Proof That Huckster's A Cowardly Liar - (#6)

[Ben Holmes]

I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.

So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
*ONLY* correct and citable way.

Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.

Cite for your answer.

Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.

Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
single logical fallacy in sight.

And there's nothing he can do but run away...

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

May I suggest, Hank, that old chestnut, "The family wouldn't want to do that." Of course, the family is Jackie, and of course, she wouldn't want a proper autopsy. So, you don't even have to lie for this one, Sienzant, just a little weaseling will do the trick.

[Ben Holmes]

Deafening silence... Huckster Sienzant ran away again...

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben does it again. Fails to make a case for anything, and instead begs the question and shifts the burden of proof.

Meanwhile, I'm asking Ben to make one post - ONE! - complete with a reasoned argument and citations to the evidence that establishes a conspiracy.

Don't you remember what I asked for?
== QUOTE ==
Cite some evidence of a conspiracy. Make an argument for why that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not ad hominem, not a straw man argument, not a false dictomony, not begged questions, nor other logical fallacies.

Throw your best arguments out here, complete with citations to the evidence (not to what some conspiracy author wrote, that's NOT evidence), and complete with citations to this supposed evidence you have. You claimed it is "an outright and provable lie".

I'm asking you to prove it.

We both know you won't
== UNQUOTE ==

He's still avoiding this challenge. Why?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
>>
>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
>>
>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>>
>> Cite for your answer.
>>
>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>
>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
>> single logical fallacy in sight.
>>
>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
>
>Ben does it again.

Yep... proved you a coward.

Liar too... since you can't answer the evidence...

>Don't you remember what I asked for?

What gave you the right to ask me ANYTHING AT ALL???

You refuse REPEATEDLY to answer my questions, yet you think you
deserve answers??

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Chuck Schuyler]

Ben believes unknown groups employed unknown snipers who were stationed at unspecified locations and armed with rifles of an unknown make and model who then proceeded to fire unknown caliber bullets at JFK causing unstated wounds, and then disappeared in an unknown manner to locations unknown.

He's really got the whole thing nailed down.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
>>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
>>>
>>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
>>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
>>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
>>>
>>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
>>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>>>
>>> Cite for your answer.
>>>
>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
>>>
>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
>
>

>Ben believes ...

Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.


Amusingly, Chuckles ran from the question too...

Not that I would expect Chuckles to know the answer to this question,
he's never demonstrated any detailed knowledge of this case.

But still, it's interesting that Chuckles ran...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
> >>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
> >>>
> >>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
> >>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
> >>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
> >>>
> >>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
> >>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.

Why do you say they didn`t?

To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest, I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior portion of the chest.
We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.
The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
It was completely intact.
However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung.
As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.
It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.

> >>>
> >>> Cite for your answer.
> >>>
> >>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
> >>>
> >>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
> >>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
> >>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
> >>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
> >>> single logical fallacy in sight.
> >>>
> >>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
> >
> >
> >Ben believes ...
>
> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.

How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:25:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
>>>>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
>>>>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
>>>>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did the prosectors not dissect the track of the bullet entering
>>>>> JFK's back, or dissect the throat wound? No speculation need apply.
>
> Why do you say they didn`t?

Because it's an historical fact that they did not. (as your own
"citation" makes clear) Amusingly, you accepted this as historical
fact when this was brought up before. What changed your mind, and
made you think that they did?


Now, I understand that *YOU* are too stupid to understand this, but
Huckster Sienzant should weigh in and correct you... because this
issue was SPECIFICALLY addressed in sworn testimony... and Huckster
could quote it to you. (as I could - but I enjoy watching you squirm.)

> To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest,
> I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use
> in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from
> the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the
> opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior
> portion of the chest.

If you are stupid enough to think that this is a description of the
dissection of the track of the wound, or of the throat wound, you're
more of a moron that anyone could imagine.

I left the rest of your nonsense in, so that people could see how
medically moronic you are.

>We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
>At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
>There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.
>The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
>In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
>It was completely intact.
>However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung.
>As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.
>It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.

"IT, THEREFORE, WAS OUR OPINION THAT THE MISSILE WHILE NOT PENETRATING
PHYSICALLY THE PLEURAL CAVITY... etc.

These aren't the words of someone who *KNOWS* where the bullet went
because they dissected the track of the wound... YOU'RE STUPID BEYOND
BELIEF, CHICKENSHIT!


Sorry liar, you lose. This quote doesn't say what you claimed for it.
It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
the neck wound.

This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
that simply wasn't so.


Would you care to try again?


Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
so you don't look stupid again?

>>>>> Cite for your answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
>>>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
>>>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
>>>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
>>>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
>>>
>>>
>>>Ben believes ...
>>
>> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.
>
> How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?

