Question for Boris "Mr. Science" regarding aural consilience:

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

In an answer to Bud at another post regarding his comment on your invoking of science, you mentioned the term "aural consilience."

Here's what Wikipedia says about consilience:

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

In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Giza pyramid complex by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick – in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.

The word consilience was originally coined as the phrase "consilience of inductions" by William Whewell ("consilience" refers to a "jumping together" of knowledge).[1][2] The word comes from Latin com- "together" and -siliens "jumping" (as in resilience).[3]

<end>

Per definition, it doesn't look like some people hearing shots spaced close together provides "consilience." But Boris, being smarter than the experts (textbook Dunning-Kruger effect), perhaps has a different definition for consilience he'd like to share with us.

There is, however, STRONG consilience that three shots were fired at the motorcade; three spent shells were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, linked forensically to bullets or parts of bullets that are a ballistic match to a rifle recovered near the shells; a witness on the floor below who heard three shots and FELT the expended shells clunking across the floor mere feet above him; and a strong majority of witnesses who expressed an opinion on the number of shots telling the authorities they heard three shots fired; media outlets who were reporting on the shooting using "three shots fired at the motorcade" in their reports just minutes after the attack; eyewitnesses who say they saw a man in an upper floor of the building firing a rifle, aiming a rifle or pulling a rifle back inside the building where three shells were recovered; and a conclusion regarding the murder drawn from different sources that requires only three shots (or less) to account for the wounds inflicted.

No consilience for seven or eight shots fired at the motorcade. None.

But, hey...I'm sure Mr. Science will fire up the propeller on the tinfoil beanie and enlighten us today with his take on all of this.

Aural consilience.

There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 06:25:16 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Actually, and Chuckles is probably ignorant of this - the earliest
evidence was for *two* shots from the TSBD.

There's perverted, then there's Extra-Strength CHUCKLES perverted.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Cute defense of your little camping buddy.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

In Chuck's mind, it is easier to write a 500-word explanation of consilience (493 words, per Microsoft Word count), than it is to explain why so many people heard two shots in back-to-back rapid succession, negating the possibility of a bolt action and/or single shooter.

>
> There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

How does it feel to be constantly stymied by an extra-strength retard?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 07:49:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Dead silence on the EVIDENCE that I mentioned.

You either know about it already, and are afraid of it, or you don't
know about it, and you know that I'll slap you with a citation if you
dared to claim I was lying.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Boris the Truther is undefeated in 1,102,112 internet exchanges on the JFK assassination. That's quite the record to be proud of.

Certainly a man as smart as you, as "scientific" as you, as learned as you, is aware of how the perception of time expands or contracts when humans are under duress, or enjoying themselves, or based on age, etc., correct? In other words, you're aware of explanations like the Kappa effect?

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

Or the Tau effect?

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

Now, let's see anti-science "Mr. Science" Boris the Truther explain how perception of time wasn't applicable in Dealey Plaza with regards to the shots fired.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I have no doubt there are some witnesses who only reported two shots or something to that effect. So what?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Do either of these explain why gunpowder was smelled in the direction waves of witnesses flocked to, behind the GK fence?

The kappa effect or perceptual time dilation[1] is a temporal perceptual illusion that can arise when observers judge the elapsed time between sensory stimuli applied sequentially at different locations.

[Bud]

See, he just whips out *another* retard trading card. This is how it works with these guys, they play through the deck and then start over.

> The kappa effect or perceptual time dilation[1] is a temporal perceptual illusion that can arise when observers judge the elapsed time between sensory stimuli applied sequentially at different locations.

Boris wants to treat what *some* witnesses related as hard data. It isn`t.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> See, he just whips out *another* retard trading card. This is how it works with these guys, they play through the deck and then start over.

It was Chuck's trading card, actually. Like I said before, I don't need to use *my* evidence to disprove you...I can use *yours*.

>
> Boris wants to treat what *some* witnesses related as hard data. It isn`t.

The OFFICIAL autopsy BOH photo is hard data. Which you also characterized as a "retard trading card." Keep flip-flopping like a dying fish, mouth breather.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 7:35:37 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > See, he just whips out *another* retard trading card. This is how it works with these guys, they play through the deck and then start over.
>
> It was Chuck's trading card, actually.

Did Chuck bring up smelling gunpowder? Or did you just lie again?

> Like I said before, I don't need to use *my* evidence to disprove you...I can use *yours*.

It is all just information, stupid. We just apply reason and critical thinking and weigh it better.

> >
> > Boris wants to treat what *some* witnesses related as hard data. It isn`t.
>
> The OFFICIAL autopsy BOH photo is hard data.

No, it is evidence. And photos can be subject to subjective interpretation. They can be misleading. All evidence needs to be looked at correctly. And Boswell`s hands are seen in that photo, what did he say he was doing? This might also give insight and understanding about what is seen also.

> Which you also characterized as a "retard trading card." Keep flip-flopping like a dying fish, mouth breather.

You can`t just keep shouting things out like someone suffering from Tourette`s. You have to put these things together in some form of reasoned argument, you have to make a case. Never happen, you guys just don`t have what it takes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:58:58 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You don't know about it, and you knew that I'll slap you with a

citation if you dared to claim I was lying.

It's good to know that I'm right yet again...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's apparently a pretty common psychological phenomenon for the brain to "fill in the blanks." Could someone who hears sounds they recognize as gunfire also "remember" a gunpowder smell associated with the sound of the shots and the sight of the victim(s)slumping over or visibly hit? Looks possible, scientifically. And we know how into science "Mr. Science" is.

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/taming-the-brain-0228125/


Regardless, it's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. Again. It never stops with the conspiratards. Answer something and they shrug their shoulders without even a pause or thought to rethink their position that thousands killed JFK and move on to the next freaky looking sh!t (which has been answered a zillion times since 1963/1964). Wait a few hours/days/weeks, and Boris the Truther will twirl the propeller on his tinfoil beanie and come right back and whine, "Explain why the second and third shots were so close together! No one can fire that fast!"

Boris will totally forget that he received an explanation and will demand a new one, which will be the same one, which will not satisfy him, and have no doubt, it's all about Boris. Ben has done this countless times with Chaney, the 6.5mm object on the x-ray, and so on.

Conspiracism is a comfortable blanket to these small children, and a familiar bedtime story with their milk and cookies.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It's apparently a pretty common psychological phenomenon for the brain to "fill in the blanks."

Indeed, I've cited a dozen different medical experts AND the autopsy report, and *still* you look at the BOH autopsy photo and think nothing strange of it.

>
> Could someone who hears sounds they recognize as gunfire also "remember" a gunpowder smell associated with the sound of the shots and the sight of the victim(s)slumping over or visibly hit? Looks possible, scientifically. And we know how into science "Mr. Science" is.

This is Chuck trying to "debunk" science again.

>
> Regardless, it's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. Again.

As always, this means the evidence dick-slapped you in the face, and you have no rebut. Thanks for the compliment. Again.

>
> It never stops with the conspiratards. Answer something and they shrug their shoulders without even a pause or thought to rethink their position that thousands killed JFK and move on to the next freaky looking sh!t (which has been answered a zillion times since 1963/1964).

And once my position is that "thousands" killed JFK, I'll be sure to let you know. Until then, you're a shameless and weak liar.

>
> Wait a few hours/days/weeks, and Boris the Truther will twirl the propeller on his tinfoil beanie and come right back and whine, "Explain why the second and third shots were so close together! No one can fire that fast!"

