Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Cowardice Continues...
95 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 30, 2022, 10:46:17 AM12/30/22
to
Critics post evidence in this forum, and believers simply run away, if
they aren't just denying the facts.
The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
WCR.
And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print, and
defend it with the supporting evidence, is all the American people
need to make their judgment.
they aren't just denying the facts.
The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
WCR.
And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print, and
defend it with the supporting evidence, is all the American people
need to make their judgment.
Scrum Drum
Dec 30, 2022, 11:05:18 AM12/30/22
to
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Ben Holmes is a hypocrite because I am a strong "critic" and offer some of the best material you'll ever see yet Ben prefers to conduct himself on the forum like a juvenile adolescent who is more interested in trolling and maintaining boyish relationships with other posters than honestly discussing evidence...
This is a universal problem on the JFK internet that has basically paralyzed JFK research...Most researchers obviously think that since the government has gone rogue, and has abandoned formal standards, that therefore they have a license to also...
Ben Holmes is a hypocrite because I am a strong "critic" and offer some of the best material you'll ever see yet Ben prefers to conduct himself on the forum like a juvenile adolescent who is more interested in trolling and maintaining boyish relationships with other posters than honestly discussing evidence...
This is a universal problem on the JFK internet that has basically paralyzed JFK research...Most researchers obviously think that since the government has gone rogue, and has abandoned formal standards, that therefore they have a license to also...
Bud
Dec 30, 2022, 1:03:43 PM12/30/22
to
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Critics post evidence in this forum,
So what? I can find it online if I need to.
> and believers simply run away,
> if
> they aren't just denying the facts.
> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
> WCR.
> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
Not sure why you think the opinions of ignorant people is significant. They think something fishy happened, big deal.
> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print, and
> defend it with the supporting evidence, is all the American people
> need to make their judgment.
Steven Galbraith
Dec 30, 2022, 2:08:31 PM12/30/22
to
What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy - the CIA! the Birchers! the Cold War Militarists! - and then select facts to fit that theory. Ignoring everything else along the way. As in: JFK was killed by the right wing Cold War militarists who took over power after WWII. Why? To stop his liberal agenda. But then LBJ became president and continued with that agenda. So what was the reason to kill JFK? It's illogical. But it doesn't have to make sense as long as it satisfies the original conspiracy theory. Reverse engineering at its finest.
Ben Holmes
Dec 30, 2022, 3:47:00 PM12/30/22
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> agents."
Logical fallacy.
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> agents."
> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
Bud
Dec 30, 2022, 4:56:46 PM12/30/22
to
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> > different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> > then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> > nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> > Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> > Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> > conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> > why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> > agents."
> Logical fallacy.
Observation.
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> > different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> > then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> > nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> > Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> > Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> > conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> > why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> > agents."
> Logical fallacy.
> > What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
> > their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
"Come fight me for the steering wheel as I force the discussion into the weeds."
Bud
Dec 30, 2022, 5:03:52 PM12/30/22
to
Edward Jackson
Dec 30, 2022, 10:33:48 PM12/30/22
to
Sky Throne 19efppp
Dec 30, 2022, 10:54:10 PM12/30/22
to
Ben Holmes
Jan 2, 2023, 10:21:09 AM1/2/23
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 14:03:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> The other aspect of reverse engineering is treating the static evidence as building blocks to create ...
Steven whines that we *start* with theory (as the WCR *PROVABLY* did.)
Chickenshit contradicts Steven, and asserts we critics start with the
evidence...
You simply cannot have two believers saying the same thing...
Steven whines that we *start* with theory (as the WCR *PROVABLY* did.)
Chickenshit contradicts Steven, and asserts we critics start with the
evidence...
You simply cannot have two believers saying the same thing...
Ben Holmes
Jan 2, 2023, 10:23:03 AM1/2/23
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:03:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
>
> So what? I can find it online if I need to.
But believers simply run away.
>> and believers simply run away,
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> if they aren't just denying the facts.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
>> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
>
> You are simply lying...
You are simply lying...
>> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
>> WCR.
>
> Without even reading it.
No need. Reading it doen't change people's opinions.
Only facts will do that.
>> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
Logical fallacies deleted.
>> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print, and
>> defend it with the supporting evidence, is all the American people
>> need to make their judgment.
>
> You haven`t given the American people ...
Au contraire...
wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
>
> So what? I can find it online if I need to.
>> and believers simply run away,
>> if they aren't just denying the facts.
>> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
>> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
>
You are simply lying...
>> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
>> WCR.
>
> Without even reading it.
Only facts will do that.
>> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
>> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print, and
>> defend it with the supporting evidence, is all the American people
>> need to make their judgment.
>
Au contraire...
Ben Holmes
Jan 2, 2023, 10:23:06 AM1/2/23
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:56:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>> agents."
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
> Observation.
Many logical fallacies are. Doesn't change the fact.
>>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
>>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
>>
>> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>
> The EVIDENCE is the same for everyone.
Indeed it is. But critics analyze it, believers simply accept what
the WC said it meant.
And in accepting what the WC said, you contradict the plain
explanation of the evidence.
>> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
>> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
>
> Ben wonders why nobody will play his crooked games anymore.
No, I clearly don't. I know PRECISELY why no-one wants to debate...
you can't. You simply don't have the facts on your side.
wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>> agents."
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
> Observation.
>>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
>>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
>>
>> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>
> The EVIDENCE is the same for everyone.
the WC said it meant.
And in accepting what the WC said, you contradict the plain
explanation of the evidence.
>> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
>> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
>
> Ben wonders why nobody will play his crooked games anymore.
you can't. You simply don't have the facts on your side.
Charles Schuyler
Jan 2, 2023, 10:31:29 AM1/2/23
to
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> > different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> > then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> > nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> > Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> > Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> > conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> > why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> > agents."
> Logical fallacy.
The logical fallacy of offering an opinion? You're a hoot, Ben! Please look up the definitions for words and terms you do not understand.
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> > different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> > then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> > nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> > Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> > Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> > conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> > why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> > agents."
> Logical fallacy.
> > What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
> > their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>
> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
Your collection of JFK conspiracy hobby points doesn't make you a knowledgeable critic any more than building Estes model rocket ships makes you an aerospace aerodynamics engineer. Assemble your JFK conspiracy evidence, run tests for your conspiracy hypothesis, SHARE your tests online, INVITE criticism, be humble enough to drop what is shown as impossible, and MOVE ON from the everybody-is-in-on-it approach and NARROW DOWN the possibilities. This is how CRIMES are solved.
> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
An arrest was just made in the "Idaho 4" stabbings murders. The cops started out with a large list of possible suspects and reasons but NARROWED DOWN their search based on the evidence. They no longer suspect a drug deal gone bad as a reason for the killings. They no longer suspect the fraternity near the murder home as the source from where the killer originated. They eliminated the roommates who were not harmed as potential killers. They no longer suspect the ex-boyfriend of one of the victims as the killer. They no longer suspect a student caught on video at a food truck after bar hours as the killer.
Instead, they have this guy who was arrested on December 30th for the killings--Bryan Kohberger--apparently because DNA left at the crime scene was traced back to him. The Team Oswald approach would be to claim the DNA was planted, and for others to prove them wrong to their satisfaction. They apparently found a white Hyundai Elantra at the home he was arrested at, and this matches video of a car identified as such speeding away from the crime this past November 13th. The Team Oswald approach would be to claim the video evidence was altered and for others to prove them wrong to their satisfaction. No doubt there is other evidence tying him to the crime, perhaps electronic, in the form of his cellphone ID'd as in the area, and other data, too. Should the cops keep investigating the fraternity, the ex-boyfriend, the roommates, the drug deal gone bad hypothesis, the student at the food truck, and so on? Team Oswald would no doubt approach it this way, and would add in countless other suspects and motives, all needing to proven wrong to their standards, an impossible task.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. YOU are not a conspiracy theorist. You do not have a conspiracy THEORY. You have no interest in SOLVING the JFK murder. You are infected with the disease known as CONSPIRACISM; everybody was in on it, and the possibilities are nearly endless, EXCEPT Oswald as the killer. If Lee Harvey Oswald had said on camera that he alone was responsible for the mayhem on 11/22/63, you'd still be here, claiming he was a Manchurian Candidate-style killer, that he was put up to it, that there was another shooter on the knoll that Oswald wasn't aware of, and on and on. Look at 9/11; the conspiracy crowd was given a conspiracy involving nineteen Muslim Jihadi terrorists, and yet THAT wasn't enough. They conjure up a Jewish WTC owner--Larry Silverstein as an apparent co-conspirator with the Muslim terrorists or the FDNY or NY Port Authority. They mix in coordinating airplane strikes with planted demolitions, and Halliburton money, and Bushitler/Cheney, and on and on. Your fellow kook Boris the Truther believes Building 7 was "pulled" for insurance money reasons or something. It's all bullshit, yet it persists.