Quote me, or stop molesting Chuckle's sister...

[Bud]

I`m seeing dissecting and I`m seeing neck.

> These aren't the words of someone who *KNOWS* where the bullet went
> because they dissected the track of the wound... YOU'RE STUPID BEYOND
> BELIEF, CHICKENSHIT!
>
>
> Sorry liar, you lose. This quote doesn't say what you claimed for it.

I offered it is response to your claim. You said the neck wasn`t dissected. Clearly it was.

> It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
> the neck wound.

So they were using a Ouija board for they observations they made to the neck muscles.

> This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
> that simply wasn't so.

Your lack of understanding of simple things are not my problem.

> Would you care to try again?

Claim victory and run away, we both know this is how this is going to turn out anyway.

> Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
> so you don't look stupid again?
> >>>>> Cite for your answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
> >>>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
> >>>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
> >>>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
> >>>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ben believes ...
> >>
> >> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.
> >
> > How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?
> Quote me, or stop molesting Chuckle's sister...

Doesn`t need to be a quote, it only needs to accurately characterize your position. And it does.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Tell us moron - do you even know what sworn testimony covered this
issue?

And if you do - how do you reconcile your belief that the track of the
wound and the neck wound were dissected, when the testimony EXPLICITLY
says that they were not?

And if Huckster won't weigh in - call Davy Von Peiny... he knows that
this didn't happen as well.

>>> To complete the examination of the area of the neck and the chest,
>>> I will do that together, we made the customary incision which we use
>>> in a routine postmortem examination which is a Y-shaped incision from
>>> the shoulders over the lower portion of the breastbone and over to the
>>> opposite shoulder and reflected the skin and tissues from the anterior
>>> portion of the chest.
>>
>> If you are stupid enough to think that this is a description of the
>> dissection of the track of the wound, or of the throat wound, you're
>> more of a moron that anyone could imagine.
>>
>> I left the rest of your nonsense in, so that people could see how
>> medically moronic you are.
>>
>>>We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the trachea.
>>>At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon who actually did the tracheotomy.
>>>There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any significant tearing of the muscles.
>>>The muscles in this area of the body run roughly, as you see as he depicted them here. We have removed some of them for a point I will make in a moment, but it is our opinion that the missile traversed the neck and slid between these muscles and other vital structures with a course in the neck such as the carotid artery, the jugular vein and other structures because there was no massive hemmorhage or other massive injury in this portion of the neck.
>>>In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs. We found that there was, in fact. no defect in the pleural lining of the President's chest.
>>>It was completely intact.
>>>However, over the apex of the right pleural cavity, and the pleura now has two layers. It has a parietal or a layer which lines the chest cavity and it has a visceral layer which is intimately in association with the lung.
>>>As depicted in figure 385, in the apex of the right pleural cavity there was a bruise or contusion or eccmymosis of the parietal pleura as well as a bruise of the upper portion, the most apical portion of the right lung.
>>>It, therefore, was our opinion that the missile while not penetrating physically the pleural cavity, as it passed that point bruised either the missile itself, or the force of its passage through the tissues, bruised both the parietal and the visceral pleura.
>>
>> "IT, THEREFORE, WAS OUR OPINION THAT THE MISSILE WHILE NOT PENETRATING
>> PHYSICALLY THE PLEURAL CAVITY... etc.
>
> I`m seeing dissecting and I`m seeing neck.

You can "see" anything you like. Fortunately, your incredibly STUPID
opinion is yours alone.

It's *STILL* a fact that no dissection of the track of the wound, or
of the neck wound was done, and this is testified to in sworn
testimony.

And not contradicted by your attempt at citing...

>> These aren't the words of someone who *KNOWS* where the bullet went
>> because they dissected the track of the wound... YOU'RE STUPID BEYOND
>> BELIEF, CHICKENSHIT!
>>
>>
>> Sorry liar, you lose. This quote doesn't say what you claimed for it.
>
> I offered it is response to your claim.

My statement is not a "claim." It's historical fact.

> You said the neck wasn`t dissected. Clearly it was.

Nope.

>> It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
>> the neck wound.
>
> So they were using a Ouija board for they observations they made to the neck muscles.

Sorry stupid, this isn't a dissection. Nor a description of a
dissection.

>> This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
>> that simply wasn't so.
>
> Your lack of understanding of simple things are not my problem.

Your opinion of medical matters beyond your ken are amusing.

>> Would you care to try again?
>
> Claim victory and run away, we both know this is how this is going to turn out anyway.

Ah! But I *CAN* claim victory... I've not said a single thing that is
not historically correct and validated by sworn testimony.

You've not cited for your assertion that a dissection of the track and
a dissection of the neck wound WAS performed.

>> Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
>> so you don't look stupid again?

Where's Huckster when you need him?

>>>>>>> Cite for your answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
>>>>>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
>>>>>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
>>>>>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
>>>>>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ben believes ...
>>>>
>>>> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.
>>>
>>> How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?
>>
>> Quote me, or stop molesting Chuckle's sister...
>

> Doesn`t need to be a quote...


Yes.

It does.

It really does.

[Bud]

The testimony I quoted.

> And if you do - how do you reconcile your belief that the track of the
> wound and the neck wound were dissected, when the testimony EXPLICITLY
> says that they were not?

I think you assume that it is necessary to start at one side and tunnel to the other.

Ad hominem can`t help you.

> It's *STILL* a fact that no dissection of the track of the wound, or
> of the neck wound was done, and this is testified to in sworn
> testimony.

I`m seeing dissection in what Humes related. I`m seeing neck.

> And not contradicted by your attempt at citing...
> >> These aren't the words of someone who *KNOWS* where the bullet went
> >> because they dissected the track of the wound... YOU'RE STUPID BEYOND
> >> BELIEF, CHICKENSHIT!
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry liar, you lose. This quote doesn't say what you claimed for it.
> >
> > I offered it is response to your claim.
> My statement is not a "claim." It's historical fact.

Begged.

> > You said the neck wasn`t dissected. Clearly it was.
> Nope.

Yep.

> >> It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
> >> the neck wound.
> >
> > So they were using a Ouija board for they observations they made to the neck muscles.
> Sorry stupid, this isn't a dissection. Nor a description of a
> dissection.

How were those observations made?

> >> This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
> >> that simply wasn't so.
> >
> > Your lack of understanding of simple things are not my problem.
> Your opinion of medical matters beyond your ken are amusing.

How many years were you in medical school?

> >> Would you care to try again?
> >
> > Claim victory and run away, we both know this is how this is going to turn out anyway.
> Ah! But I *CAN* claim victory... I've not said a single thing that is
> not historically correct and validated by sworn testimony.

I`m seeing dissection. I`m seeing neck.

> You've not cited for your assertion that a dissection of the track and
> a dissection of the neck wound WAS performed.

Of course I have.

> >> Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
> >> so you don't look stupid again?
> Where's Huckster when you need him?

You are looking for help in all the wrong places.

> >>>>>>> Cite for your answer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
> >>>>>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
> >>>>>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
> >>>>>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
> >>>>>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ben believes ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.
> >>>
> >>> How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?
> >>
> >> Quote me, or stop molesting Chuckle's sister...
> >
> > Doesn`t need to be a quote...
>
>
> Yes.
>
> It does.
>
> It really does.

No, it really doesn`t. It only has to be an accurate characterization of your position. And it is spot on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Let me be slow and explicit, so you don't run again. Do you even know
what sworn testimony exists that SPECIFICALLY mentions that no
dissection of the track of the wound, or of the throat wound were
made, and the reasons why?

Or will you lie again?

>> And if you do - how do you reconcile your belief that the track of the
>> wound and the neck wound were dissected, when the testimony EXPLICITLY
>> says that they were not?
>
> I think you assume that it is necessary to start at one side and tunnel to the other.

I think you're pretending not to know the testimony I'm referencing.

And are lying just for the fun of it.

>> And if Huckster won't weigh in - call Davy Von Peiny... he knows that
>> this didn't happen as well.

Of course, neither Huckster nor Davy will PUBLICLY correct your lies
here...

Lies won't help you.

>> It's *STILL* a fact that no dissection of the track of the wound, or
>> of the neck wound was done, and this is testified to in sworn
>> testimony.
>
> I`m seeing dissection in what Humes related. I`m seeing neck.

You're seeing what never happened. This shows why believers can't
think.

>> And not contradicted by your attempt at citing...
>>
>>>> These aren't the words of someone who *KNOWS* where the bullet went
>>>> because they dissected the track of the wound... YOU'RE STUPID BEYOND
>>>> BELIEF, CHICKENSHIT!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry liar, you lose. This quote doesn't say what you claimed for it.
>>>
>>> I offered it is response to your claim.
>>
>> My statement is not a "claim." It's historical fact.
>
> Begged.

An absolutely true historical fact, supported by ALL the evidence.

This is like saying "JFK was killed" is begged.

You've cited **NOTHING* that says JFK is alive, nor anything that
supports your faulty medical beliefs.

>>> You said the neck wasn`t dissected. Clearly it was.
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.

Then cite for it.

>>>> It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
>>>> the neck wound.
>>>
>>> So they were using a Ouija board for they observations they made to the neck muscles.
>>
>> Sorry stupid, this isn't a dissection. Nor a description of a
>> dissection.
>
> How were those observations made?

