Conspiracy theorists...

[Bud]

When the government releases more files....

https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> When the government releases more files....
>
> https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo

LOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL

Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg

[Bud]

You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.

ROFLMAO

I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.

YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.

This isn't about evidence with you.
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.
This thread proves it.
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:29:03 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Looks like a perfect description of Benny Yellowpanties.

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.
> ROFLMAO
>
> I don't post ideas.
> I post testimony.
> I post documents.
> I post exhibits.
> I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.

So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?

So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?

> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.

Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.

> YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.

This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.

> This isn't about evidence with you.

It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.

> You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.

I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.

> This thread proves it.
> You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.

You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...

"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.

Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )

Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .

Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.

The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."

Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.

LOL.......you're so dumb you think the Mexican border pays rent.

[Bud]

https://youtu.be/RgZZBwG7slY

And this is why Gil hides behind links, he isn`t very good in a discussion of ideas. He isn`t even good at recognizing when he is expressing one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 03:51:15 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:29:03?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> When the government releases more files....
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo
>> LOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL
>>
>> Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg

Corbutt never stops to think who's citing evidence, and who refuses to
do so...

But he *STILL* can't get me out of his head.

[Hank Sienzant]

So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.

Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”

Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.

In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing exactly that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?

Or will you dodge and run away again?

>Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
>
>Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
>Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
>Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
>Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
>Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
>
>In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing exactly that.

It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ignoring the fact that Reynolds said essentially the same thing twice:

First, Reynolds thought it was Oswald:
FBI:
“he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963…”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.

Second, Reynolds qualified it both times, stopping short of certainty:
FBI:
“… he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.

You will continue to pretend there is some logical fallacy in there, but that is your pretense only.
CTs have mischaracterized his statements as having changed after his shooting, they are not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...


Pointing out the facts you hate.

Don't you just HATE that?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

I can name both of them. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION, and inserting into your first point the very assertion you must prove.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/begging-the-question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,stand%2C%20that%20is%20in%20question.

You assert, but do not prove, I committed a logical fallacy. Try proving it to start.

In your second question, you are committing the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA, by offering only two possible responses by me (either I admit I committed a logical fallacy or I run away).
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/false-dilemma-fallacy/#:~:text=false%20dilemma%20fallacy-,What%20is%20the%20false%20dilemma%20fallacy%3F,(when%20they%20are%20not).

The third option is the one you ignored, where I point out your two logical fallacies.

> >Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
> >
> >Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
> >Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
> >Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
> >Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
> >Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
> >Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
> >Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
> >Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
> >Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
> >
> >In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing exactly that.
> It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
> fallacies to argue.

The only one ignoring the evidence and using logical fallacies to argue is you, seen here, and in numerous other posts.

What point did Gil establish?

The evidence establishes that Warren Reynolds both before and after his shooting claimed he thought it was Oswald he followed, and both times qualified it somewhat. Critics have always misrepresented that as a supposed change in his statements, from being unable to identify Oswald, to being able to identify Oswald after he was shot.

Gil simply echoes the same nonsense arguments advanced by numerous other critics. It's like all he reads is conspiracy literature and doesn't read the actual testimony.

[Hank Sienzant]

As always, and copying his hero Mark Lane, Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:

Here's what Ben deleted:

Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ignoring the fact that Reynolds said essentially the same thing twice:

First, Reynolds thought it was Oswald:
FBI:

“he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963…”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.

Second, Reynolds qualified it both times, stopping short of certainty:
FBI:

“… he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.

You will continue to pretend there is some logical fallacy in there, but that is your pretense only.

CTs have mischaracterized his statements as having changed after his shooting, they are[sic - did] not.

[donald willis]

Not always true: On 11/22, Reynolds was telling the cops that he last saw the suspect entering an old house.
(Check the text & photos in "With Malice" showing Reynolds with a cop in front of that house!)
For the Commission, he said that he last saw the suspect headed towards the parking lot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>... Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:


Irony alert!!!


ANSWER THE QUESTION, COWARD!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I can name both of them. You...


Quite the coward, aren't you?

>>>Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
>>>
>>>Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
>>>Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
>>>Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
>>>Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
>>>Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
>>>
>>>In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing exactly that.
>>
>> It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
>> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
>> fallacies to argue.

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

I'm not the one deleting the other's points and calling them names. You're doing that.

I pointed out the two logical fallacies you committed. True to form, you deleted my points and failed to respond to them.

Here they are again:

I can name both of them. You are utilizing the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION, and inserting into your first point the very assertion you must prove.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/begging-the-question.html#:~:text=The%20fallacy%20of%20begging%20the,stand%2C%20that%20is%20in%20question.

You assert, but do not prove, I committed a logical fallacy. Try proving it to start.

In your second question, you are committing the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA, by offering only two possible responses by me (either I admit I committed a logical fallacy or I run away).
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/false-dilemma-fallacy/#:~:text=false%20dilemma%20fallacy-,What%20is%20the%20false%20dilemma%20fallacy%3F,(when%20they%20are%20not).

The third option is the one you ignored, where I point out your two logical fallacies.

> >>>Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
> >>>
> >>>Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
> >>>Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
> >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
> >>>Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
> >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
> >>>Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
> >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
> >>>Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
> >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
> >>>
> >>>In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing exactly that.
> >>
> >> It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
> >> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
> >> fallacies to argue.
> Logical fallacies deleted.