Nor aim that accurately with such a piece of shit weapon. But that's besides the point.

>
> Boris will totally forget that he received an explanation and will demand a new one, which will be the same one, which will not satisfy him, and have no doubt, it's all about Boris.

No, I don't do that. I'm willing to take the Tau and Kappa effect into consideration. Unfortunately, there are a number of phenomena those two effects don't explain. And it would be hard for me to "forget" those citations, when I C&Ped from one of them. I notice you had nothing to say on that C&P by the way. As expected. Your own citations, used against you.

>
> Ben has done this countless times with Chaney, the 6.5mm object on the x-ray, and so on.

Cite one time you've provided an explanation, or evidence, to counter any of the aforementioned, and I'll publicly rebuke him. FYI, whining about his "tinfoil beanie propeller" does not an explanation make.

>
> Conspiracism is a comfortable blanket to these small children, and a familiar bedtime story with their milk and cookies.

Yawn....sorry, I fell asleep reading your stupid shit. Please go on.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Once Chuck is finished looking up Tau and Kappa and Dunning-Kruger, maybe he'll find some time to look up "cognitive dissonance," and how that relates to this....

https://goo.gl/images/NHYMR3

versus this...

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

[Mike Dworetsky]

This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...) and would
readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind. The wind direction
could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?

What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.

>
> https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/taming-the-brain-0228125/
>
>
> Regardless, it's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. Again. It never stops
> with the conspiratards. Answer something and they shrug their
> shoulders without even a pause or thought to rethink their position
> that thousands killed JFK and move on to the next freaky looking sh!t
> (which has been answered a zillion times since 1963/1964). Wait a few
> hours/days/weeks, and Boris the Truther will twirl the propeller on
> his tinfoil beanie and come right back and whine, "Explain why the
> second and third shots were so close together! No one can fire that
> fast!"
>
> Boris will totally forget that he received an explanation and will
> demand a new one, which will be the same one, which will not satisfy
> him, and have no doubt, it's all about Boris. Ben has done this
> countless times with Chaney, the 6.5mm object on the x-ray, and so
> on.
>
> Conspiracism is a comfortable blanket to these small children, and a
> familiar bedtime story with their milk and cookies.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

So you agree there's no such thing as aural consilience, correct?

Just checking.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

What I'm claiming is that you guys are retarded.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...) and would
> readily know the real smell.

Thanks, Mike. Macadams' foolish excuse is they were smelling car exhaust. It's just about as pitiful an explanation as you can get.

>
> Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind. The wind direction
> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> Zapruder film.

This is more of that kooky science gobbledygook LNers hate. Macadams' other poor reasoning was that the gunpowder smell from the 6th floor wafted westward and settled down behind the GK fence.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:01:42 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> > in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...) and would
> > readily know the real smell.
>
> Thanks, Mike. Macadams' foolish excuse is they were smelling car exhaust. It's just about as pitiful an explanation as you can get.

I think we know who's breathing car exhaust here.

>
>
> >
> > Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> > towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> > the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind. The wind direction
> > could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> > records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> > blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> > Zapruder film.
>
> This is more of that kooky science gobbledygook LNers hate. Macadams' other poor reasoning was that the gunpowder smell from the 6th floor wafted westward and settled down behind the GK fence.

Where was your sniper that hit Tague if he wasn't nicked by a chip of concrete or small bullet fragment from Oswald?

You've got at least one on the South Knoll, at least one on the Grassy Knoll, someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD, someone you claim was on the 3rd floor of the TSBD, and this latest one.

C'mon, Mr. Science. Work your slide rule and project were this mystery sniper was located at.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:16:45 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Amusingly, Chuckles got schooled, and can't admit that a sniper
located *HIGHER* up would **INCREASE** the vertical miss over the
limo.

Spatially challenged, Chuckles *STILL* refuses to publicly admit his
mistake.

What a moron!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Thanks, Mike. Macadams' foolish excuse is they were smelling car exhaust. It's just about as pitiful an explanation as you can get.
>
> I think we know who's breathing car exhaust here.

Yes, we do. Unfortunately, it's not me. Nor was it the people in Dealey Plaza who attested to the smell of gunpowder, despite Macadams' (and probably yours) specious reasoning.

>
> Where was your sniper that hit Tague if he wasn't nicked by a chip of concrete or small bullet fragment from Oswald?

If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol.

No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.

If you have any.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
>
> Lol.
>
> No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
>
> If you have any.

That was a well-thought-out answer, Chuck, in response to the scientific evidence. I may have to rethink this whole "Oswald alone" thing now.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:22:45 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Chuckles has a rather simplistic understanding of "history."

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You'll rethink "Oswald Alone" right about the same time you rethink "911 Was an Inside Job."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
>
> Lol.
>
> No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
>
> If you have any.

Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.

So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?

Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Question for Boris:

1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?

2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?

Why is *your side* still stuck on this trivial sh!t after almost 55 years?

Let it go.

Wouldn't your time here be more productive, more INTERESTING, if you actually laid out a case that tried to better explain the events than the Warren Commission?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > Lol.
> > >
> > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
> > >
> > > If you have any.
> >
> > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> >
> > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> >
> > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>
> Question for Boris:
>
> 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?

Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?

>
> 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?

A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?

And your next response will be a zillion and two.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
>> > >
>> > > Lol.
>> > >
>> > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
>> > >
>> > > If you have any.
>> >
>> > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
>> >
>> > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
>> >
>> > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>>
>> Question for Boris:
>>
>> 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>
> Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was
> standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?

Amusingly, Boris answered the question, despite Chuckles whining that
we "never" answer questions.

Notice that although Chuckles RAN AWAY from the question, Boris
answered it quite credibly.

>> 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't
>> Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked
>> here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
>
> A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and
> avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and
> one then, shall we?
>
>And your next response will be a zillion and two.

Amusingly, Chuckles will refuse to cite even *ONE* of these "zillion"
times, and he's completely unable to cite the answer coming from
**ANY** believer.

Chuckles is a proven coward.

[Bud]

Empty claim.

> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)

The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?

And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information they like the sound of.

> and would
> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.

How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??

> The wind direction
> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
>
> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.

What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to detect the smell of gunpowder. First establish that such a thing is possible, then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable? You assume that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.

[Bud]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
> >> > >
> >> > > Lol.
> >> > >
> >> > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you have any.
> >> >
> >> > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> >> >
> >> > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> >> >
> >> > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> >>
> >> Question for Boris:
> >>
> >> 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
> >
> > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was
> > standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>
>
> Amusingly, Boris answered the question, despite Chuckles whining that
> we "never" answer questions.
>
> Notice that although Chuckles RAN AWAY from the question, Boris
> answered it quite credibly.

Let these retards use "cross-triangulation ambush" in the case they need to make, lurkers. Never happen.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

It's not an "empty claim" ... you're lying.

You whined about an "empty claim" just before the statements that
support the claim.

So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.

>> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
>> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
>
> The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?

No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
accurate senses in regard to gunfire.

They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
who don't have everyday experience with firearms.

> And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
> who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
> another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
> they like the sound of.

So you failed.

The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."

Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
corroborate each other. You simply make empty claims and run.

The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.

You lost.

>> and would
>> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
>> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
>> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
>
> How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??

Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.

>> The wind direction
>> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
>> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
>> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
>> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
>> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
>>
>> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
>> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
>
> What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
> haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
> fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
> detect the smell of gunpowder.

And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
established that red paint was used on the fire engine.

