Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Watch Huckster Run From This Question...
86 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Nov 7, 2023, 12:20:04 PM11/7/23
to
On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 8:18:59 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
...
>> Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to
>> speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you
>> just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know
>> the answer.
>
> I hereby designate Bud to speak for me. Happy? You CTs will find
> every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
You designated Chickenshot to speak for you - but when he does, you
refuse to acknowledge or defend it.
**YOU** will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination,
won't you?
Of course, you can't answer... Just as you run from this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
> On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, gregr...@outlook.com wrote:
...
>> Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to
>> speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you
>> just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know
>> the answer.
>
> I hereby designate Bud to speak for me. Happy? You CTs will find
> every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
You designated Chickenshot to speak for you - but when he does, you
refuse to acknowledge or defend it.
**YOU** will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination,
won't you?
Of course, you can't answer... Just as you run from this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
Nov 7, 2023, 1:10:07 PM11/7/23
to
like the coward he is.
Gil Jesus
Nov 8, 2023, 8:03:46 AM11/8/23
to
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:20:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
No way. Did the "more knowledgeable" one really say that ?
> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
ROFLMAO
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 9:56:19 AM11/8/23
to
He won't, he can't, because I didn't. He's making stuff up.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 10:34:43 AM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 06:56:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
and exited the back of his head.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 10:39:11 AM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 05:03:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:20:04?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
>
>No way. Did the "more knowledgeable" one really say that ?
>ROFLMAO
It was Chickenshit, who as Huckster asserts, speaks for him.
Of course, when it's pointed out, Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to deal
with the facts in this case - he will **NEVER** publicly state that
the prosectors NEVER dissected the throat wound.
Believers quite rarely ever correct other believers...
Nor can Huckster deny that he claimed Chickenshit speaks for him. He
tries to play it off as a joke.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:20:04?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
>
>No way. Did the "more knowledgeable" one really say that ?
>ROFLMAO
Of course, when it's pointed out, Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to deal
with the facts in this case - he will **NEVER** publicly state that
the prosectors NEVER dissected the throat wound.
Believers quite rarely ever correct other believers...
Nor can Huckster deny that he claimed Chickenshit speaks for him. He
tries to play it off as a joke.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 5:09:13 PM11/8/23
to
You are doing exactly what Mark Lane did throughout RUSH TO JUDGMENT…
Making issues out of nothing at all.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 5:15:25 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:39:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 05:03:44 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:20:04?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
> >
> >No way. Did the "more knowledgeable" one really say that ?
> >ROFLMAO
> It was Chickenshit, who as Huckster asserts, speaks for him.
So you admit I never said what you are claiming I said.
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 12:20:04?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, and exited the back of his head.
> >
> >No way. Did the "more knowledgeable" one really say that ?
> >ROFLMAO
> It was Chickenshit, who as Huckster asserts, speaks for him.
We are done here. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Bud
Nov 8, 2023, 5:45:32 PM11/8/23
to
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:03:46 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 6:19:53 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:45:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 6:22:18 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:09:11 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Quote my reference in context, not out of context. Provide the link, so everyone can see exactly what I said, *in context*.
Done in the VERY FIRST POST in this thread.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>Quote my reference in context, not out of context. Provide the link, so everyone can see exactly what I said, *in context*.
That makes you a proven liar.
A coward too - here's what you're running from:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
and exited the back of his head.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 6:23:28 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:15:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>So you admit...
I "admit" the actual truth... I've stated it a number of times now.
Stop lying... answer the post:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>So you admit...
I "admit" the actual truth... I've stated it a number of times now.
Stop lying... answer the post:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
and exited the back of his head.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 6:47:27 PM11/8/23
to
On Tue, 07 Nov 2023 10:10:03 -0800, Ben Holmes
Not only did I nail this prediction - Huckster PROVABLY lied when he
whined: "Quote my reference in context, not out of context. Provide
the link, so everyone can see exactly what I said, *in context*." in
this very thread.
Huckster's a gutless liar, and quite clearly, a coward as well. He
finds ways to avoid discussing this case every single day...
whined: "Quote my reference in context, not out of context. Provide
the link, so everyone can see exactly what I said, *in context*." in
this very thread.
Huckster's a gutless liar, and quite clearly, a coward as well. He
finds ways to avoid discussing this case every single day...
