Garrison: Warren Commission "cosmically irrelevent "

[Gil Jesus]

"Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm

Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>
> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison

You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?

Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:11:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >
> > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>
> You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?

No I have Garrison on video saying that.

>
> It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Why don't you explain to us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster can't. All he can do is run away while *pretending* he's
addressed the issue.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe someone was sending a shot across the bow on the second Marguerite for whom dental records might be a problem...

[Christopher Strimbu]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how this shows the WC was a con job. In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.

Thanks for the ammunition, fuckface!

[David Healy]

oh-my-goodness... she IS sensitive...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 07:28:47 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>
>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>
> I'm not entirely sure how this shows the WC was a con job.

That simply goes to show your intelligence... or lack thereof.

> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows
> just how through the WC was in it's investigation.

So "through" that they failed to ask a *SINGLE* question of the
closest non-limo eyewitness to the murder... a policeman who observed
the murder of JFK from less than a dozen feet away.

Thanks for the illustration of your ignorance...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>
>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>
>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?

Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...

> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> bother.

It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
this case without referencing the WC.

Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.

The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
you can't look to the WC to find truth.

Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.

[Ben Holmes]

My favorite "witness" who demonstrated the irrelevancy of the WC was
Anne Boudreaux, who once knew the babysitter of a two year old Lee
Oswald.

Chrissy, Huckster, Chickenshit, and other believers won't even *try*
to justify such a witness.

And though this has been posted before, my prediction was quite
accurate... Chrissy, Huckster, and Chickenshit simply refused to
explain this extraordinary witness.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.

Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

>
> Thanks for the ammunition, fuckface!

Too bad your parents never taught you to respect your elders, instead of being a little snot-faced Karen.

Is it that time of the month again already ?

[Bud]

Why doesn`t Gil explain how including the dental records of Jack Ruby`s mother rendered the WC irrelevant.

> Huckster can't. All he can do is run away while *pretending* he's
> addressed the issue.

He did address the issue Gil brought up. The claim Gil made was that the WC was irrelevant. Hank, being a reasonable person asked just the right question...

[Ben Holmes]

She doesn't seem to realize that her keyboard warrior skills simply
show everyone that *she* knows she lost.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:51:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> My favorite "witness" who demonstrated the irrelevancy of the WC was
> Anne Boudreaux, who once knew the babysitter of a two year old Lee
> Oswald.
>
> Chrissy, Huckster, Chickenshit, and other believers won't even *try*
> to justify such a witness.
>
> And though this has been posted before, my prediction was quite
> accurate... Chrissy, Huckster, and Chickenshit simply refused to
> explain this extraordinary witness.

Notice that none of these assholes have supplied any evidence showing what
Ruby's mother's dental records had to do with the assassination.

Questions
Comments
Insults

Everything but evidence.

There are many questions they can't answer and when you hit them with one, the hate comes out.
Instead of being honest and saying they don't know, or they'll look it up, they make some stupid comment and go right to the insults.
These people are dishonest.
They're not interested in the truth, nor are they interested in a civilized debate of the facts.
They are hate-filled ignoramuses, cemented in their mindset that anything or any one who challenges
what they've been indoctrinated to believe is a "kook".

They won't cite evidence because they're lazy. Too lazy top look it up.
They won't look at your evidence because they're afraid.
Yes, they're cowards alright. They're afraid of the truth.

Being in the dark allows people a false sense of security.
Turning a light on may reveal something too frightening to see.

So they're blissful in their ignorance.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:36:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.

It was supposed to be about the assassination.

Can YOU tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:37:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:11:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>>
>>>> You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
>>>
>>>No I have Garrison on video saying that.
>>>>
>>>> It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
>>>
>>>Why don't you explain to us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>
> Why doesn`t Gil explain how including the dental records of Jack
> Ruby`s mother rendered the WC irrelevant.

Not needed for intelligent lurkers.

>> Huckster can't. All he can do is run away while *pretending* he's
>> addressed the issue.
>
> He did address the issue Gil brought up.

No, he didn't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>
> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.

Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

Surely you don't expect a credible answer to that question!?

[Ben Holmes]

As I've stated many times before, there's no such thing as an honest
and KNOWLEDGEABLE believer.

Every last one of them are both cowards and liars.

And while it's entirely possible to be both honest and a believer in
the WCR, when you *learn* the underlying evidence, it's no longer
possible to believe it. Hence the dishonesty & cowardice.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:44:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:37:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
> >> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:11:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >>>>
> >>>> You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
> >>>
> >>>No I have Garrison on video saying that.
> >>>>
> >>>> It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
> >>>
> >>>Why don't you explain to us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
> >
> > Why doesn`t Gil explain how including the dental records of Jack
> > Ruby`s mother rendered the WC irrelevant.
> Not needed for intelligent lurkers.

They already understood the claim Gil made was stupid.

> >> Huckster can't. All he can do is run away while *pretending* he's
> >> addressed the issue.
> >
> > He did address the issue Gil brought up.
> No, he didn't.

You cowardly removed it.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
> >> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
> >
> > Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.

Does this mean you are going to stop bitching about the WCR?

[Bud]

You lie a lot.

> Every last one of them are both cowards and liars.
>
> And while it's entirely possible to be both honest and a believer in
> the WCR, when you *learn* the underlying evidence, it's no longer
> possible to believe it. Hence the dishonesty & cowardice.

What do you care about the WCR, you`ve taken the stance it is irrelevant.

[Christopher Strimbu]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

Missed the point entirely.

> >
> > Thanks for the ammunition, fuckface!
> Too bad your parents never taught you to respect your elders,

I already told you, you fucking idiot. I don't tolerate morons.

instead of being a little snot-faced Karen.

Still doing this, huh?

>
> Is it that time of the month again already ?

That retards like Crackhead Gil come out to let the lurkers know how much of a fucking moron they are? Yeah, think so.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Alright kiddies, take out your textbooks, turn to page 207. The word of today is "projection".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 13:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>
>Missed the point entirely.

Yes... you provably did.

>>> Thanks for the ammunition, fuckface!
>> Too bad your parents never taught you to respect your elders,

LFD.

>> Is it that time of the month again already ?

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

>Alright kiddies...

Says the youngest kid in this forum.

The irony went right over her head...

[Christopher Strimbu]

Born in 2000. Not good for you.

> The irony went right over her head...

*his

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 14:05:30 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu

Yep... kid. Just as I stated when you started whining about being
"misgendered." No adult uses such a term.

>> The irony went right over her head...
>
>*his

No sweetie, I said "her" - I was referring to you.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Ben thinks 21 years old is a kid.

Just as I stated when you started whining about being
> "misgendered." No adult uses such a term.

How do you know that? Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify that claim?

> >> The irony went right over her head...
> >
> >*his
> No sweetie, I said "her" - I was referring to you.

Yeah, I'm male, so the proper term is "his". No need to thank me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 14:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu

Yep.