But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.

It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present. You think it strange and "not
established" that anyone would smell it.

Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.

> First establish that such a thing is possible,

That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired? I think
**YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.

You won't... of course. You know you're lying.

> then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
> rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
> you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?

Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
around guns knows this to be a fact.

There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
knows it well.

> You assume
> that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.

No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
firearms can attest to.

"Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
able to fire the shots because he did so.



Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.

If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
the extant Z-film.

That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.
He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
right)

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:43:55 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
> > > >
> > > > Lol.
> > > >
> > > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any.
> > >
> > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> > >
> > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> > >
> > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> >
> > Question for Boris:
> >
> > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>
> Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?

The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.

>
> >
> > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
>
> A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?


> And your next response will be a zillion and two.

Boris pokes his head out of his foreskin for the first time and gives us a fragment of a scenario, however embarrassing.

Did Oswald fire one of the shots?

Shrivel back into your foreskin.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:58:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:43:55 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
>> > > >
>> > > > Lol.
>> > > >
>> > > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you have any.
>> > >
>> > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
>> > >
>> > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
>> > >
>> > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>> >
>> > Question for Boris:
>> >
>> > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>>
>> Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>
>The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.

Actually, it was a real answer.

Something that **YOU** have failed thus far to give.


Indeed, the answer was so good, that you couldn't refute it.

>> > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
>>
>> A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?
>
>> And your next response will be a zillion and two.

<Obscenities by Chuckles snipped>


Why can't *YOU* answer the question, Chuckles?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> > > >
> > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> > > >
> > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> > >
> > > Question for Boris:
> > >
> > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
> >
> > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>
> The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.

I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?

> >
> > >
> > > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
> >
> > A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?
>
>
> > And your next response will be a zillion and two.
>
> Boris pokes his head out of his foreskin for the first time and gives us a fragment of a scenario, however embarrassing.

A zillion and two.

>
> Did Oswald fire one of the shots?

Witnesses and the NAA test suggests not, but he definitely did have some role. He was Agency, and he didn't run to the theater for no reason. I think critically, Chuck. You can't scare me just because one or two things DO manage to fit the official narrative. I don't hide from evidence, I confront it. The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't plucked from the sky as an innocent bystander, but the evidence also suggests the involvement of more than one person. And less than thousands.

A zillion and three, coming up next....

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:39:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> > > > >
> > > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> > > >
> > > > Question for Boris:
> > > >
> > > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
> > >
> > > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
> >
> > The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.
>
> I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?

1.) It's interesting but unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.

2.) I'm not challenging anything. You are.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
> > >
> > > A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?
> >
> >
> > > And your next response will be a zillion and two.
> >
> > Boris pokes his head out of his foreskin for the first time and gives us a fragment of a scenario, however embarrassing.
>
> A zillion and two.
>
> >
> > Did Oswald fire one of the shots?
>
> Witnesses and the NAA test suggests not,

Brennan ID'd him as the shooter. The forensics say he did it.

>but he definitely did have some role.

Yeah, as the killer.

He was Agency,

Prove it. Ben says the DPD did it. And the CIA had--and has--access to top-level talent with proven leadership abilities, etc. Oswald was lucky to get hired at the TSBD and you have him as a CIA asset.

>and he didn't run to the theater for no reason.

One reason might be because he killed JFK and Tippit.


>I think critically, Chuck.

Do your critical thinking skills tell you all of the men on the WC were liars, part of the cover up, or all mistaken or something else?

Do your critical thinking skills tell you another worker at the TSBD might've decided the 6th floor was a fine place to enjoy a smoke and watch the motorcade?

Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?

>You can't scare me just because one or two things DO manage to fit the >official narrative. I don't hide from evidence, I confront it.

Explain all of the evidence that points to him as the killer. Rifle, shells, fibers from the blanket, palm print on the rifle, opportunity and means, previous attempt on Walker, murder of Tippit, fleeing the TSBD, erratic route home, etc.

Confront it.

The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't plucked from the sky as an innocent bystander,

Did they know about Oswald's attempt on Walker before "plucking" him out of his boarding house to be the designated patsy on JFK?

And were there similar teams set up in Chicago and Miami with patsies, triangulation of fire kill zones, etc.?

>but the evidence also suggests the involvement of more than one person. And less than thousands.

Well that narrows it down, lol.

>
> A zillion and three, coming up next....

Hey, you're on a roll. You actually gave us something vague to work with.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:42:11 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:39:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>> > > >
>> > > > Question for Boris:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>> > >
>> > > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>> >
>> > The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.
>>
>> I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?
>
>1.) It's interesting but unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.

Any answer you gave would be exceptional and unique. Only, of course,
because you never give answers.

>2.) I'm not challenging anything. You are.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:42:12 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:39:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question for Boris:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
> > > >
> > > > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
> > >
> > > The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.
> >
> > I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?
>
> 1.) It's interesting but unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.

But I thought you were all about speculation and scenarios. You even diverted attention away from discussing the scientific evidence in favor of wondering where all the shooters were standing.

>
> 2.) I'm not challenging anything. You are.

You're still challenging the occipital/parietal wound described in the autopsy report. You don't believe it, and it's OFFICIAL EVIDENCE, so it's yours to challenge.

> > > > > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
> > > >
> > > > A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?

Now a zillion and three.

> >
> > >
> > > Did Oswald fire one of the shots?
> >
> > Witnesses and the NAA test suggests not,
>
> Brennan ID'd him as the shooter.

There's Chuck favoring witnesses over science again. The results of the NAA test are too inconvenient to talk about.

>
> The forensics say he did it.

They don't, actually.

>
> >but he definitely did have some role.
>
> Yeah, as the killer.
>
> He was Agency,
>
> Prove it.

Nothing is provable to you, but this isn't exactly an obscure fact just recently come to light.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/jfk-beyond-a-question-of-conspiracy/who-said-oswald-was-a-patsy-31-people-did-including-fbi-cia-agents/2131492886861047/?fref=gs&dti=444928932351071&hc_location=group

>
> Ben says the DPD did it.

Really? The *whole* DPD? Fascinating. I'd like to see where he said that.

>
> And the CIA had--and has--access to top-level talent with proven leadership abilities, etc.

Naw, not the CIA.

>
> Oswald was lucky to get hired at the TSBD and you have him as a CIA asset.

Yeah, "lucky" he got that job and not the one at Collins Radio from DeMohrenschildt's contact.

>
>
> >and he didn't run to the theater for no reason.
>
> One reason might be because he killed JFK and Tippit.

One reason "might" also be because he wanted to catch the opening credits to "War Is Hell". I've provided just as much evidence to my statement as you did for yours.

>
>
> >I think critically, Chuck.
>
> Do your critical thinking skills tell you all of the men on the WC were liars, part of the cover up, or all mistaken or something else?

Again Chuck asks me, "Were the lawyers liars?"

LOL!!

Ford was definitely a liar. Dulles was one of the biggest pieces of shit to walk the earth, until you and Bud were born, and his means, motive and opportunity are easily established. And three of the members eventually dissented in one way or another to the official conclusion.

>
> Do your critical thinking skills tell you another worker at the TSBD might've decided the 6th floor was a fine place to enjoy a smoke and watch the motorcade?

Do your critical thinking skills tell you it was a coincidence no one was?

>
> Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?

