can`t be sure, lurkers. And we all know Ben won`t produce it."

If this retard isn`t trying to talk over me he is cutting and running from what I write. How can this be anything other than intellectual cowardice, lurkers?

[Bud]

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 10:53:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:00:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 9:22:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 10:37:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> >> Found in the censored forum... written by Johnny Mcadams... since he
> >> >> >> owns the forum, it would be risky indeed to disagree w th his absurd
> >> >> >> statement... but he doesn't control *THIS* forum:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
> >> >> >> >getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
> >> >> >> >shooting without anybody noticing."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I would be an absurdly risky plan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Only a moron would contest this, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet, here you are, "contesting" it.
> >> >
> >> > I'm an idiot, lurkers. I am not contesting...
> >>
> >> Yes you are.
> >
> > I love to lie, lurkers.
>
> Yes.

Good od Ben to admit the above. lurkers might be wondering what Ben was lying about, and that can be found in what he cut and ran from...

"Ben loves to lie, lurkers. This was the idea...

"I [sic] would be an absurdly risky plan."

I am not contesting that it would be a risky plan, I agree that it would be. Ben is an idiot. But more than that, he is dishonest, because he wants to misdirect away from some of the silly ideas he expressed about cops having nothing to worry about and whatnot."

> And the fact remains that what would be difficult and risky for an
> ordinary person wouldn't be risky at all for a policeman.

This is the fantasy world these retards operate from, lurkers. They just can`t show that any such world existed on the day of the assassination.

> And dufus has been COMPLETELY unable to refute that simple fact.

Ben can tell his empty claims from facts, lurkers. I have no problem doing so.

[Bud]

I`ve dealt with the stupid remark by Ben already, lurkers...

"He is a retard who believe an endless stream of unreasonable things, then wants to set himself up as judge of what is reasonable. He says, apparently with a straight face...

"I won't accept *ANYTHING* that isn't reasonable."

But what he *won`t* do is put the endless stream of fantastic things he *does* find reasonable into a cohesive package and put them on the table for consideration."

And *that* tells tale, lurkers. These guys produce nothing, so nothing is the correct response.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I`ve dealt with the stupid remark...

You see? dufus can't accept this ENTIRELY reasonable statement... What
a maroon!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Lurkers must be wondering ...

I doubt it.

Lurkers? Speak up...

I'd be a moron to accept what a liar says the lurkers are thinking...

The original claim was by Chuckles

Therefore, the list of experts must come from a believer.


If you want *ME* to compile the list, all you have to do is deny the
fact. Simply state that most of the expert testimony DID **NOT**
reject the SBT, and I'll be happy to do the work.

But you already know this to be a fact... so you'll never make the
claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Good od Ben to admit...

That faulty grammar is coming out again... you must be getting upset.

Johnny McAdams made a stupid assertion.

Get over it.