>> Just as I stated when you started whining about being
>> "misgendered." No adult uses such a term.
>
>How do you know that?

Because I'm an adult.

> Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify
> that claim?

Logical fallacy... Can you name it?

>>>> The irony went right over her head...
>>>
>>>*his
>>
>> No sweetie, I said "her" - I was referring to you.
>

>Yeah, I'm female, so the proper term is "her". No need to thank me.

Don't worry, you can't teach me anything. You can't even explain Anne
Boudreaux.

That's why you ran...

[Christopher Strimbu]

What an troll.

> >> Just as I stated when you started whining about being
> >> "misgendered." No adult uses such a term.
> >
> >How do you know that?
> Because I'm an adult.

What Troll Holmes snipped:

How do you know that? Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify that claim?

> > Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify
> > that claim?
> Logical fallacy... Can you name it?
> >>>> The irony went right over her head...
> >>>
> >>>*his
> >>
> >> No sweetie, I said "her" - I was referring to you.
> >
> >Yeah, I'm female, so the proper term is "her". No need to thank me.
>

What Troll Holmes edited:

Yeah, I'm male, so the proper term is "his". No need to thank me.

> Don't worry, you can't teach me anything. You can't even explain Anne
> Boudreaux.
>
> That's why you ran...

Troll Holmes is an idiot an a coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu

LFD.

>>>> Just as I stated when you started whining about being
>>>> "misgendered." No adult uses such a term.
>>>
>>>How do you know that?
>>
>> Because I'm an adult.
>
>What Troll Holmes snipped:
>
>How do you know that? Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify that claim?

Takes a real moron to see that statement still in this post, half
above, and half below.

Are you illiterate, or just stupid?

>>> Have you seen every time an adult speaks so you can verify
>>> that claim?
>>
>> Logical fallacy... Can you name it?

Guess not. You clearly couldn't even see the statement you claim I'd
snipped.

Illiterate or stupid... or both.

>>>>>> The irony went right over her head...
>>>>>
>>>>>*his
>>>>
>>>> No sweetie, I said "her" - I was referring to you.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I'm female, so the proper term is "her". No need to thank me.
>>

>> Don't worry, you can't teach me anything. You can't even explain Anne
>> Boudreaux.
>>
>> That's why you ran...
>
>Troll Holmes is an idiot an a coward.

Notice folks... Chrissy hiked up her tutu and simply ran ... she
couldn't address Anne Boudreaux... probably has no idea who she is, or
why I brought her up.

And is too young to know how to Google her testimony.

Do you think you're convincing lurkers, Chrissy?

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben "Chickenhawk" Holmes smells fresh meat ...

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>

> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison

One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away? How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Girly...

LOL

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:

> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >
> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >
> > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?

I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant and they had nothing. They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they tend to scamper.

>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.

Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC was irrelevant to the truth. When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you don`t obsess over it.

[Ben Holmes]

Chrissy's laughing at someone else being "misgendered."

[Mark Ulrik]

Aren't you the one who needs a gynecologist to tell you the difference?

[Mark Ulrik]

You're spot on as usual, Bud. I knew that I didn't add anything of substance to the thread, but sometimes the blatant dishonesty of Gil and Ben gets to me. They act like narcissists feeding off each other.

[Bud]

Sure you did. For one thing you hit the nail on the head about Ben wishing Chris was an under aged girl so he would have someone to groom. I wrote a response but deleted it, because I am always leery to second what others write for fear of appearing as a narcissist feeding off my fellow posters. We generally don`t "attaboy" like they do, I`ll take some odd shots at Ben when I see openings but I don`t usually get too involved when Ben is going back and forth with Hank or Chuck or whoever, they are grown men who can easily handle the likes of Ben Holmes.

> but sometimes the blatant dishonesty of Gil and Ben gets to me. They act like narcissists feeding off each other.

Years ago I saw a film where chimps were being threatened by a lion, and they would reach over and feel the fangs of the chimps nearby for reassurance. This is how they are, they need to reassure each other in the face of reason.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.

> >>
> >> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >>
> >> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not

> >> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >
> >You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?

> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...

Did I say it mattered?

My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.


> > Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> > irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> > bother.
> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
> this case without referencing the WC.

Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.

Thanks for proving my point.


>
> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.

Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.


>
> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
> you can't look to the WC to find truth.

A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?


>
> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:47:34 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:11:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> > >
> > > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> > >
> > > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >
> > You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?

> No I have Garrison on video saying that.
> >

> > It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

> Why don't you explain to us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?

You took my quote out of context.

You ignored the lead in and snipped it in your response. Here’s what I wrote: “Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.”

[Christopher Strimbu]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:36:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > fredag den 13. maj 2022 kl. 01.13.00 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
> > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> > > > > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> > > > One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
> > > I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant and they had nothing. They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they tend to scamper.
> > > >How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
> > > Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC was irrelevant to the truth. When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you don`t obsess over it.
> > You're spot on as usual, Bud. I knew that I didn't add anything of substance to the thread,
> Sure you did. For one thing you hit the nail on the head about Ben wishing Chris was an under aged girl so he would have someone to groom.

Jesus Christ...

When I first got on this forum, the last thing I would've expected was to be thought of as an underage girl. Such is the internet, I suppose.

[Mark Ulrik]

fredag den 13. maj 2022 kl. 02.36.01 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 8:00:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > fredag den 13. maj 2022 kl. 01.13.00 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
> > > On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> > > > > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> > > > One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
> > > I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant and they had nothing. They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they tend to scamper.
> > > >How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
> > > Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC was irrelevant to the truth. When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you don`t obsess over it.
> > You're spot on as usual, Bud. I knew that I didn't add anything of substance to the thread,
> Sure you did. For one thing you hit the nail on the head about Ben wishing Chris was an under aged girl so he would have someone to groom.

That's not exactly what I meant, but it's kind of interesting to see an older male call a younger male "sweetie." There is probably a name for that.

> I wrote a response but deleted it, because I am always leery to second what others write for fear of appearing as a narcissist feeding off my fellow posters. We generally don`t "attaboy" like they do, I`ll take some odd shots at Ben when I see openings but I don`t usually get too involved when Ben is going back and forth with Hank or Chuck or whoever, they are grown men who can easily handle the likes of Ben Holmes.

I'm not afraid to admit that I like the way you guys deal with those characters.

> > but sometimes the blatant dishonesty of Gil and Ben gets to me. They act like narcissists feeding off each other.
> Years ago I saw a film where chimps were being threatened by a lion, and they would reach over and feel the fangs of the chimps nearby for reassurance. This is how they are, they need to reassure each other in the face of reason.

That's a great analogy, but I think it's about boosting their fragile egos as well as dealing with threats to their carefully constructed fantasy world.

[Ben Holmes]

Because for the truth, the Commission *WAS* irrelevant.

That statement is so devastating that Chickenshit is lying about it.

Now, would you like to answer the question that Gil asked?