Downstairs. The man with the tan coat was on the sixth floor.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

>
> >You can't scare me just because one or two things DO manage to fit the >official narrative. I don't hide from evidence, I confront it.
>
> Explain all of the evidence that points to him as the killer. Rifle, shells, fibers from the blanket, palm print on the rifle, opportunity and means, previous attempt on Walker, murder of Tippit, fleeing the TSBD, erratic route home, etc.

That's a lot of "explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction," especially since all of it has been discussed here at one point or another.
If you want to select one or two things from your Gish Gallop list, maybe we can start there.

>
> Confront it.
>
>
> The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't plucked from the sky as an innocent bystander,
>
> Did they know about Oswald's attempt on Walker before "plucking" him out of his boarding house to be the designated patsy on JFK?

Begging the question.

>
> And were there similar teams set up in Chicago and Miami with patsies, triangulation of fire kill zones, etc.?

There were known, documented plots there, Chicago in particular. As they never came to fruition, it's hard to know what kind of triangulation they had planned. Patsies, yes. The result of Vallee's license plate search suggested his connection to intelligence agencies.

>
>
> >but the evidence also suggests the involvement of more than one person. And less than thousands.
>
> Well that narrows it down, lol.

It narrows it down to a number greater than one, which instantly renders you a slobbering mess of epithets and elusive behavior.

[Bud]

He supported the empty claim with further empty claims, lurkers.

> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.

Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.

>
> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
> >
> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
>
>
> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.

Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim. And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to detect the smell of gunsmoke. And Ben can`t show that these witnesses have a superior ability to do this than anyone else, or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone else, lurkers.

> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.

Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that Chuck cited, lurkers.

> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
> > they like the sound of.
>
>
> So you failed.

I was successful in pointing out the inability of conspiracy advocates to weigh information correctly, lurkers.

> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."

Always the misdirection to the WC, lurkers. If the tards don`t like it, let them pretend it didn`t exist and go from there.

> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
> corroborate each other.

I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in support of an idea, lurkers. Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up? I am challenging them to show that they looked at the information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.

>You simply make empty claims and run.

I critiqued the posters ideas, lurkers.

> The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
> Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.

Lurkers can see this for the lie it is by just looking at the name of the forum.

The onus *here* is for the retards to put their case on the table for conspiracy. They are the ones selling an idea here. If and when they ever do this, we will judge it, check it for flaws and see if it is compelling. But we will never get to that point, because these tards will never pony up this case.

> You lost.
>
>
> >> and would
> >> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> >> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> >> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
> >
> > How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??
>
>
> Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
> gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.

When ever a conspiracy retard characterize you ideas they always misrepresent them, lurkers. The original poster was using the direction of the wind to support that people in the motorcade could smell smoke from the knoll. This seemed to work against Officer Smith, who was in the opposite direction of the prevailing wind, so I challenged the poster to explain this.

> >> The wind direction
> >> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> >> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> >> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> >> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
> >> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
> >>
> >> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
> >> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
> >
> > What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
> > haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
> > fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
> > detect the smell of gunpowder.
>
>
> And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
> established that red paint was used on the fire engine.

What Ben is arguing here is that his assumption should be treated as fact, lurkers. It is a circular argument.

> But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.

Ben see it as faulty reasoning to question whether the idea is viable, lurkers. He wants it it accepted as being viable without all the bother of showing it is.

There is no reason to consider that a person can fire a shot or shots (no telling how many shots the tards figure were fired from the knoll) on a mildly windy day and have someone else come by maybe 75 feet away in a car some time after the shots were fired and have them smell the gunsmoke from those shots. How long before this faint smell dissipates? But Ben wants to use the "since they smelled gunsmoke they must have been gunsmoke they smelled" fallacious approach, as his "red paint" example shows.

> It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present.

And it has been shown where that was, lurkers. See, Ben will see this as circular, but it isn`t because a person was seen firing from that location. It isn`t a FACT that there was gunsmoke anywhere other than that location, which is how Ben`s argument becomes circular. He is using something that is unestablished to confirm something that is unestablished, and each is used to confirm the other.

> You think it strange and "not
> established" that anyone would smell it.

I think Ben has to show that it is a viable idea and not demand that his *declaration* that it is viable be given weight, lurkers.

> Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.

My *belief* is that Ben hasn`t shown the idea to be viable, lurkers. And he won`t next post either.

>
> > First establish that such a thing is possible,
>
>
> That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired?

Is that what I`m asking, or is Ben being dishonest here, lurkers?

> I think
> **YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.

Always with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. For all I care it can stay unknown whether they actually smelled gunsmoke or not. Or retards can assume it was gunsmoke for all I care. But if they only want to pretend that it is established fact I need only point out why it isn`t established fact, with no obligation on my part to establish the contrary (which is a negative anyway, I can`t prove that anyone isn`t smelling gunpowder at *any* time).

> You won't... of course. You know you're lying.
>
>
> > then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
> > rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
> > you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?
>
>
> Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
> around guns knows this to be a fact.

Well, that settles it, lurkers. Ben says so.

> There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
> knows it well.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

>
> > You assume
> > that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.
>
>
> No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
> firearms can attest to.

Ben is trying the "Let me assert it even more strongly" method of establishing things as fact, lurkers. And this might be meaningful, if the person asserting it wasn`t a strongly motivated, biased and dishonest retard.

> "Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
> able to fire the shots because he did so.

Assumes no other indications that he did so, lurkers. It is the other information that prevents it from being circular.

> Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
> that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
> that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
> blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.
>
> If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
> the extant Z-film.
>
> That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.

I didn`t use the wind in support of any ideas, lurkers. I accept there was a wind, it didn`t impact my critique of the original poster ideas. The movement of the flags is one of those conspiracy retard talking points where they think they are gathering clues. Shadows are another one. You`ll see the 9-11 Truthers using this same methodology, they all have their magnifying glasses out look at film and photos, looking for clues. In both cases it is a retard hobby, which Ben confuses with "reasoning".

.


> He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
> gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
> that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
> right)

Doesn`t Ben ideas assume the wind is going in the same direction as the limo, lurkers?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:41:46 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:42:12 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:39:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question for Boris:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
> > > >
> > > > The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.
> > >
> > > I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?
> >
> > 1.) It's interesting but unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.
>
> But I thought you were all about speculation and scenarios. You even diverted attention away from discussing the scientific evidence in favor of wondering where all the shooters were standing.

You're making the serious charge that the CIA, FBI lead by Hoover, elements of the DPD, Mob, etc. all plotted, carried out and covered up JFK's assassination. You have a burden to carry. Carry it. We do not share a burden.

>
> >
> > 2.) I'm not challenging anything. You are.
>
> You're still challenging the occipital/parietal wound described in the autopsy report. You don't believe it, and it's OFFICIAL EVIDENCE, so it's yours to challenge.

I'll leave that to the experts: Humes Finck and Boswell. They conclude one shot to the head, fired from above and behind. They stand by it. The Parkland doctors who were shown the photos for NOVA in 88 agree the wounds look like what they saw. Subsequent inquiries agree with the original conclusion of one headshot from above and behind.

>
> > > > > > 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
> > > > >
> > > > > A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and one then, shall we?
>
> Now a zillion and three.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Did Oswald fire one of the shots?
> > >
> > > Witnesses and the NAA test suggests not,
> >
> > Brennan ID'd him as the shooter.
>
> There's Chuck favoring witnesses over science again. The results of the NAA test are too inconvenient to talk about.

I'm happy to throw out all of the witnesses and rest on the forensics.

>
> >
> > The forensics say he did it.
>
> They don't, actually.

Um, yeah. They do.