Not by dissection. Your own citation referenced their OPINION rather
than what they saw.

You lose.

>>>> This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
>>>> that simply wasn't so.
>>>
>>> Your lack of understanding of simple things are not my problem.
>>
>> Your opinion of medical matters beyond your ken are amusing.
>
> How many years were you in medical school?

How many years are needed to understand sworn testimony that no
dissection of the track or of the throat was done?

>>>> Would you care to try again?
>>>
>>> Claim victory and run away, we both know this is how this is going to turn out anyway.
>>
>> Ah! But I *CAN* claim victory... I've not said a single thing that is
>> not historically correct and validated by sworn testimony.
>
> I`m seeing dissection. I`m seeing neck.

You're either a moron or a liar.


Why can't Huckster or Davy see it?

>> You've not cited for your assertion that a dissection of the track and
>> a dissection of the neck wound WAS performed.
>
> Of course I have.

Of course you haven't.

>>>> Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
>>>> so you don't look stupid again?
>>
>> Where's Huckster when you need him?
>
> You are looking for help in all the wrong places.

You are avoiding help from more knowledgeable morons.

>>>>>>>>> Cite for your answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interestingly, Huckster just claimed that "And this is why conspiracy
>>>>>>>>> theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have
>>>>>>>>> is ad hominem and other logical fallacies." - yet this *ONE* post
>>>>>>>>> proves him a liar. This is EVIDENCE, this is historical fact, not a
>>>>>>>>> single logical fallacy in sight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And there's nothing he can do but run away...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ben believes ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quote me, or keep molesting your sister.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is Chuck mischaracterizing your position?
>>>>
>>>> Quote me, or stop molesting Chuckle's sister...
>>>
>>> Doesn`t need to be a quote...
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>> It really does.
>>

[Bud]

I know you are too big a pussy to produce whatever it is that you are alluding to.

> Or will you lie again?
> >> And if you do - how do you reconcile your belief that the track of the
> >> wound and the neck wound were dissected, when the testimony EXPLICITLY
> >> says that they were not?
> >
> > I think you assume that it is necessary to start at one side and tunnel to the other.
> I think you're pretending not to know the testimony I'm referencing.

You are terrified to produce it now because you know it will expose all the lies you`ve been telling about it.

The evidence you aren`t man enough to produce?

> This is like saying "JFK was killed" is begged.
>
> You've cited **NOTHING* that says JFK is alive, nor anything that
> supports your faulty medical beliefs.
> >>> You said the neck wasn`t dissected. Clearly it was.
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Yep.
> Then cite for it.

Did that.

> >>>> It does **NOT** describe dissection of the track of the bullet, or of
> >>>> the neck wound.
> >>>
> >>> So they were using a Ouija board for they observations they made to the neck muscles.
> >>
> >> Sorry stupid, this isn't a dissection. Nor a description of a
> >> dissection.
> >
> > How were those observations made?
> Not by dissection.

Ouija board maybe?

> Your own citation referenced their OPINION rather
> than what they saw.

They saw damage and gave their opinion on how the damage was caused.

> You lose.
> >>>> This is much like your "ABCD" post, where you tried to claim something
> >>>> that simply wasn't so.
> >>>
> >>> Your lack of understanding of simple things are not my problem.
> >>
> >> Your opinion of medical matters beyond your ken are amusing.
> >
> > How many years were you in medical school?
> How many years are needed to understand sworn testimony that no
> dissection of the track or of the throat was done?
> >>>> Would you care to try again?
> >>>
> >>> Claim victory and run away, we both know this is how this is going to turn out anyway.
> >>
> >> Ah! But I *CAN* claim victory... I've not said a single thing that is
> >> not historically correct and validated by sworn testimony.
> >
> > I`m seeing dissection. I`m seeing neck.
> You're either a moron or a liar.

Ad hominem can`t help you.

> Why can't Huckster or Davy see it?
> >> You've not cited for your assertion that a dissection of the track and
> >> a dissection of the neck wound WAS performed.
> >
> > Of course I have.
> Of course you haven't.

I`ve shown dissection.

> >>>> Better yet - is Huckster Sienzant available to privately correct you
> >>>> so you don't look stupid again?
> >>
> >> Where's Huckster when you need him?
> >
> > You are looking for help in all the wrong places.
> You are avoiding help from more knowledgeable morons.

You are hoping they will help you. You know Hank will provide the testimony you are too terrified to produce yourself therefore you won`t have to stand behind it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:08:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I know ...


Clearly you don't. Ignorant or a liar - more likely a liar.

Lie Chickenshit - and tell us that you've no idea what testimony I'm
speaking of.