Or would you prefer to run away like the coward you clearly are?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>
>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
>>>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>
>>>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
>> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...
>
>Did I say it mattered?

It was *YOUR* response.

>My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.

Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.

>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
>>> bother.
>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
>> this case without referencing the WC.
>
>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.

It is for the truth.

>Thanks for proving my point.

No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.

>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
>
>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.

Run Huckster... RUN!

>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
>
> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?

Just how stupid *ARE* you?

The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
to it's own collected testimony.

If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.

>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.

And hasn't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 18:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> When I first got on this forum, the last thing I would've expected
> was to be thought of as an underage girl. Such is the internet, I
> suppose.

I'm quite sure you did. You can't quite comprehend that actions have
consequences.

You'll learn.

Maybe.

[Gil Jesus]

> On Thu, 12 May 2022 18:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > When I first got on this forum, the last thing I would've expected
> > was to be thought of as an underage girl. Such is the internet, I
> > suppose.

Maybe if you didn't act and talk like a fairy princess, people wouldn't think of you that way.

[Christopher Strimbu]

A fairy princess calls someone a crackhead and a fucking idiot (which you are)?

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:20:54 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:

> A fairy princess calls someone a crackhead and a fucking idiot (which you are)?

ROFLMAO

[Christopher Strimbu]

Laugh all you want, Girly. Doesn't make it any less true.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Laugh all you want, Girly. Doesn't make it any less true.

ROFLMAO, Honey, ( if you're really 21 ) I've studied this case longer than YOUR PARENTS have been alive.

And there's NF way that ANY 21 year old could be an "expert" on this case, male or female.

You constantly claim one thing then do another.

You claim to be an adult male, but you describe yourself as a "boy", which adult males do not do.

You claim to be an adult male but you use as a picture a puffin. You could have used no picture at all. Very macho.

You claim to be an atheist but you have no problem using the Lord's name in vain.

You claim to apologize for being an asshole and then you go right back to giving the world nothing but shit.

So you're already misrepresenting yourself as something that you're not.

Not only do you damage your credibility by lying, you don't post evidence, you post insults and silly comments.

I could care less what you "identify as". To me you're just another little hate-filled jobless woke twerp still sponging off
mommy and daddy who comes in here between video games to insult people in their 50's, 60's and 70's.

You have no respect for your elders.
You're a pimple on the ass of society.
You have nothing to contribute and your life has no meaning.
You're a ship adrift on the ocean.

Put on your McDonald's uniform and get ready to earn your $ 9.50 and hour.
Thanks to your woke pals in Washington, you have no future.

And hold the fries.

ROFLMAO.

[Christopher Strimbu]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 11:15:44 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Laugh all you want, Girly. Doesn't make it any less true.
> ROFLMAO, Honey, ( if you're really 21 ) I've studied this case longer than YOUR PARENTS have been alive.

Done a terrible job to. I think Hank, Bud, Chuck, John, and others much more knowledgeable than yours truly have done a good job exposing you for the moron that you are.

>
> And there's NF way that ANY 21 year old could be an "expert" on this case, male or female.
>

Which was why "expert" was in quotation marks. It wasn't a serious comment.

> You constantly claim one thing then do another.
>

Sounds like Ben. Or David/Boris. Or any other CT in existence.

> You claim to be an adult male, but you describe yourself as a "boy", which adult males do not do.
>

You haven't come 50 miles to proving that.

> You claim to be an adult male but you use as a picture a puffin. You could have used no picture at all. Very macho.
>

My profile picture is whatever I want it to be.

> You claim to be an atheist but you have no problem using the Lord's name in vain.
>

Which, if you stopped to think for more than 10 milliseconds, would make sense since using the Lord's name in vain is in violation of one of the 10 commandments. And since I don't believe in any God, then I can say "Jesus Christ" whenever I want.

> You claim to apologize for being an asshole and then you go right back to giving the world nothing but shit.
>

Which was after you started the threads calling me Christina Strimbu. As Troll Holmes says: "Actions have consequences"

> So you're already misrepresenting yourself as something that you're not.
>

We're back to projecting, I see. Stay on page 207, kids. We're not turning it for quite some time...

> Not only do you damage your credibility by lying, you don't post evidence, you post insults and silly comments.
>

You haven't given me anything that a.) I haven't already talked about or b.) anything to rebut. If you want me to post evidence (which in your eyes I never will, since evidence to you is only the stuff that supports your cult faith), I will gladly do so.

> I could care less what you "identify as".

Then why don't you let the "Christina Strimbu" thing die?

To me you're just another little hate-filled jobless woke twerp still sponging off
> mommy and daddy who comes in here between video games to insult people in their 50's, 60's and 70's.
>

I mean, I didn't make put the clown makeup on you and make you go tell the world how stupid you are.

> You have no respect for your elders.

Age doesn't mean a thing, asshole. You're stupid no matter if you're 60 or 21.

> You're a pimple on the ass of society.

Idiots are very much.

> You have nothing to contribute and your life has no meaning.

So will yours. Everything we do means nothing in the end. Difference between you and me is that I already came to terms with that fact.

> You're a ship adrift on the ocean.
>

Last time I checked, I was in my apartment. Oh well.

> Put on your McDonald's uniform and get ready to earn your $ 9.50 and hour.

I'll let lurkers spot the contradiction with what Girly said earlier.

> Thanks to your woke pals in Washington, you have no future.
>

You probably think you could guess my entire life with a crystal ball.

> And hold the fries.
>

No.

> ROFLMAO.

What a clown.

[David Healy]

I won't tell *it* it's $15.50/hr. way out west... "a pimple on the ass of society..." not bad, Gil not bad at all -- lmao :)

[Ben Holmes]

You're spending more time that Chrissy is worth to educate her...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Then why don't you let the "Christina Strimbu" thing die?

For the same reason you won't let your assinine nature die.

[Christopher Strimbu]

Please. I apologized and you still called me a girl, you yellowpanted liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 11:16:40 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu

<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 1:51:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 08:51:02 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
>> <christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Then why don't you let the "Christina Strimbu" thing die?
>> For the same reason you won't let your assinine nature die.
>

>Please. I apologized and you still called me a girl, you yellowpanted liar..


Kids... they just don't understand.

You need to CHANGE your attitude... then we'll change ours.

An *honest* apology would merely be the beginning...

You haven't changed, Chrissy ... so why should we???

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:04:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
> >>>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >>>
> >>>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
> >> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...
> >
> >Did I say it mattered?
> It was *YOUR* response.

And you’re pretending I said it mattered. I didn’t.

> >My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.

Already refuted it, and you conceded the point: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”

> >>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> >>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> >>> bother.
> >> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
> >> this case without referencing the WC.
> >
> >Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
> It is for the truth.
> >Thanks for proving my point.
> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.

Ad hominem. Ben must be stuck if all he can do is call me names, and deny the validity of my points.