This is a hobby for you, no different than building the Estes model rocket ships I mentioned, but thankfully, few who build those little toy rockets consider themselves "experts" in rocket aerodynamics.
Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
Bud
Jan 2, 2023, 11:34:30 AM1/2/23
to
Bud
Jan 2, 2023, 11:36:50 AM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:03:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Ben ran from every point I made here....
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:03:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ljErO4BHpQk/m/2XwN1cchBgAJ
What else is new?
Bud
Jan 2, 2023, 11:39:51 AM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:56:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> >> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> >>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> >>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> >>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> >>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> >>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> >>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> >>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> >>> agents."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy.
> >
> > Observation.
> Many logical fallacies are.
Wrong. Arguments can be fallacious.
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:56:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> >> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
> >>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
> >>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
> >>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
> >>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
> >>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
> >>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
> >>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
> >>> agents."
> >>
> >> Logical fallacy.
> >
> > Observation.
> Many logical fallacies are.
>Doesn't change the fact.
> >>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
> >>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
> >>
> >> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
> >
> > The EVIDENCE is the same for everyone.
> Indeed it is.
> But critics analyze it, believers simply accept what
> the WC said it meant.
> And in accepting what the WC said, you contradict the plain
> explanation of the evidence.
> >> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
> >> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
> >
> > Ben wonders why nobody will play his crooked games anymore.
> No, I clearly don't. I know PRECISELY why no-one wants to debate...
> you can't. You simply don't have the facts on your side.
Gil Jesus
Jan 2, 2023, 11:51:47 AM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>
> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>
> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
And they closed that case befoore they were finished interviewing all of their witnesses, which went on well into 1964.
That's some investgating.
Charles Schuyler
Jan 2, 2023, 1:40:37 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:51:47 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> >
> > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
What "two weeks," pray tell, are you referring to?
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> >
> > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
>
> And they closed that case befoore they were finished interviewing all of their witnesses, which went on well into 1964.
So the investigation was longer than two weeks? What are you talking about?
> And they closed that case befoore they were finished interviewing all of their witnesses, which went on well into 1964.
>
> That's some investgating.
More nonsense from Team Oswald.
Put up a case, dammit. I've spent some time at your JFK website. You think Oswald was a totally innocent patsy, nearly SIXTY YEARS after the event with perhaps 99.7% of all the known documents, etc. available for review. You are off in the far fringes of JFK Conspiracyville with Ben and a few others at this joke of a discussion board. Give me a shooting sequence. I want to see tests. I want to see consilience in your evidence. Where is it? Where are the tests from Team Oswald showing shots through the limo windshield from the front of JFK? Where are the tests for 6-8 shots in the plaza with the vast majority of your earwitnesses claiming only three shots were heard? Where are the tests with 1963 equipment that shows how to alter film Zapruder used? How about the JFK body-snatching claim to alter the wounds? Where are the medical tests that show how wounds can be "altered" with rigor mortis setting in on JFK's cold, lifeless body?
Stop SHIFTING THE BURDEN.
The laziest people I have ever heard of are JFK conspiracy researchers. None of you want to lift a finger to even test if your far-fetched claims have validity.
Why? I know why, of course. The tests would kill your hobby. You'd finally be forced to look in the mirror as an old man and confront the idea that you've wasted DECADES on a snipe hunt of epic proportions.
And that's too painful for you.