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 7:17:26 PM11/8/23
to
Someone named Greg Parker took issue with Bud jumping into a public conversation and questioned that:
== quote ==
> > What in what Hank wrote was directed at you, stupid? He was speaking generally about how CTers made an issue about this in *the past* (not you in this post). Apparently you have a complex where you think everything is about you.
> Again you pretend to know what is in Hank's mind. His post was a direct reply to my post.
> > The only part that was specifically directed at you was "...or why you bring it up still."
> Is Hank your sock puppet or are you his?
Both. 8 hours a day I man the CIA disinformation desk, using a multitude of aliases, and then Bud comes in and replaces me, and then a third person fills in the other eight hours.
== unquote ==
I was clearly joking about us being each other other’s sock puppet. Sorry if that confused you.
Continuing in that same vein:
== quote ==
> Are you his designated representative? Do you have a contract to speak for him? Have you discussed this with him privately or are you just making this shit up on the fly? Rhetorical question. We both know the answer.
I hereby designate Bud to speak for me. Happy? You CTs will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you?
Greg, why not just stick to the JFK assassination instead of advancing ad hominem logical fallacies about other posters on this board? You only know I was Joe Zircon because I mentioned it. If there was anything nefarious behind the name, why would I mention it?
I hereby designate Bud to speak for me. Happy? You CTs will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you?
== unquote ==
You do see that I point out Greg is making an issue out of whether Bud can respond instead of responding to the points I made: “ You CTs will find every way to avoid discussing the JFK assassination, won't you? Greg, why not just stick to the JFK assassination instead of advancing ad hominem logical fallacies about other posters on this board?”
You understand that I was pointing out Greg’s deflection from the original point, making it instead about whether Bud had any right to put his two cents in?
You do. It’s been pointed out numerous times. You continue trolling this board with this one nonsense argument because you have nothing of substance to offer. You cannot debate the evidence, so you avoid even trying to advance a substantive argument about the assassination forth anymore.
>
> Huckster's a gutless liar, and quite clearly, a coward as well. He
> finds ways to avoid discussing this case every single day...
Meanwhile, all you can do is call me names (gutless liar and coward) and take claims out of context - something meant as a joke - and pretend they were meant seriously…
You are reduced to trolling.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 7:23:52 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 16:17:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Stop lying.
You implied I'd not provided your statement, IN CONTEXT, and with a
cite to the original.
You lied.
It's that simple.
And you're still using every trick you can to avoid discussing the JFK
case.
DID THE PROSECTORS DISSECT THE WOUND IN THE THROAT?
You can't answer. The truth would slap a fellow believer... and you'd
be too embarrassed to pass off the same lie that Chickenshit posted.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You implied I'd not provided your statement, IN CONTEXT, and with a
cite to the original.
You lied.
It's that simple.
And you're still using every trick you can to avoid discussing the JFK
case.
DID THE PROSECTORS DISSECT THE WOUND IN THE THROAT?
You can't answer. The truth would slap a fellow believer... and you'd
be too embarrassed to pass off the same lie that Chickenshit posted.
Hank Sienzant
Nov 8, 2023, 7:45:05 PM11/8/23
to
>
> You implied I'd not provided your statement, IN CONTEXT, and with a
> cite to the original.
>
> You lied.
>
> It's that simple.
>
> And you're still using every trick you can to avoid discussing the JFK
> case.
You are the one putting words in my mouth.
I’m not the one running from discussing the JFK case.
>
> DID THE PROSECTORS DISSECT THE WOUND IN THE THROAT?
>
> You can't answer. The truth would slap a fellow believer... and you'd
> be too embarrassed to pass off the same lie that Chickenshit posted.
It was a conclusion they drew after speaking with the Dallas doctor who performed the trache in the emergency room.
I’m not embarrassed to say that. Never have been.
Ben Holmes
Nov 8, 2023, 7:55:02 PM11/8/23
to
On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 16:45:03 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes moron, you lied about me not already providing your quote, IN
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
CONTEXT, and with a cite to the original.
STOP LYING!!!
Bud
Nov 8, 2023, 8:15:48 PM11/8/23
to
Humes said...
"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."
This is dissection with the purpose of examining the neck. They describe things like the muscles inside the neck that could not have been seen without dissection.
Ben Holmes
Nov 9, 2023, 10:39:28 AM11/9/23
to
0 new messages