>
> >
> > >but he definitely did have some role.
> >
> > Yeah, as the killer.
> >
> > He was Agency,
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Nothing is provable to you, but this isn't exactly an obscure fact just recently come to light.
>
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/jfk-beyond-a-question-of-conspiracy/who-said-oswald-was-a-patsy-31-people-did-including-fbi-cia-agents/2131492886861047/?fref=gs&dti=444928932351071&hc_location=group

OMG. That's embarrassing Boris. Really. Crossfire meets Tom Rossley meets 19eee.

>
>
> >
> > Ben says the DPD did it.
>
> Really? The *whole* DPD? Fascinating. I'd like to see where he said that.

You're just being argumentative.

>
> >
> > And the CIA had--and has--access to top-level talent with proven leadership abilities, etc.
>
> Naw, not the CIA.

The most important event in the 20th Century in US political life is left up to Lee Harvey Oswald's reliability. LOL! Well, thanks for the laugh tonight Boris.

>
> >
> > Oswald was lucky to get hired at the TSBD and you have him as a CIA asset.
>
> Yeah, "lucky" he got that job and not the one at Collins Radio from DeMohrenschildt's contact.

LOL! Is Ruth Paine involved? Roy Truly? If I recall, Truly had another position open at a company warehouse, and Oswald could've been assigned there. This entire tragic event in American history screams of happenstance and not pre-planned competence. WW1 started this way. Pricip misses his shot at Ferdinand's motorcade and retreats to a cafe to brood about his bad luck when, lo and behold, Ferdinand's driver makes a wrong turn and is stuck mere feet from where Pricip is, who, not believing his good fortune, pulls his pistol and fires, starting the chain of events that cost 20 million lives and re-wrote Europe's map, ushered in Communism, and planted the seeds of WW2.

History can turn on the wretched actions of a single gunman.

>
> >
> >
> > >and he didn't run to the theater for no reason.
> >
> > One reason might be because he killed JFK and Tippit.
>
> One reason "might" also be because he wanted to catch the opening credits to "War Is Hell". I've provided just as much evidence to my statement as you did for yours.

LOL! So there's ZERO evidence Oswald may have ducked into the TT because of killing JFK and JDT? You're a hoot tonight Boris!

>
> >
> >
> > >I think critically, Chuck.
> >
> > Do your critical thinking skills tell you all of the men on the WC were liars, part of the cover up, or all mistaken or something else?
>
> Again Chuck asks me, "Were the lawyers liars?"

Wasn't Mark Lane a lawyer?
>
> LOL!!

Boris avoids the answer.

>
> Ford was definitely a liar. Dulles was one of the biggest pieces of shit to walk the earth, until you and Bud were born, and his means, motive and opportunity are easily established. And three of the members eventually dissented in one way or another to the official conclusion.

They all agreed Oswald killed JFK.

>
>
> >
> > Do your critical thinking skills tell you another worker at the TSBD might've decided the 6th floor was a fine place to enjoy a smoke and watch the motorcade?
>
> Do your critical thinking skills tell you it was a coincidence no one was?

Yes.

>
> >
> > Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?
>
> Downstairs. The man with the tan coat was on the sixth floor.

With whom?

>
> http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm
>
> >
> > >You can't scare me just because one or two things DO manage to fit the >official narrative.

Boris doesn't scare easily.

>I don't hide from evidence, I confront it.
> >
> > Explain all of the evidence that points to him as the killer. Rifle, shells, fibers from the blanket, palm print on the rifle, opportunity and means, previous attempt on Walker, murder of Tippit, fleeing the TSBD, erratic route home, etc.
>
> That's a lot of "explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction," especially since all of it has been discussed here at one point or another.
> If you want to select one or two things from your Gish Gallop list, maybe we can start there.

Go ahead and pick a few and get started.

>
> >
> > Confront it.
> >
> >
> > The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't plucked from the sky as an innocent bystander,
> >
> > Did they know about Oswald's attempt on Walker before "plucking" him out of his boarding house to be the designated patsy on JFK?
>
> Begging the question.

Not at all, Truther. He told his wife he shot at him, and the FBI found the "In case I'm captured" note in his handwriting. The bullet dug out from the wall behind Walker was too mangled for a positive ID ballistically, but it could've been fired from a MC rifle. Coincidence?

>
> >
> > And were there similar teams set up in Chicago and Miami with patsies, triangulation of fire kill zones, etc.?
>
> There were known, documented plots there, Chicago in particular.

Connected to Dallas? Absolutely begging the question, 100%.

>As they never came to fruition, it's hard to know what kind of triangulation they had planned.

More begging the question. Where's the research that the other "plots" are tied to Dallas? Where's your cite that these plots were using patsies, triangulation of fire, etc.?

>Patsies, yes. The result of Vallee's license plate search suggested his connection to intelligence agencies.
>
> >
> >
> > >but the evidence also suggests the involvement of more than one person. And less than thousands.
> >
> > Well that narrows it down, lol.
>
> It narrows it down to a number greater than one, which instantly renders you a slobbering mess of epithets and elusive behavior.

And jacks it to a number up to 999, which renders you a slobbering mess of epithets and elusive behavior.

[Mike Dworetsky]

chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 6:26:09 AM UTC-5, Mike Dworetsky
> wrote:
>> chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:13:33 PM UTC-5,
>>> borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 6:56:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>> chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 2:01:25 PM UTC-5,
>>>>> borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 9:25:17 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>> chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In an answer to Bud at another post regarding his comment on
>>>>>>> your invoking of science, you mentioned the term "aural
>>>>>>> consilience."
>>>>>>>

various snips of a long thread.

>>>>>>> Here's what Wikipedia says about consilience:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

>>>> Do either of these explain why gunpowder was smelled in the
>>>> direction waves of witnesses flocked to, behind the GK fence?
>>>
>>> It's apparently a pretty common psychological phenomenon for the
>>> brain to "fill in the blanks." Could someone who hears sounds they
>>> recognize as gunfire also "remember" a gunpowder smell associated
>>> with the sound of the shots and the sight of the victim(s)slumping
>>> over or visibly hit? Looks possible, scientifically. And we know how
>>> into science "Mr. Science" is.
>>
>> This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling
>> gunsmoke were in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many
>> Texans...) and would readily know the real smell. Also, the wind
>> was blowing from the west towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy
>> knoll direction, and smoke from the TSBD would not be able to travel
>> into the wind. The wind direction could be established from
>> objective sources such as the detailed weather records from nearby
>> Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the blowing of the
>> flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the Zapruder
>> film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
>> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into
>> their faces?
>>
>> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this
>> physical evidence is no good because the witnesses must have
>> imagined it.
>
> What I'm claiming is that you guys are retarded.

Well, I am completely steamrollered by your overwhelming scientific and
technical reply to my comments; you must have multiple PhDs in physics,
acoustics, meteorology, psychology, maths, etc, so I'll just give up
thinking about science and invest in a good insult generator instead. It
seems to be the only thing you actually have going for you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

That, and history agrees with me.

And plus, you don't have a case.

It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone versus a vague conspiracy.

[Mike Dworetsky]

chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:01:42 AM UTC-5,
> borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling
>>> gunsmoke were in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms
>>> (many Texans...) and would readily know the real smell.
>>
>> Thanks, Mike. Macadams' foolish excuse is they were smelling car
>> exhaust. It's just about as pitiful an explanation as you can get.
>
> I think we know who's breathing car exhaust here.