Bud
Jan 2, 2023, 1:50:55 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:51:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> >
> > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
DPD knew they had their man much sooner than that.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> >
> > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
donald willis
Jan 2, 2023, 9:00:19 PM1/2/23
to
On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:50:55 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:51:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> > >
> > > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> > Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> > but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
> DPD knew they had their man much sooner than that.
I'd put that as "one of their men".... The others will be gotten by 2063 I'm sure.
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:51:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
> > > Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
> > >
> > > Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
> > Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
> > but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
> DPD knew they had their man much sooner than that.
Ben Holmes
Jan 3, 2023, 9:55:17 AM1/3/23
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 07:31:27 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>> agents."
>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
>The logical fallacy of offering an opinion? You're a hoot, Ben!
There you go again, trying to put words in my mouth that I never said.
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:47:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>> agents."
>
>> Logical fallacy.
>
>The logical fallacy of offering an opinion? You're a hoot, Ben!
Clearly you're too busy molesting your grandmother to address
correctly what I pointed out.
>>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
>>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
>
>> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>
>Evidence which leads you to believe that on 11/22/63, something else happened, somehow?
List it.
Or run like the losing coward you are.
>> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
>> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
It's the EVIDENCE stupid!
Ben Holmes
Jan 3, 2023, 10:00:13 AM1/3/23
to
their "outline" written before they'd spoken to a single witness.
An "investigation" that simply confirms an outline of the case written
before any actual investigation just proves one of two things:
1. There was no "investigation" worthy of the name.
or
2. The author of the outline accurately predicted the future in great
detail.
Watch folks, as not a SINGLE believer addresses this point.
Ben Holmes
Jan 3, 2023, 10:04:44 AM1/3/23
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:40:35 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:51:47 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
>>> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>>>
>>> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
>
>> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
>> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
>
>What "two weeks," pray tell, are you referring to?
Most Americans, most literate people who can read English, would
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:51:47 AM UTC-6, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
>>> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>>>
>>> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
>
>> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
>> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
>
>What "two weeks," pray tell, are you referring to?
understand that this meant the first two weeks following the
assassination.
But you can't address that fact... so you simply post a logical
fallacy.
>> And they closed that case befoore they were finished interviewing all of their witnesses, which went on well into 1964.
>
>So the investigation was longer than two weeks? What are you talking about?
You should ask your mother to read it to you.
>> That's some investgating.
>
>More nonsense from Team Oswald.
>Put up a case, dammit.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
This is, of course, something *YOU* can't do.
The rest of your logical fallacy rant has been deleted...
Hank Sienzant
Jan 22, 2023, 7:53:27 PM1/22/23
to
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Critics post evidence in this forum,
No, you and other critics post your *interpretations* of the evidence, and pretend it is equivalent to the evidence. It is not.
> Critics post evidence in this forum,
> and believers simply run away, if
> they aren't just denying the facts.
>
> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
Much of the evidence supporting that conclusion can be found here:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
Note these are not my interpretations of the evidence. My conclusions rely on the testimony of the majority of the witnesses (not the exceptions) and the expert testimony (not my interpretations of the expert testimony).
>
> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
> WCR.
>
> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
>
> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print,
> and
> defend it with the supporting evidence,
> is all the American people
> need to make their judgment.
Hank Sienzant
Jan 22, 2023, 8:22:21 PM1/22/23
to
On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:04:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Sure. Here we go:
>
> My Scenario - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
…
> Sure. Here we go:
>
> My Scenario - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
I pointed out some of the problems with the first link in your Part 1 here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qwScRqHe3HM/m/IibY9tOZAAAJ
when I wrote this:
— quote —
You[r] first part presents this as the first link:
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
It has a bunch of assertions presented as fact. But no evidence is cited to support those assertions that I can see. So yeah, I guess this is right in your wheelhouse -- that's pretty much all you do, assert stuff but fail to prove any of it.
I didn't read beyond the first link in your part one. We'll await the evidence for this scenario:
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf
Based on your history, I honestly don't expect any will be forthcoming.
Go ahead, surprise us. Or not. I know what the odds are.
And of course, no surprise here, but the above "Chicago Plot" link concludes with: "Prove the conspiracy never happened."