> >> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
> >> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
> >
> >Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
> Run Huckster... RUN!

You commit so many logical fallacies, it’s hard to keep track. But your above argument is clearly a straw man. I never said anything remotely like what you’re trying to pretend I said.

> >> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
> >> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
> >
> > A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
> > Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
> Just how stupid *ARE* you?

Not very. You?

>
> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
> to it's own collected testimony.

And there’s the moving of the goalposts, yet another logical fallacy.

Gil (via Garrison) was talking about the 26 volumes of evidence:
“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”

*Exhibits*. Not *conclusions*.

Exhibits is the word Garrison used, and in the phrase Gil quoted.

And so were you: “ The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth... ” and:
“Because for the truth, the Commission *WAS* irrelevant.”

You were talking about the Commission, not their conclusions.

Now for the first time, you are talking about the Warren Commission *conclusions*, not not the seven-member Commission nor the body of evidence they published in the 26 volumes of Testimony and evidence.

Gil did not cite any reference to a conclusion, he cited a reference to an exhibit, so he is clearly referencing the Commission exhibits and evidence, not their conclusions, and you’re now trying to make this an entirely different argument, because you already conceded their 26 volumes of evidence are a necessity to an understanding of the assassination: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”

>
> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
> >> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
> And hasn't.

Asked and answered. You conceded the point, so you’re now trying to move the goalposts and argue a different point entirely.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 12:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:04:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
>>>>>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>>>
>>>>>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
>>>> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...
>>>
>>>Did I say it mattered?
>> It was *YOUR* response.
>
>And you’re pretending I said it mattered. I didn’t.

Then stop talking about it!

Your constant whining about it shows you a liar...

>> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
>> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
>
>Already refuted it,

Nope.

You're lying again, Huckster.

>>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
>>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
>>>>> bother.
>>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
>>>> this case without referencing the WC.
>>>
>>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
>>
>> It is for the truth.
>>
>>>Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.

LFD.

>>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
>>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
>>>
>>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
>>
>> Run Huckster... RUN!

LFD.

>>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
>>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
>>>
>>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
>>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
>>
>> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
>
>Not very.

You aren't supporting that claim.

>> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
>> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
>> to it's own collected testimony.
>
>And there’s the moving of the goalposts

It is indeed what *YOU* did.

>> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
>>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
>>
>> And hasn't.
>
>Asked and answered.

Nope.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2022 12:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:04:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
> >>>>>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
> >>>> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...
> >>>
> >>>Did I say it mattered?
> >> It was *YOUR* response.
> >
> >And you’re pretending I said it mattered. I didn’t.
> Then stop talking about it!
>
> Your constant whining about it shows you a liar...

Ben equates talking with whining and then whining with lying.

By those equations, Ben is s3lf defined as the biggest liar on this board, as no one approaches the volume of stuff Ben talks about (= whining, = lying).

> >> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
> >> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
> >
> >Already refuted it,
> Nope.

Ben ran from the point I made.

>
> You're lying again, Huckster.

Another unproven assertion from Ben.

> >>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> >>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> >>>>> bother.
> >>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
> >>>> this case without referencing the WC.
> >>>
> >>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
> >>
> >> It is for the truth.

Ben deleted my point.

> >>
> >>>Thanks for proving my point.
> >>
> >> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.
> LFD.

Ben deleted my point.

> >>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
> >>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
> >>>
> >>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
> >>
> >> Run Huckster... RUN!
> LFD.

Ben deleted my point.

> >>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
> >>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
> >>>
> >>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
> >>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
> >>
> >> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
> >

> >Not very. How about you?

> You aren't supporting that claim.

That’s funny, coming from the queen bee of the unsupported claims.

> >> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
> >> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
> >> to it's own collected testimony.
> >
> >And there’s the moving of the goalposts
> It is indeed what *YOU* did.

Another unsupported claim. You deleted all my explanation, then pretend I did what I established you just did.

> >> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
> >>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.

Snipped my response, didn’t you?

> >>
> >> And hasn't.
> >
> >Asked and answered.
> Nope.

Sorry, totally inadequate, and also totally untrue.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 12:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 9:04:39 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not
>>>>>>>> have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
>>>>>> Would it matter? You can't refute Mark Lane either...
>>>>>
>>>>>Did I say it mattered?
>>>> It was *YOUR* response.
>>>
>>>And you’re pretending I said it mattered. I didn’t.
>> Then stop talking about it!
>>
>> Your constant whining about it shows you a liar...
>

>Ben ...

Points out that your constant whining about it shows you a liar...

Yep.

That's what I did.

>>>> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
>>>> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
>>>
>>>Already refuted it,
>>
>> Nope.
>

> Ben ran ...

Huckster ran.

Notice folks, that he's offered **NO** justification for the WC
including a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.

He's simply run from that...

And thinks no-one notices how yellow he is.

>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>
>Another unproven assertion from Ben.

Proven to who?

>>>>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
>>>>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
>>>>>>> bother.
>>>>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
>>>>>> this case without referencing the WC.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> It is for the truth.
>>>>

>>>>>Thanks for proving my point.
>>>>
>>>> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.
>> LFD.

>>>>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
>>>>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
>>>>>
>>>>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
>>>>
>>>> Run Huckster... RUN!
>> LFD.

>>>>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
>>>>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
>>>>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
>>>>
>>>> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
>>>
>>>Not very. How about you?
>> You aren't supporting that claim.
>
>That’s funny, coming from the queen bee of the unsupported claims.

Not only did you still not eliminate indigestion, you failed to
explain what this had to do with anything. Instead, when challenged to
make a case for anything, anything at all, you not only failed to make
that case, you went straight to the name-calling, as if calling anyone
who questions you names help support your claims.

It doesn’t. It establishes you cannot support your claims.

>>>> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
>>>> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
>>>> to it's own collected testimony.
>>>
>>>And there’s the moving of the goalposts
>> It is indeed what *YOU* did.
>
> Another unsupported claim. You deleted all my explanation, then
> pretend I did what I established you just did.

"Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment". I
present the facts, I present the analysis, and I present my
conclusion.

>>>> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
>>>>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
>>>>

>>>> And hasn't.
>>>
>>>Asked and answered.
>> Nope.
>
>Sorry, totally inadequate, and also totally untrue.

It’s your burden. You need to do more than raise questions and attempt
to shift the burden of proof.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
>>>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>>>
>>> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
>> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.
>
> Does this mean ...

An intelligent man would already understand what I said.

>>>>> Thanks for the ammunition, fuckface!
>>>> Too bad your parents never taught you to respect your elders, instead of being a little snot-faced Karen.
>>>>
>>>> Is it that time of the month again already ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 17:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> For one thing you hit the nail on the head about Ben wishing Chris
> was an under aged girl so he would have someone to groom.

Here we see what is known as "projection."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:

>> > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>> >
>> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>> >

>> > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
>
> I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant

Irrelevant for the truth.