Curiously, no one in Dealey Plaza said that they smelled car exhaust
immediately after the final shot. But several people (with firearms
experience) said they smelled gunsmoke. The smells are quite distinct. So
you and McAdams are wrong about this. (Is there any testimony about
smelling car exhaust? None that I can recall.)

>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, the wind was blowing from the west
>>> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and
>>> smoke from the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind. The
>>> wind direction could be established from objective sources such as
>>> the detailed weather records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in
>>> the HSCA 6 volumes) and the blowing of the flag on the Presidential
>>> limo as seen in photos and the Zapruder film.
>>
>> This is more of that kooky science gobbledygook LNers hate.
>> Macadams' other poor reasoning was that the gunpowder smell from the
>> 6th floor wafted westward and settled down behind the GK fence.
>
> Where was your sniper that hit Tague if he wasn't nicked by a chip of
> concrete or small bullet fragment from Oswald?
>
> You've got at least one on the South Knoll, at least one on the
> Grassy Knoll, someone on the 6th floor of the TSBD, someone you claim
> was on the 3rd floor of the TSBD, and this latest one.
>
> C'mon, Mr. Science. Work your slide rule and project were this
> mystery sniper was located at.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 05:40:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ah! The mythical "history" that Chuckles can't cite, can't define, and
forms the basis of his entire argument.

>And plus, you don't have a case.

I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.

Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.

> It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
> versus a vague conspiracy.

Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
assassin.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 22:30:15 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:41:46 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 7:42:12 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 5:39:16 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Question for Boris:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>> > > >
>> > > > The usual bland, banal, meaningless CT tripe.
>> > >
>> > > I never did hear your speculation on why you think Oswald didn't fire at the motorcade when it was on Houston. So....a zillion and three?
>> >
>> > 1.) It's interesting but unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.
>>
>> But I thought you were all about speculation and scenarios. You even diverted attention away from discussing the scientific evidence in favor of wondering where all the shooters were standing.
>
> You're making the serious charge that the CIA, FBI lead by Hoover,
> elements of the DPD, Mob, etc. all plotted, carried out and covered up
> JFK's assassination. You have a burden to carry. Carry it. We do not
> share a burden.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:10:51 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 10:01:42 AM UTC-5,
>> borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't work. Many of those who testified about smelling
>>>> gunsmoke were in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms
>>>> (many Texans...) and would readily know the real smell.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Mike. Macadams' foolish excuse is they were smelling car
>>> exhaust. It's just about as pitiful an explanation as you can get.
>>
>> I think we know who's breathing car exhaust here.
>
>Curiously, no one in Dealey Plaza said that they smelled car exhaust
>immediately after the final shot. But several people (with firearms
>experience) said they smelled gunsmoke. The smells are quite distinct. So
>you and McAdams are wrong about this. (Is there any testimony about
>smelling car exhaust? None that I can recall.)

Mike is correct. Amusingly, believers don't deny that at least one
rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza - so it's ENTIRELY CREDIBLE that
people would smell the consequences of firing a rifle.

Yet they quite desperately deny this.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

You linked to the exchange the CT author had with the writers of America's textbooks. Did you already forget?

>
>
> >And plus, you don't have a case.
>
>
> I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
> been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.

Because it's impossible to refute to the committed JFK Truther. It has been addressed; it's called the Warren Commission.

>
> Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.

Because I don't have one.

>
>
> > It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
> > versus a vague conspiracy.
>
>
> Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
> assassin.

Yes it does. Tell us what happened.
>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

Right here waiting. Tell us what happened.
>

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Straw man.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:35:25 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Are you now claiming that the citation I gave is **YOUR** cite for the
meaning of "history?"


I said that you've been unable to cite for the "history" you keep
referring to, and once again, YOU RAN!

>> >And plus, you don't have a case.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
>> been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.
>
> Because it's impossible to refute to the committed JFK Truther. It
> has been addressed; it's called the Warren Commission.

No Chuckles... you cannot cite anywhere in the Warren Commission
Report where they refuted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.

You're simply lying again, as you usually do.

>> Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.
>
>Because I don't have one.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> > It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
>> > versus a vague conspiracy.
>>
>>
>> Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
>> assassin.
>
>Yes it does. Tell us what happened.

Multiple assassins aimed at JFK, and pulled the trigger.

>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
>Right here waiting. Tell us what happened.

Doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you still can't get it.

Symptomatic of a high grade moron.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:36:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > You're still challenging the occipital/parietal wound described in the autopsy report. You don't believe it, and it's OFFICIAL EVIDENCE, so it's yours to challenge.
>
> I'll leave that to the experts: Humes Finck and Boswell.

Interesting. Which one of them do you think wrote the following:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

> >
> > Now a zillion and three.

Zillion and four now.

> >
> > There's Chuck favoring witnesses over science again. The results of the NAA test are too inconvenient to talk about.
>
> I'm happy to throw out all of the witnesses and rest on the forensics.

Like the NAA test.

> >
> > >
> > > The forensics say he did it.
> >
> > They don't, actually.
>
> Um, yeah. They do.

That was your cue to CITE some.

instead you just pretend it's there.

>
> OMG. That's embarrassing Boris. Really. Crossfire meets Tom Rossley meets 19eee.

Chuck attacking the messenger instead of the facts again.

> >
> > Really? The *whole* DPD? Fascinating. I'd like to see where he said that.
>
> You're just being argumentative.

Tell no lies, be confronted with no lies.

> >
> > >
> > > And the CIA had--and has--access to top-level talent with proven leadership abilities, etc.
> >
> > Naw, not the CIA.
>
> The most important event in the 20th Century in US political life is left up to Lee Harvey Oswald's reliability. LOL! Well, thanks for the laugh tonight Boris.

You see? Chuck is still stuck in the "Oswald did it" gear. It's quite easy to parse this together once you knock the gear stick loose.

No go on and tell me the CIA has never executed a coup, and therefore has no access to the people who can do it.

>
> LOL! Is Ruth Paine involved?

Chuck's pretty vacant, if I may quote a Sex Pistol.

>
> LOL! So there's ZERO evidence Oswald may have ducked into the TT because of killing JFK and JDT? You're a hoot tonight Boris!

He was in the TT to meet someone, as evidenced by the fact he kept moving seats and sitting next to different people in the theater.

> >
> > Again Chuck asks me, "Were the lawyers liars?"
>
> Wasn't Mark Lane a lawyer?

Yes, and as soon as you can cite a lie by Mark Lane which influenced the results of the Warren Report, we'll discuss his complicity in the assassination.

>
> Boris avoids the answer.

Avoid the answer? You just asked it, dummy.

> >
> > Ford was definitely a liar. Dulles was one of the biggest pieces of shit to walk the earth, until you and Bud were born, and his means, motive and opportunity are easily established. And three of the members eventually dissented in one way or another to the official conclusion.
>
> They all agreed Oswald killed JFK.

What Chuck sneakily leaves out at the end of that sentence is the word "alone."

Russell's dissent is too copious to C&P it all:

http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report

And Hale Boggs...

Boggs: Hoover lied his eyes out to the [Warren] Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it."

An opinion of Hoover which is important, because....

Cooper: I just don't have time [to be on the WC]
LBJ: There ain't gonna be no time, all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report that's ***already been made.*** (asterisks mine)

Even Dulles, the kingpin scum, refuses to say the assassination was carried out by one person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZUzd46AWys

Funny thing about that clip is Cooper is standing next to Dulles, and when the reporter asks "Can you say if you still think it was one man?" you can hear Cooper murmur something that sounds like "I don't believe that" before Dulles cuts him off.