Which is of course a whopper of a logical fallacy. You should know by now (you've been told frequently enough) that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and yet, here you are, citing a story with no documentation that does exactly that, makes a bunch of unsourced assertions and asks that the story be disproven.
Does the rest of part one get any better? Are the other parts of your scenario equally [cough] "well documented"?
— unquote —
The fact that you failed to provide *any evidence* to support the assertions in the first link in your “Part 1” establishes you have no interest in evidence, just in conspiracy claims.
>
> The rest of your logical fallacy rant has been deleted...
Ben Holmes
Jan 23, 2023, 9:56:00 AM1/23/23
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:22:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:04:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> Sure. Here we go:
>>
>> My Scenario - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>…
>
>I pointed out some of the problems...
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:04:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> Sure. Here we go:
>>
>> My Scenario - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>…
>
You're lying again, Huckster... you have NEVER DARED to respond to any
of those posts.
Here they are again for lurkers to search for any replies:
The Challenge - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
The Challenge - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/WVBtmUQkx6c/9ZdyxAPeAAAJ
Ben Holmes
Jan 23, 2023, 9:56:07 AM1/23/23
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:53:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
Logical fallacy deleted.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
>> and believers simply run away, if
>> they aren't just denying the facts.
>
> As Bud pointed out, you’re pretending your unsupported assertions
> need a rebuttal. They don’t.
I most often post EVIDENCE - and you simply run.
>> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
>> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
>
> With a few disputes about their conclusions, some of which I’d laid
> out here and elsewhere, my scenario / conclusions - from the
> eyewitness and exert testimony - can be found at this link:
They ask us to lay it out, RIGHT HERE.
Why can't you?
>> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
>> WCR.
>
>How many of that vast majority have read it?
>> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
>
>Empty claim.
average person than he could EVER support.
>> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print,
>
>It’s cited above.
we critics *ALSO* cite our scenario - you're trying to get away with
something we critics aren't "allowed" to do.
> Why do I need to repost it all?
>You pretend citations to others’ claims and theories are adequate,
you'll not be a hypocrite.
> why are my links inadequate.
>> and defend it with the supporting evidence,
>> is all the American people need to make their judgment.
>
>I would think...
>
No one cares what you "think."
Only what you can support.
Bud
Jan 23, 2023, 11:41:09 AM1/23/23
to
On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:56:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:53:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Critics post evidence in this forum,
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> and believers simply run away, if
> >> they aren't just denying the facts.
> >
> > As Bud pointed out, you’re pretending your unsupported assertions
> > need a rebuttal. They don’t.
> You are, of course, simply lying.
Still you.
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:53:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Critics post evidence in this forum,
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> and believers simply run away, if
> >> they aren't just denying the facts.
> >
> > As Bud pointed out, you’re pretending your unsupported assertions
> > need a rebuttal. They don’t.
> You are, of course, simply lying.
> I most often post EVIDENCE - and you simply run.
> >> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
> >> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
> >
> > With a few disputes about their conclusions, some of which I’d laid
> > out here and elsewhere, my scenario / conclusions - from the
> > eyewitness and exert testimony - can be found at this link:
> This isn't what believers ask critics to do.
>
> They ask us to lay it out, RIGHT HERE.
> Why can't you?
> >> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
> >> WCR.
> >
> >How many of that vast majority have read it?
> Logical fallacy.
> >> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
> >
> >Empty claim.
> Here we see Huckster pretending greater knowledge on the part of the
> average person than he could EVER support.
> >> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print,
> >
> >It’s cited above.
> No Huckster... until **YOU** personally correct other believers when
> we critics *ALSO* cite our scenario - you're trying to get away with
> something we critics aren't "allowed" to do.
> > Why do I need to repost it all?
> Because this is what believers demand of us.
> >You pretend citations to others’ claims and theories are adequate,
> And as soon as you acknowledge the right of critics to do the same,
> you'll not be a hypocrite.
> > why are my links inadequate.
> Ask Chuckles & Chickenshit.
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2023, 9:26:06 AM1/31/23
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 08:39:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
logical fallacies are based on observation.
You lose again...