Chickenshit keeps lying about that.

> and they had nothing.

You're lying again...

> They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they
> tend to scamper.

You PROVABLY ran away when I challenged you to QUOTE my words.

>>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
>
> Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC
> was irrelevant to the truth.

It is, of course, what I actually had said.

The fact That Chickenshit refuses to quote my original words shows
that *HE* knows he's lying.

> When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you
> don`t obsess over it.

You're the only one "obsessing."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:00 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:51:44 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> My favorite "witness" who demonstrated the irrelevancy of the WC was
>>>> Anne Boudreaux, who once knew the babysitter of a two year old Lee
>>>> Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Chrissy, Huckster, Chickenshit, and other believers won't even *try*
>>>> to justify such a witness.
>>>>
>>>> And though this has been posted before, my prediction was quite
>>>> accurate... Chrissy, Huckster, and Chickenshit simply refused to
>>>> explain this extraordinary witness.
>>>
>>>Notice that none of these assholes have supplied any evidence showing what
>>>Ruby's mother's dental records had to do with the assassination.
>>>
>>>Questions
>>>Comments
>>>Insults
>>>
>>>Everything but evidence.
>>>
>>>There are many questions they can't answer and when you hit them with one, the hate comes out.
>>>Instead of being honest and saying they don't know, or they'll look it up, they make some stupid comment and go right to the insults.
>>>These people are dishonest.
>>>They're not interested in the truth, nor are they interested in a civilized debate of the facts.
>>>They are hate-filled ignoramuses, cemented in their mindset that anything or any one who challenges
>>>what they've been indoctrinated to believe is a "kook".
>>>
>>>They won't cite evidence because they're lazy. Too lazy top look it up.
>>>They won't look at your evidence because they're afraid.
>>>Yes, they're cowards alright. They're afraid of the truth.
>>>
>>>Being in the dark allows people a false sense of security.
>>>Turning a light on may reveal something too frightening to see.
>>>
>>>So they're blissful in their ignorance.
>> As I've stated many times before, there's no such thing as an honest
>> and KNOWLEDGEABLE believer.
>
> You lie a lot.

Says one of the liars I'm referring to...

>> Every last one of them are both cowards and liars.
>>
>> And while it's entirely possible to be both honest and a believer in
>> the WCR, when you *learn* the underlying evidence, it's no longer
>> possible to believe it. Hence the dishonesty & cowardice.
>
> What do you care about the WCR, you`ve taken the stance it is
> irrelevant.

As far as the truth goes, of course. Even *you* can't refute this
fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:48:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:44:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:34:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 9:37:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 04:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>>>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 7:11:53 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:22:14 AM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent [sic]." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You sure that was Garrison and not Mark Lane?
>>>>>

>>>>>No I have Garrison on video saying that.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother.
>>>>>

>>>>>Why don't you explain to us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>>>
>>> Why doesn`t Gil explain how including the dental records of Jack
>>> Ruby`s mother rendered the WC irrelevant.
>> Not needed for intelligent lurkers.
>
> They ...

Are, by definition, intelligent.

>>>> Huckster can't. All he can do is run away while *pretending* he's
>>>> addressed the issue.
>>>
>>> He did address the issue Gil brought up.
>> No, he didn't.
>
> You ...

The topic isn't about me.

[Bud]

Then you won`t be bringing the WC up any more, right?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> >> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> >> > "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >> >
> >> > https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >> >
> >> > Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
> >
> > I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant
> Irrelevant for the truth.

Then you won`t be bringing bit up any more, lest you expose yourself as a hypocrite who actually finds it relevant.

> Chickenshit keeps lying about that.

You merely moved the goalpost to your safe space.

> > and they had nothing.
>
> You're lying again...

That could only be true if you had something.

> > They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they
> > tend to scamper.
> You PROVABLY ran away when I challenged you to QUOTE my words.

The idea was that the WC was irrelevant. You seemed on board with the idea, but then being a slippery snake are you you slithered away from that position.

> >>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
> >
> > Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC
> > was irrelevant to the truth.
> It is, of course, what I actually had said.

After you were exposed as a hypocrite for taking the position that the WC was irrelevant you invented a fallback position. But even that doesn`t work, declaring the WC irrelevant in any way makes bringing it up hypocritical.

> The fact That Chickenshit refuses to quote my original words shows
> that *HE* knows he's lying.

Quote your words about it being irrelevant to the truth. This was something you concocted after the fact to avoid the trap you put yourself in. Not being able to bitch about the WC leaves you with nothing elsew.

> > When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you
> > don`t obsess over it.
> You're the only one "obsessing."

I rarely if ever bring up the WC. You bring it up constantly, even though you feel it is irrelevant, very hypocritical behavior.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
> >>>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
> >>>
> >>> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
> >> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.
> >
> > Does this mean ...
>
> An intelligent man would already understand what I said.

They would understand how hypocritical it would be for someone to constantly be bringing something up they find irrelevant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
>>>>>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
>>>> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.
>>>
>>> Does this mean ...
>>
>> An intelligent man would already understand what I said.
>

> They would understand...

How would you know?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
>>>
>>> I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant
>>
>> Irrelevant for the truth.
>

> Then you won`t be bringing bit up any more...

I've **NEVER** utilized the WCR to support the truth, why would I
start now?

>> Chickenshit keeps lying about that.
>

> You merely moved the goalpost...

You've **NEVER** quoted me saying any different.

>>> and they had nothing.
>>
>> You're lying again...
>>

>>> They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they
>>> tend to scamper.
>>
>> You PROVABLY ran away when I challenged you to QUOTE my words.
>
> The idea was that the WC was irrelevant.

In your mind, perhaps. You cannot quote me saying that.

So you're a provable liar, aren't you?

>>>>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
>>>
>>> Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC
>>> was irrelevant to the truth.
>>
>> It is, of course, what I actually had said.
>

> After you were exposed ...

You cannot "expose" what was never said.

>> The fact That Chickenshit refuses to quote my original words shows
>> that *HE* knows he's lying.
>

> Quote your words ...

No need to. Your inability to quote me saying what you claimed is all
the proof needed.

>>> When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you
>>> don`t obsess over it.
>>
>> You're the only one "obsessing."
>
> I rarely if ever bring up the WC.

You support it daily.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Notice folks, that I was, as usual, 100% correct. Chickenshit was
COMPLETELY unable to refute this fact.

> Then you won`t be bringing the WC up any more, right?

I've **NEVER** brought up the WC in relation to the truth. I use the
evidence for that purpose.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
> >>>>>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
> >>>> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.
> >>>
> >>> Does this mean ...
> >>
> >> An intelligent man would already understand what I said.
> >
> > They would understand...
>
> How would you know?

Your hypocrisy is clear.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> >>>> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
> >>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
> >>>> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
> >>>
> >>> I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant
> >>
> >> Irrelevant for the truth.
> >
> > Then you won`t be bringing bit up any more...
>
> I've **NEVER** utilized the WCR to support the truth, why would I
> start now?