> >
> > Do your critical thinking skills tell you it was a coincidence no one was?
>
> Yes.

You'd do well to ask ANY homicide investigator how much they believe in coincidence.

> >
> > >
> > > Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?
> >
> > Downstairs. The man with the tan coat was on the sixth floor.
>
> With whom?
> >
> > http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

[Chuck remains silent here.]

> >
> > >
> > > >You can't scare me just because one or two things DO manage to fit the >official narrative.
>
> Boris doesn't scare easily.

No, I've answered pretty much everything. How about you?

> > > Explain all of the evidence that points to him as the killer. Rifle, shells, fibers from the blanket, palm print on the rifle, opportunity and means, previous attempt on Walker, murder of Tippit, fleeing the TSBD, erratic route home, etc.
> >
> > That's a lot of "explain this freaky looking sh!t to my satisfaction," especially since all of it has been discussed here at one point or another.
> > If you want to select one or two things from your Gish Gallop list, maybe we can start there.
>
> Go ahead and pick a few and get started.

Chuck wants *me* to pick from *his* list.

> > > Did they know about Oswald's attempt on Walker before "plucking" him out of his boarding house to be the designated patsy on JFK?
> >
> > Begging the question.
>
> Not at all, Truther. He told his wife he shot at him,

Ah, the "Marina" evidence, lol!!

>
> and the FBI found the "In case I'm captured" note in his handwriting. The bullet dug out from the wall behind Walker was too mangled for a positive ID ballistically, but it could've been fired from a MC rifle. Coincidence?

So in other words, CE399 could have come from anywhere and been fired anytime. Chuck finally understands.

> >
> > There were known, documented plots there, Chicago in particular.
>
> Connected to Dallas? Absolutely begging the question, 100%.

Yet will subsequently remain silent on Vallee's license plate.

>
> >As they never came to fruition, it's hard to know what kind of triangulation they had planned.
>
> More begging the question.

Me not speculating on any sort of planned triangulation is actually the *opposite* of begging the question. But whatever.

>
> >Patsies, yes. The result of Vallee's license plate search suggested his connection to intelligence agencies.

Silence. See above.

Zillion and five, coming up....

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >
>> > You're still challenging the occipital/parietal wound described in the autopsy report. You don't believe it, and it's OFFICIAL EVIDENCE, so it's yours to challenge.
>>
>> I'll leave that to the experts: Humes Finck and Boswell.
>
>Interesting. Which one of them do you think wrote the following:
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
> temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

This highlights the burden that believers have.

You cannot force a believer to state that this is an accurate and
correct statement by the prosectors... They simply refuse to address
it ... other than to say that the statement is in the Autopsy Report.

But if they refuse to accept the Autopsy Report - THEN THEY HAVE
NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO BASE THEIR BELIEF IN A LONG ASSASSIN.

That's a fact.

But every single believer will deny it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I'm claiming the interesting little piece you linked to shows that primary source historians, A.) Don't take you guys very seriously, and B.) Absolutely regard Oswald as JFK's assassin; thus this is the historical narrative.

>
>
> I said that you've been unable to cite for the "history" you keep
> referring to, and once again, YOU RAN!

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. See above.

>
>
>
> >> >And plus, you don't have a case.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
> >> been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.
> >
> > Because it's impossible to refute to the committed JFK Truther. It
> > has been addressed; it's called the Warren Commission.
>
>
> No Chuckles... you cannot cite anywhere in the Warren Commission
> Report where they refuted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Nor that the alien Grays from Zeta Reticuli killed him. These were serious men and women tasked with providing solutions, not indulging in a retarded game.

>
> You're simply lying again, as you usually do.

yawn.

>
>
>
> >> Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.
> >
> >Because I don't have one.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.

Because I don't have one. Haven't we done this, like, a bunch of other times? We do you keep coming back to it?

>
>
>
> >> > It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
> >> > versus a vague conspiracy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
> >> assassin.

Vague drivel.

> >
> >Yes it does. Tell us what happened.
>
>
> Multiple assassins aimed at JFK, and pulled the trigger.

that's as specific as you get, and you think this supersedes the WC findings? No wonder you guys are laughed at. And pitied.

>
>
>
> >> Run coward... RUN!!!
> >
> >Right here waiting. Tell us what happened.
>
>
> Doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you still can't get it.
>
> Symptomatic of a high grade moron.

If you had a case by now, you would've posted it. You have just a mishmash of silly stuff, innuendo, begged questions, circular reasoning, fantasy shooting sequences, the involvement of tons of agencies, etc.

Silly, silly stuff.

Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

Why don't you put a rifle in your mouth and pull the trigger with your toe, if you can reach it, and end the embarrassment. Bonus: Pose Boris behind you and let's see if we get a two-for-one like Oswald got with JFK and JBC.

[Bud]

Do you know where you are posting?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This highlights the burden that believers have.
>
> You cannot force a believer to state that this is an accurate and
> correct statement by the prosectors... They simply refuse to address
> it ... other than to say that the statement is in the Autopsy Report.
>
> But if they refuse to accept the Autopsy Report - THEN THEY HAVE
> NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO BASE THEIR BELIEF IN A LONG ASSASSIN.
>
> That's a fact.
>
> But every single believer will deny it.

Cognitive dissonance. I wonder if Chuck found time to look it up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

We already know you to be a liar, Chuckles, you don't have to rub it
in.

Where's your citation to this mythical "history" you keep referring
to?

Why can't you provide it?

>> I said that you've been unable to cite for the "history" you keep
>> referring to, and once again, YOU RAN!
>
>You're arguing for the sake of arguing. See above.

You're running again, coward.

History records a conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

You will be *COMPLETELY* unable to refute that statement.

>> >> >And plus, you don't have a case.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
>> >> been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.
>> >
>> > Because it's impossible to refute to the committed JFK Truther. It
>> > has been addressed; it's called the Warren Commission.
>>
>> No Chuckles... you cannot cite anywhere in the Warren Commission
>> Report where they refuted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.
>

> I'm playing a retarded game.


Once again, Chuckles, you've been caught making a statement you can't
support.

You're simply lying again.

>> You're simply lying again, as you usually do.
>
>yawn.

I'm perfectly aware that the accusation of lying doesn't bother you.
I'm sure that such behavior can be explained by experts.

>> >> Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.
>> >
>> >Because I don't have one.
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
> Because I don't have one. Haven't we done this, like, a bunch of
> other times? We do you keep coming back to it?

Do you think if you lie repeatedly, it will turn into the truth?

>> >> > It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
>> >> > versus a vague conspiracy.
>> >>
>> >> Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
>> >> assassin.
>
>Vague drivel.

A *SPECIFIC* assertion you can't refute.

>> >Yes it does. Tell us what happened.
>>
>>
>> Multiple assassins aimed at JFK, and pulled the trigger.
>
> that's as specific as you get, and you think this supersedes the WC
> findings? No wonder you guys are laughed at. And pitied.

**WHAT** findings?

You don't have a case, remember?

>> >> Run coward... RUN!!!
>> >
>> >Right here waiting. Tell us what happened.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you still can't get it.
>>
>> Symptomatic of a high grade moron.
>
> If you had a case by now, you would've posted it. You have just a
> mishmash of silly stuff, innuendo, begged questions, circular
> reasoning, fantasy shooting sequences, the involvement of tons of
> agencies, etc.