>>Doesn't change the fact.
>>>>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
>>>>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
>>>>
>>>> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> The EVIDENCE is the same for everyone.
>> Indeed it is.
>
> Good of you to agree.
Ah! But **YOU** don't agree. What did the prosectors say about
CE399?
>> But critics analyze it, believers simply accept what
>> the WC said it meant.
>
> "believers" play childish games with it.
Indeed.
>> And in accepting what the WC said, you contradict the plain
>> explanation of the evidence.
>
> Nobody cares about your "this must mean this" declarations regarding the evidence.
Actually, the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
You lose again!
>>>> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
>>>> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
>>>
>>> Ben wonders why nobody will play his crooked games anymore.
>>
>> No, I clearly don't. I know PRECISELY why no-one wants to debate...
>> you can't. You simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> "debate"? You`re delusional, you don`t debate.
There you go again...
wrote:
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:56:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>>>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>>>> agents."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy.
>>>
>>> Observation.
>> Many logical fallacies are.
>
> Wrong. Arguments can be fallacious.
Certainly they can be, but it doesn't change the fact that many
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 13:56:45 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 3:47:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 11:08:30 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>>>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you read 10 different conspiracy hobbyists they will give you 10
>>>>> different explanations as to what happened. They'll give you even more
>>>>> then 10 if you ask them again later. It changes every day. It's been
>>>>> nearly 60 years and they can't agree on who really killed JFK - the
>>>>> Birchers, the CIA, the Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans - or even who
>>>>> Oswald was. Was Oswald a CIA agent? An FBI asset? A nobody? One of the
>>>>> conspirators or just a ordinary worker? They don't agree. It's also
>>>>> why they attack each other and call each other "disinformation
>>>>> agents."
>>>>
>>>> Logical fallacy.
>>>
>>> Observation.
>> Many logical fallacies are.
>
> Wrong. Arguments can be fallacious.
logical fallacies are based on observation.
You lose again...
>>Doesn't change the fact.
>>>>> What they are doing is, as you said before, reverse engineering
>>>>> their conspiracy. They start with their conspiracy
>>>>
>>>> No, that's a lie. We start with the EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> The EVIDENCE is the same for everyone.
>> Indeed it is.
>
> Good of you to agree.
CE399?
>> But critics analyze it, believers simply accept what
>> the WC said it meant.
>
Indeed.
>> And in accepting what the WC said, you contradict the plain
>> explanation of the evidence.
>
> Nobody cares about your "this must mean this" declarations regarding the evidence.
You lose again!
>>>> When lies and logical fallacies are all you have, it's no wonder
>>>> you're terrified of debate with a knowledgeable critic.
>>>
>>> Ben wonders why nobody will play his crooked games anymore.
>>
>> No, I clearly don't. I know PRECISELY why no-one wants to debate...
>> you can't. You simply don't have the facts on your side.
>
> "debate"? You`re delusional, you don`t debate.
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2023, 9:26:06 AM1/31/23
to
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2023, 9:26:06 AM1/31/23
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 08:36:49 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
It's not about me. I could care less about your hero worship.
wrote:
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:03:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Ben...
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:23:03 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 10:03:42 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
It's not about me. I could care less about your hero worship.
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2023, 9:26:06 AM1/31/23
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:50:54 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:51:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
>>> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>>>
>>> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
>> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
>> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
>
> DPD knew they had their man much sooner than that.
Chickenshit doesn't understand how justice works in America.
>On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:51:47 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 10:31:29 AM UTC-5, Charles Schuyler wrote:
>>> Make your New Year's Resolution that this was the year you became more humble, and make 2023 the year you stopped the arrogant prick routine that marks you as nothing more than a thin-skinned cyberbully hobbyist. JFK was only killed ONE WAY.
>>>
>>> Sixty years this November 22nd, Ben. SIXTY YEARS, and Team Oswald can't agree on ANYTHING specific. We might as well be discussing the Jack the Ripper murders. That should tell you something, but in your >mind, it just means there's more "work" to be done, like arguing online that unnamed snipers killed JFK from unspecified locations, firing unknown model weapons with unknown caliber bullets.