No, you deleted my reasoned argument and left your logical fallacies intact.

Here's the response you avoided responded to:

Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ignoring the fact that Reynolds said essentially the same thing twice:

First, Reynolds thought it was Oswald:
FBI:

“he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963…”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.

Second, Reynolds qualified it both times, stopping short of certainty:
FBI:

“… he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
COMMISSION:

Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.

[Hank Sienzant]

Focus, man, Focus. We are discussing what Reynolds said in terms of his ID of Oswald, critics have falsely alleged for decades that Reynolds changed his ID of Oswald from unsure (before Reynolds was shot) to a positive ID (after Reynolds was shot). But that is untrue, as the language I cited immediately below makes clear.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Focus, man, Focus. We are discussing...

How stupid you are... that you believe

That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.

Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.

And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?

Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.

[Hank Sienzant]

Calling me names doesn't change what Reynolds said to the FBI or the Commission, Ben. Nor does it make your assertions true, or your questions meaningful.

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:

That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.

Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.

And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?

Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.

But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.

[Ben Holmes]

Yes, it's true folks, that Huckster Sienzant is so stupid that he
actually believes:

That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.

Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.

And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?

Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.

And runs away, and refuses to address these facts.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME.

[Hank Sienzant]

Asked and answered here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/bkcygnhyAwAJ

Watch, as Ben commits yet another logical fallacy, and Hank not only names it, but cites for it.

This one is called a "red herring", or changing the subject. Ben couldn't rebut any of the evidence I cited (and didn't even try) so he instead now tries the logical fallacy of changing the subject.

And within that change of subject post, he again commits a Begging the Question claim twice!

He claims I am somehow "TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the Autopsy Report" but doesn't explain how he knows that, and in fact, can't know that (short of mind reading), and he asserts I made "the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck wound was dissected".

Neither claim by Ben is supported by citations by Ben. But again, this is two logical fallacies imbedded within a post that is an attempt to change the subject, another logical fallacy by Ben.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:59:17 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
> That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
> location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
>
> Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
> Autopsy Report.
>
> And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
> wound was dissected?
>
> Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.

What unsupported claims? You're the one making the unsupported claims. You claimed I was terrified of quoting the sentence ... yada, yada, but you don't document how you know that.

You claim I made "the baseless and lying claim that JFK's neck wound was dissected", but don't cite for me making that claim either. You then follow up by calling me names below:

> But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.

I need not chase you down every rabbit hole. I already established in the thread above you wouldn't attempt to discuss the evidence. And are in fact attempting to change the subject from the evidence I cited.

[Hank Sienzant]

Ben still desperately seeking to change the subject.

The subject matter was Warren Reynolds, and whether Reynolds changed his opinion after being shot in the head.
So Gil, as Bud quoted, is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:00:56?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Yes, it's true folks, that Huckster Sienzant is so stupid that he
>> actually believes:
>> That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
>> location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
>> Autopsy Report.
>>
>> And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
>> wound was dissected?
>>
>> Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
>> And runs away, and refuses to address these facts.
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME.
>

>Ben still ...

Pointing out your dishonesty & cowardice... yep...

And you run.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:02:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:59:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
>> That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
>> location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
>> Autopsy Report.
>>
>> And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
>> wound was dissected?
>>
>> Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
>> But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
>
>Asked and answered here:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/bkcygnhyAwAJ

You're lying again, Huckster.

But as I already pointed out... you run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:59:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
>> That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
>> location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
>>
>> Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
>> Autopsy Report.
>>
>> And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
>> wound was dissected?
>>
>> Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
>

>What unsupported claims...


The ones above... Are you stupid

> You're the one making the unsupported claims. You claimed I was
> terrified of quoting the sentence ... yada, yada, but you don't
> document how you know that.

Already told you how I did that, you got spanked with that question...
so now your changing your question to one of documentation.

But this is what cowards like you do... when one question's answered,
you simply switch to a different question.

You lose, coward!

> You claim I made "the baseless and lying claim that JFK's neck wound
> was dissected", but don't cite for me making that claim either.

Go ahead liar... claim you never made that assertion, and I'll ram
your lie down your throat.


But all you're really doing is runing away from your own words... and
refusing to support them.

> You then follow up by calling me names below:
>
>
>> But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
>
> I need not chase you down every rabbit hole. I already established
> in the thread above you wouldn't attempt to discuss the evidence. And
> are in fact attempting to change the subject from the evidence I cited.

ROTFLMAO!!! THIS IS *PRECISELY* WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW!!!

Run coward...

RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 03:14:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:29:03?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> When the government releases more files....
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo
>> LOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL
>>
>> Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:
>>
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg
>

> You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.

You've never refuted *ANYTHING* I've ever posted here. So clearly,
you're lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 13:18:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>When the government releases more files....
>
> https://

Conspiracy theorists talk about evidence.

Believers talk about Conspiracy Theorists.

That tells you all you need to know.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 05:00:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>> > You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.

>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> I don't post ideas.
>> I post testimony.
>> I post documents.
>> I post exhibits.
>> I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> This isn't about evidence with you.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> This thread proves it.
>> You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.

Long logical fallacy deleted.

Looks like Chickenshit just got owned.