Seeing as you see it as irrelevant you shouldn`t be bringing it up at all.

> >> Chickenshit keeps lying about that.
> >
> > You merely moved the goalpost...
>
> You've **NEVER** quoted me saying any different.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, claiming it is both relevant and irrelevant.

> >>> and they had nothing.
> >>
> >> You're lying again...
> >>
> >>> They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they
> >>> tend to scamper.
> >>
> >> You PROVABLY ran away when I challenged you to QUOTE my words.
> >
> > The idea was that the WC was irrelevant.
> In your mind, perhaps.

Read the first post.

> You cannot quote me saying that.
>
> So you're a provable liar, aren't you?

Still you. You`ve indicated that it is both relevant and irrelevant.

> >>>>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
> >>>
> >>> Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC
> >>> was irrelevant to the truth.
> >>
> >> It is, of course, what I actually had said.
> >
> > After you were exposed ...
>
> You cannot "expose" what was never said.

Your hypocrisy was exposed when Hank wrote this...

"Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't bother."

Either Gil`s premise was fatally flawed or you guys are hypocrites. Turns out both were true.

> >> The fact That Chickenshit refuses to quote my original words shows
> >> that *HE* knows he's lying.
> >
> > Quote your words ...
>
> No need to.

You can`t, so you opt to cut and run.

>Your inability to quote me saying what you claimed is all
> the proof needed.
> >>> When you say something is irrelevant you typically ignore it, you
> >>> don`t obsess over it.
> >>
> >> You're the only one "obsessing."
> >
> > I rarely if ever bring up the WC.
> You support it daily.

Wrong.

[Bud]

I didn`t see you show it was one.

> > Then you won`t be bringing the WC up any more, right?
> I've **NEVER** brought up the WC in relation to the truth. I use the
> evidence for that purpose.

You wrote...

"It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC."

What is the definition of relevant?

"closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered"

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:37:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

No-one could see your refutation.

You lose!

>>> Then you won`t be bringing the WC up any more, right?
>>
>> I've **NEVER** brought up the WC in relation to the truth. I use the
>> evidence for that purpose.
>
> You wrote...

Tut tut tut liar.

If you cannot quote me saying what you CLAIM I said, then you lose.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:22:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:50:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:50:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:45:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:19:43 PM UTC-4, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:28:48 AM UTC-4, christoph...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In fact, I would say that this actually helps us, because it shows just how through the WC was in it's investigation.
>>>>>>>> Maybe you, being the JFK assassination expert, can tell us what the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother has to do with the assassination ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is your post maybe you can tell us how including this information rendered the WCR irrelevant.
>>>>>> Not really needed information for intelligent lurkers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean ...
>>>>
>>>> An intelligent man would already understand what I said.
>>>
>>> They would understand...
>>
>> How would you know?
>

> My hypocrisy is clear.

Yep.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 12:29:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2022 16:12:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 6:58:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>>>>>> torsdag den 12. maj 2022 kl. 12.22.14 UTC+2 skrev gjjma...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison
>>>>>> One oddball exhibit renders the entire WC irrelevent [sic] and makes their conclusions go away?
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked how including Ruby`s mother`s dental records rendered the WC irrelevant
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant for the truth.
>>>
>>> Then you won`t be bringing bit up any more...
>>
>> I've **NEVER** utilized the WCR to support the truth, why would I
>> start now?

LFD.

>>>> Chickenshit keeps lying about that.
>>>
>>> You merely moved the goalpost...
>>
>> You've **NEVER** quoted me saying any different.
>

> You ...

Nope... we're examining *YOUR* lying claims.

>>>>> and they had nothing.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again...
>>>>
>>>>> They say things, and when the things they say are challenged they
>>>>> tend to scamper.
>>>>
>>>> You PROVABLY ran away when I challenged you to QUOTE my words.
>>>
>>> The idea was that the WC was irrelevant.
>>
>> In your mind, perhaps.
>>

>> You cannot quote me saying that.
>>
>> So you're a provable liar, aren't you?
>

> Still ...

Yep.

>>>>>>How convenient it must be for stalwart conspiray believers like Girly and Chickenhawk to finally be able to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start in their quest for the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben tried the lame, cop out excuse that what he meant was the WC
>>>>> was irrelevant to the truth.
>>>>
>>>> It is, of course, what I actually had said.
>>>
>>> After you were exposed ...
>>
>> You cannot "expose" what was never said.
>

> Your...

Nope... we're examining *YOUR* lying claims.

>>>> The fact That Chickenshit refuses to quote my original words shows
>>>> that *HE* knows he's lying.
>>>
>>> Quote your words ...
>>
>> No need to.
>

> You...

Has nothing to do with me. You claimed it, now you can't support it.

[gggg gggg]

On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 3:22:14 AM UTC-7, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0213a.htm
>
> Even if Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, this would not have been relevent." --- Judge Jim Garrison

(Recent Youtube upload):

"Who was Jim Garrison?"

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben snipped my point. What I actually said (correcting the typo):

Ben equates talking with whining and then whining with lying.

By those equations, Ben is self-defined as the biggest liar on this board, as no one approaches the volume of stuff Ben talks about (= whining, = lying).

> Points out that your constant whining about it shows you a liar...

Repeating your claim doesn’t make it more true. It’s still a Begged Question logical fallacy.


>
> Yep.

Saying ‘Yep’ doesn’t make it more true either.

Note Ben would rather talk about me than the evidence.

>
> That's what I did.

And claiming you did something doesn’t make it more true either.

> >>>> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
> >>>> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
> >>>
> >>>Already refuted it,

Ben snipped my point again.what I said, and Ben ignored, was:

Already refuted it, and you conceded the point: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”



> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Ben ran ...

Ben snipped my point AGAIN.

>
> Huckster ran.
>
> Notice folks, that he's offered **NO** justification for the WC
> including a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>
> He's simply run from that...

Untrue. You snipped my point and ran from it.

Here, try this on for size, or snip it again:

And there’s the moving of the goalposts, yet another logical fallacy.

Gil (via Garrison) was talking about the 26 volumes of evidence:
“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”

*Exhibits*. Not *conclusions*.

Exhibits is the word Garrison used, and in the phrase Gil quoted.

And so were you: “ The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth... ” and:
“Because for the truth, the Commission *WAS* irrelevant.”

You were talking about the Commission, not their conclusions.

Now for the first time, you are talking about the Warren Commission *conclusions*, not not the seven-member Commission nor the body of evidence they published in the 26 volumes of Testimony and evidence.

Gil did not cite any reference to a conclusion, he cited a reference to an exhibit, so he is clearly referencing the Commission exhibits and evidence, not their conclusions, and you’re now trying to make this an entirely different argument, because you already conceded their 26 volumes of evidence are a necessity to an understanding of the assassination: “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”

>
> And thinks no-one notices how yellow he is.

Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy, Ben.

> >> You're lying again, Huckster.
> >
> >Another unproven assertion from Ben.
> Proven to who?

Anyone. You make assertions you don’t support. Above is another example.

> >>>>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
> >>>>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
> >>>>>>> bother.
> >>>>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
> >>>>>> this case without referencing the WC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is for the truth.

And that’s an example of moving the goalposts AND begging the question.

> >>>>
> >>>>>Thanks for proving my point.
> >>>>
> >>>> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.
> >> LFD.

Ben deleted my point, pretending it was a logical fallacy.

Here it is again, unrefuted by Ben:

Ad hominem. Ben must be stuck if all he can do is call me names, and deny the validity of my points.

> >>>>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
> >>>>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> Run Huckster... RUN!
> >> LFD.

Ben deleted what I actually said:
You commit so many logical fallacies, it’s hard to keep track. But your above argument is clearly a straw man. I never said anything remotely like what you’re trying to pretend I said.

> >>>>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
> >>>>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
> >>>>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
> >>>>
> >>>> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
> >>>
> >>>Not very. How about you?
> >> You aren't supporting that claim.

Ben shifts the burden of proof, pretending I need to provide evidence against his ad hominem, “Just how stupid *ARE* you?”

He needs to support it, I don’t need to disprove it.

> >
> >That’s funny, coming from the queen bee of the unsupported claims.
> Not only did you still not eliminate indigestion,

Indigestion? What are you babbling about now?

> you failed to
> explain what this had to do with anything.

I explained it in detail. You deleted most of it.

> Instead, when challenged to
> make a case for anything, anything at all, you not only failed to make
> that case,

Untrue. See the point above that you deleted and I reinserted, starting with:

And there’s the moving of the goalposts, yet another logical fallacy.
Gil (via Garrison) was talking about the 26 volumes of evidence:

“Just to show you how cosmically irrelevent [sic] the Warren Commission was, one of the exhibits included a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.”

> you went straight to the name-calling, as if calling anyone
> who questions you names help support your claims.

I didn’t go straight to the name-calling. I called you “ the queen bee of the unsupported claims “ after you ran from my points repeatedly and made a series of unsupported assertions.

>
> It doesn’t. It establishes you cannot support your claims.
> >>>> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
> >>>> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
> >>>> to it's own collected testimony.
> >>>
> >>>And there’s the moving of the goalposts
> >> It is indeed what *YOU* did.
> >
> > Another unsupported claim. You deleted all my explanation, then
> > pretend I did what I established you just did.
> "Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment". I
> present the facts, I present the analysis, and I present my
> conclusion.

You presented no facts. You presented no analysis. You presented your assertions. Period.

> >>>> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
> >>>>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
> >>>>
> >>>> And hasn't.
> >>>
> >>>Asked and answered.
> >> Nope.
> >
> >Sorry, totally inadequate, and also totally untrue.
> It’s your burden.

Shifting the burden. Gil made an assertion, you supported that, and we are examining your claims now. We are seeing you first admitting Gil was wrong to assert “how cosmically irrelevent the Warren Commission was” by admitting “It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about this case without referencing the WC.”

We then saw you qualifying that by moving the goalposts and adding the qualifier “irrelevant to the truth”

We then saw you shift gears again, moving the goalposts a second time (and begging the question) talking about the Commission *conclusions* being irrelevant to the truth, when Gil and you were initially talking about the Commission itself, not their conclusions.

> You need to do more than raise questions and attempt
> to shift the burden of proof.

I didn’t raise questions, I pointed out flaws in your arguments.
And the above is an empty claim by you, especially since that is what you just did - shift the burden of proof.

[Steven Galbraith]

Just to note here: as part of his investigation into the the assassination, Jim Garrison investigated the sex life of Clay Shaw. And David Ferrie. He took sex toys (he claimed; they were Mardi Gras costumes) out of Shaw's home. He said Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie killed JFK as part of a "homosexual thrill kill."
Moreover Garrison *never* had the following testify to his Grand Jury or in the Shaw trial: the Connallys. Or Greer. Or Kellerman. Or Jackie Kennedy. Or Humes. Or Boswell, Or Powers, Or Clint Hill. Or Marguerite Oswald. Or Robert Oswald. He never traced the rifle purchase. He never called before his grand jury anyone with Klein's. None of that and much more was done by him.
On and on and on. The Warren Commission interviewed thousands of people that Garrison never did. The above and more.
Yet these people praise Garrison's investigation and consider his criticism of the WC as relevant.
By their very own standard Garrison's investigation was a complete failure. Yet because he believes in their bizarre conspiracy they give him a pass.
Here is the Garrison material: GJ transcripts: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1017
Shaw trial transcripts: https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1016

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

One would not expect the prosecution to present the case for the defendant. That's up to the defense attorney, if he thinks it will help, to present witnesses to help his client's case. That's the way the American system works. Maybe it should not work that way. Maybe the prosecutor should be a truth-seeker. But that's not the way things are done in the US of A.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 2:06:06 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

These sites are treasure troves of problems with Garrison's case and arguments for Garrison's case:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (Fred Litwin)
https://www.jfk-online.com/drng.html (Dave Reitzes)

Both Litwin and Reitzes are former conspiracy theorists, as am I.

[Hank Sienzant]

A prosecutor has a lot of unchecked power to prosecute - and persecute - who he wishes. When the prosecuteor is a "truth seeker" (and who defines that?) and can indict anyone for anything, you wind up up with a lot of false prosecutions as District Attorneys decide to prosecute their enemies or others to prove their "truth" and give a pass to their friends. (Garrison is a prime example). Many of the first generation critics felt Shaw was innocent and Garrison was chasing an innocent man. Sylvia Meagher was among them:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/sylvia-meagher-and-jim-garrison-part-one
(Meagher letter to Clay Shaw): "I am convinced that you and others accused by Mr. Garrison are completely innocent of the charges and you have been unfairly victimized on the basis of specious and spurious evidence..."

You appear to be arguing none of the aforementioned people or evidence would indicate a conspiracy, or point to Oswald as providing the murder weapon (Oswald, in the official indictment of Shaw, was charged with bringing a rifle to the Depository as a member of the conspiracy):
https://www.jfk-online.com/state.html

1. A meeting of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, DAVID W. FERRIE and the defendant, CLAY L. SHAW, in the apartment of DAVID W. FERRIE at 3330 Louisiana Avenue parkway in the City of New Orleans during the month of September, 1963.

2. Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination.

...

5. LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963.
(what evidence do you think Garrison presented to establish that charge?)

That's right - Buell Wesley Frazier!

https://www.jfk-online.com/fraziershaw.html

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You seem to be pretending that I'm arguing things which I am not arguing in order to give yourself something to argue against, a straw man argument. Typical Nutter tactic.