>> Team Warren Commission forgets that the government has been investigating Donald Trump for 5 or 6 years without closure,
>> but the same government closed the murder of President Kennedy in just TWO WEEKS.
>
> DPD knew they had their man much sooner than that.
Ben Holmes
Jan 31, 2023, 9:26:15 AM1/31/23
to
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 08:41:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:56:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:53:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> and believers simply run away, if
>>>> they aren't just denying the facts.
>>>
>>> As Bud pointed out, you’re pretending your unsupported assertions
>>> need a rebuttal. They don’t.
>>
>> You are, of course, simply lying.
>>
I post evidence... and you simply run.
>>>> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
>>>> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
>>>
>>> With a few disputes about their conclusions, some of which I’d laid
>>> out here and elsewhere, my scenario / conclusions - from the
>>> eyewitness and exert testimony - can be found at this link:
>> This isn't what believers ask critics to do.
>>
>> They ask us to lay it out, RIGHT HERE.
>
> But you don`t.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit doesn't deny it. Huckster will be
soooo embarrassed!
>> Why can't you?
Dead silence...
>>>> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
>>>> WCR.
>>>
>>>How many of that vast majority have read it?
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>>
>>>> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
>>>
>>>Empty claim.
>>
>> Here we see Huckster pretending greater knowledge on the part of the
>> average person than he could EVER support.
>>
>>>> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print,
>>>
>>>It’s cited above.
>>
>> No Huckster... until **YOU** personally correct other believers when
>> we critics *ALSO* cite our scenario - you're trying to get away with
>> something we critics aren't "allowed" to do.
And Huckster needs to do so... RIGHT NOW!
>>> Why do I need to repost it all?
>>
>> Because this is what believers demand of us.
As Chickenshit was caught doing RIGHT IN THIS VERY POST!
>>>You pretend citations to others’ claims and theories are adequate,
>>
>> And as soon as you acknowledge the right of critics to do the same,
>> you'll not be a hypocrite.
Where are you, Huckster?
>>> why are my links inadequate.
>>
>> Ask Chuckles & Chickenshit.
>
> If you claim ...
No "claim" involved... you just proved it yet again in this very post.
wrote:
>On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 9:56:07 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 16:53:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Critics post evidence in this forum,
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> and believers simply run away, if
>>>> they aren't just denying the facts.
>>>
>>> As Bud pointed out, you’re pretending your unsupported assertions
>>> need a rebuttal. They don’t.
>>
>> You are, of course, simply lying.
>>
>> I most often post EVIDENCE - and you simply run.
>
> You make...
>
I post evidence... and you simply run.
>>>> The complete inability of believers to post their scenario, and
>>>> support it with the evidence as critics do - tells the tale.
>>>
>>> With a few disputes about their conclusions, some of which I’d laid
>>> out here and elsewhere, my scenario / conclusions - from the
>>> eyewitness and exert testimony - can be found at this link:
>> This isn't what believers ask critics to do.
>>
>> They ask us to lay it out, RIGHT HERE.
>
> But you don`t.
soooo embarrassed!
>> Why can't you?
Dead silence...
>>>> This explains why the vast majority of Americans don't believe the
>>>> WCR.
>>>
>>>How many of that vast majority have read it?
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>>
>>>> And they aren't even aware that the WCR flat lied.
>>>
>>>Empty claim.
>>
>> Here we see Huckster pretending greater knowledge on the part of the
>> average person than he could EVER support.
>>
>>>> Just the inability of anyone to put their scenario down in print,
>>>
>>>It’s cited above.
>>
>> No Huckster... until **YOU** personally correct other believers when
>> we critics *ALSO* cite our scenario - you're trying to get away with
>> something we critics aren't "allowed" to do.
>>> Why do I need to repost it all?
>>
>> Because this is what believers demand of us.
>>>You pretend citations to others’ claims and theories are adequate,
>>
>> And as soon as you acknowledge the right of critics to do the same,
>> you'll not be a hypocrite.
>>> why are my links inadequate.
>>
>> Ask Chuckles & Chickenshit.
>
No "claim" involved... you just proved it yet again in this very post.
0 new messages