[Steven Galbraith]

The Garrison investigation was a farce, a sham, a witch hunt. Incompetent, sloppy, poorly done. His staff was sent scurrying from place to place, from person to person, based on his whims which changed monthly. He would come out with a different explanation as to what happened every month, making new claims that contradicted his earlier ones. He even suggested that RFK was somehow involved, that he was covering up what happened.
That anyone thinks he is or was a credible critic of the Warren investigation is an indictment of their standards of what constitutes a credible investigation.

[Hank Sienzant]

Your words have meanings. And your arguments have logical consequences. Whether you like it or not. Or accept the burden of your own arguments or not.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

But your words don't mean shit, Dr. Sienzant.

[Hank Sienzant]

You say every month, but I would say his pronouncements changed on a daily basis at times. He would get to talking and his mouth would get ahead of his brain, making bizarre claims like RFK was involved in the conspiracy/cover-up. When pressed on the evidence for one of his claims naming a particular group, instead of citing the evidence, he respond with the retort, “Well, who do you was involved, retired circus clowns?”

Of course his response is a logical fallacy of begging the question, as he hadn’t provided any evidence for that particular group he named being involved, but he was also attempting to shift the burden of proof (by asking who the questioner thought was involved) and further by invoking the logical fallacy of a straw man argument (nobody previously had suggested retired circus clowns as the conspirators).

[Hank Sienzant]

No, contrary to your claim, my words have meanings as well. And my arguments have logical consequences. Whether you like it or not. Contrary to you, I accept the burden of my arguments by citing the evidence for them and pointing out the logical fallacies employed by others attempting to disprove or reject my points.

Above, you attempt to reject my arguments via the unsupported disclaimer “your words don't mean shit”.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2022 05:31:29 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

>Ben snipped ...

And snipped again.

>> Points out that your constant whining about it shows you a liar...
>
>Repeating your claim doesn’t make it more true.

Nor does it make it any less true.

>> Yep.
>
>Saying ‘Yep’ doesn’t make it more true either.

Nor does it make it any less true.

>Note Ben would rather talk about me than the evidence.

I'm PERFECTLY willing to talk about the evidence.

What's the reason that Jack Ruby's mother's dental records were
involved in this case?

>> That's what I did.
>
>And claiming you did something doesn’t make it more true either.

Makes it no less true. I raised the topic, you've been running from
it. Why were the dental records relevant?

>>>>>> My recollection was it was a line from A Citizen’s Dissent.
>>>>>> Amusingly, if it had been, you'd *STILL* be unable to refute it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Already refuted it,
>

>Ben snipped ...

And snipped again.

Dental records, remember?

>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Ben ran ...

>>
>> Huckster ran.
>>
>> Notice folks, that he's offered **NO** justification for the WC
>> including a chart of the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother.
>>
>> He's simply run from that...
>
>Untrue.

Yet you cannot explain the dental records relevance.

>> And thinks no-one notices how yellow he is.
>
>Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy, Ben.

If you're a coward, you should expect people to notice. Now, EXPLAIN
THE RELEVANCE OF THOSE DENTAL CHARTS...

Or run again, proving your cowardice.

>>>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>>>
>>>Another unproven assertion from Ben.
>>
>> Proven to who?
>
>Anyone.

Let's hear from that person. Not what *YOU* think.

>>>>>>>>> Why does every critic attack it so much if the Commission is so
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant? It sure sounds relevant to me, otherwise they wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> bother.
>>>>>>>> It is, of course, *IMPOSSIBLE* to go into any detail whatsoever about
>>>>>>>> this case without referencing the WC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which is why it is NOT irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is for the truth.
>

>And ...

Another good example of Huckster's inability to follow a debate.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for proving my point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No stupid, I didn't prove *YOUR* point at all.
>>>> LFD.
>

>Ben deleted ...

Your logical fallacy, yes.

>>>>>>>> Huckster knows this to be a fact, yet he pretends that critics are
>>>>>>>> somehow "cheating" when they reference the WC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Another thing I didn’t say. Another straw man argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run Huckster... RUN!
>>>> LFD.
>

>Ben deleted ...

Your logical fallacy, yes.

>>>>>>>> The WC was *indeed* irrelevant when the topic at hand is the truth...
>>>>>>>> you can't look to the WC to find truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lot of the testimony and evidence is in the volumes along with
>>>>>>> Jack Ruby’s mother’s dental records. All of it is irrelevant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just how stupid *ARE* you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not very. How about you?
>>>>
>>>> You aren't supporting that claim.
>

>Ben shifts the burden of proof...

You make the claim, it's yours to support.

>>>That’s funny, coming from the queen bee of the unsupported claims.
>>
>> Not only did you still not eliminate indigestion,
>
>Indigestion? What are you babbling about now?

You like to chop things up so that it no longer makes sense.

Here's the original:

Not only did you still not eliminate indigestion, you failed to
explain what this had to do with anything. Instead, when challenged to

make a case for anything, anything at all, you not only failed to make

that case, you went straight to the name-calling, as if calling anyone

who questions you names help support your claims.

It doesn’t. It establishes you cannot support your claims.


>>>>>> The eyeitness's testimony, is a COMPLETELY different topic than the
>>>>>> silly and kooky "conclusions" arrived at by the WCR in contradiction
>>>>>> to it's own collected testimony.
>>>>>
>>>>>And there’s the moving of the goalposts
>>>> It is indeed what *YOU* did.
>>>
>>> Another unsupported claim. You deleted all my explanation, then
>>> pretend I did what I established you just did.
>> "Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment". I
>> present the facts, I present the analysis, and I present my
>> conclusion.
>
>You presented no facts.

Are you now denying that Jack Ruby's mother's dental charts are
included by the WC?

>>>>>> If you can't figure that out, you should go hide in shame.
>>>>>>>> Huckster knows this, and cannot refute it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And hasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Asked and answered.
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>Sorry, totally inadequate, and also totally untrue.
>> It’s your burden.
>
>Shifting the burden.

It's your burden.

>> You need to do more than raise questions and attempt
>> to shift the burden of proof.
>
>I didn’t raise questions, I pointed out flaws in your arguments.

There is no "flaw" in asking what relevance the dental charts had.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 14:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>The Garrison investigation was a farce, a sham, a witch hunt. Incompetent, sloppy, poorly done.

Amusing that you make such a claim, and can't see the WCR for what it
is.

Understandable why you refuse to debate knowledgeable critics... we
reveal your silliness.

[Ben Holmes]

Believers just HATE the idea of an investigation not controlled by the
government.

>Both Litwin and Reitzes are former conspiracy theorists, as am I.

This common assertion has **NEVER** been proven.

It seems that every single person making this claim changed to a
believer AFTER the Internet, where they could have established their
beliefs in a forum.

Why they apparently think that this meaningless claim gives them any
sort of moral ground is completely idiotic.

Huckster cannot point to anything that changed his mind (and is
*credible* to the knowledgeable lurker), nor show how the government's
case suddenly made sense.