You brag that you don't have a case, then you whine that I don't have
one. Why are you complaining?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I'm certainly not whining. I just find it, well, astonishing that you could post here for almost 20 years and still spend your time shooting Nerf darts at the WC. It's almost as if you can't believe someone would have the audacity to ask you to man up and put your conspiracy term paper up for a grade. You stutter, backtrack, Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, yell in ALL CAPS, promise to answer after I've answered "X" to your satisfaction, and so on.


>Why are you complaining?

Why are you complaining? This is exactly what you want: A forum to demonstrate your retardation. You have it, I point it out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 17:12:37 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Not only no answer... but not even an EXCUSE for not answering.

The coward runs again...

>> >> I said that you've been unable to cite for the "history" you keep
>> >> referring to, and once again, YOU RAN!
>> >
>> >You're arguing for the sake of arguing. See above.
>>
>>
>> You're running again, coward.
>>
>> History records a conspiracy in the murder of JFK.
>>
>> You will be *COMPLETELY* unable to refute that statement.

Another perfect prediction.

>> >> >> >And plus, you don't have a case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't know about Mike, but multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza hasn't
>> >> >> been refuted by you, or even *ADDRESSED* by you.
>> >> >
>> >> > Because it's impossible to refute to the committed JFK Truther. It
>> >> > has been addressed; it's called the Warren Commission.
>> >>
>> >> No Chuckles... you cannot cite anywhere in the Warren Commission
>> >> Report where they refuted the evidence for a Grassy Knoll shooter.
>> >
>> > I'm playing a retarded game.
>>
>>
>> Once again, Chuckles, you've been caught making a statement you can't
>> support.
>>
>> You're simply lying again.

Not even a whimper of an excuse.

>> >> You're simply lying again, as you usually do.
>> >
>> >yawn.
>>
>>
>> I'm perfectly aware that the accusation of lying doesn't bother you.
>> I'm sure that such behavior can be explained by experts.

Or perhaps you already know. What does *YOUR* theraplst say?

>> >> >> Nor, it must be noted, have you ever posted *YOUR* case.
>> >> >
>> >> >Because I don't have one.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>> >
>> > Because I don't have one. Haven't we done this, like, a bunch of
>> > other times? We do you keep coming back to it?
>>
>>
>> Do you think if you lie repeatedly, it will turn into the truth?

Dead silence...

>> >> >> > It's Oswald Alone versus a PARTICULAR conspiracy, not Oswald Alone
>> >> >> > versus a vague conspiracy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mutiple assassins in Dealey plaza SPECIFICALLY contradicts a solitary
>> >> >> assassin.
>> >
>> >Vague drivel.
>>
>>
>> A *SPECIFIC* assertion you can't refute.

Dead silence again... looks like you *KNOW* I won this "debate."

>> >> >Yes it does. Tell us what happened.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Multiple assassins aimed at JFK, and pulled the trigger.
>> >
>> > that's as specific as you get, and you think this supersedes the WC
>> > findings? No wonder you guys are laughed at. And pitied.
>>
>>
>> **WHAT** findings?
>>
>> You don't have a case, remember?

Caught in a lie, Chuckles does what Chuckles does best, he runs.

>> >> >> Run coward... RUN!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Right here waiting. Tell us what happened.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't matter how many times I tell you, you still can't get it.
>> >>
>> >> Symptomatic of a high grade moron.
>> >
>> > If you had a case by now, you would've posted it. You have just a
>> > mishmash of silly stuff, innuendo, begged questions, circular
>> > reasoning, fantasy shooting sequences, the involvement of tons of
>> > agencies, etc.
>>
>>
>> You brag that you don't have a case, then you whine that I don't have
>> one.
>
> I'm certainly not whining. I just find it, well, astonishing that
> you could post here for almost 20 years and still spend your time
> shooting Nerf darts at the WC.

If that were true, it means that you're spending your time fighting
nerfs.

But it's not, of course.

> It's almost as if you can't believe
> someone would have the audacity to ask you to man up and put your
> conspiracy term paper up for a grade. You stutter, backtrack, Fringe
> Reset/Holmes Pivot, yell in ALL CAPS, promise to answer after I've
> answered "X" to your satisfaction, and so on.

Lying isn't debate. Ad hominem simply means that you can't address
what I post with citations, evidence, and logical debate.

You lose!

>>Why are you complaining?
>
> Why are you complaining?

I ask *YOU* why you're complaining, and you run.

> This is exactly what you want: A forum to

> demonstrate myretardation. You have it, I point it out.

Believe it or not, there's plenty of homeless nutcases around this
town, I don't have to go online to find more.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > I'll leave that to the experts: Humes Finck and Boswell.
>
> Interesting. Which one of them do you think wrote the following:
>
> "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

So Chuck is just ignoring this for the zillion and sixth time then.

> >
> > I'm happy to throw out all of the witnesses and rest on the forensics.
>
> Like the NAA test.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The forensics say he did it.
> > >
> > > They don't, actually.
> >
> > Um, yeah. They do.
>
> That was your cue to CITE some.
>
> instead you just pretend it's there.

So Chuck won't be expounding on this then. I'll just "take his word" for it that these phantom forensics are out there, somewhere.

> > The most important event in the 20th Century in US political life is left up to Lee Harvey Oswald's reliability. LOL! Well, thanks for the laugh tonight Boris.
>
> You see? Chuck is still stuck in the "Oswald did it" gear. It's quite easy to parse this together once you knock the gear stick loose.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

>
> No go on and tell me the CIA has never executed a coup, and therefore has no access to the people who can do it.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

> >
> > LOL! So there's ZERO evidence Oswald may have ducked into the TT because of killing JFK and JDT? You're a hoot tonight Boris!
>
> He was in the TT to meet someone, as evidenced by the fact he kept moving seats and sitting next to different people in the theater.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

>
> > >
> > > Again Chuck asks me, "Were the lawyers liars?"
> >
> > Wasn't Mark Lane a lawyer?
>
> Yes, and as soon as you can cite a lie by Mark Lane which influenced the results of the Warren Report, we'll discuss his complicity in the assassination.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

> >
> > They all agreed Oswald killed JFK.
>
> What Chuck sneakily leaves out at the end of that sentence is the word "alone."
>
> Russell's dissent is too copious to C&P it all:
>
> http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report
>
> And Hale Boggs...
>
> Boggs: Hoover lied his eyes out to the [Warren] Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it."
>
> An opinion of Hoover which is important, because....
>
> Cooper: I just don't have time [to be on the WC]
> LBJ: There ain't gonna be no time, all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report that's ***already been made.*** (asterisks mine)
> 
> Even Dulles, the kingpin scum, refuses to say the assassination was carried out by one person:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZUzd46AWys
>
> Funny thing about that clip is Cooper is standing next to Dulles, and when the reporter asks "Can you say if you still think it was one man?" you can hear Cooper murmur something that sounds like "I don't believe that" before Dulles cuts him off.

So Chuck is just ignoring this then. And amazingly, he LIED when he said he would watch the clip later. Lied. LIED. Watch how shocked I get.

> > > > Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?
> > >
> > > Downstairs. The man with the tan coat was on the sixth floor.
> >
> > With whom?
> > >
> > > http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm
>
> [Chuck remains silent here.]

And still does.

> >
> > >Patsies, yes. The result of Vallee's license plate search suggested his connection to intelligence agencies.
>
> Silence. See above.

And still is silent.

Shock, I tell you. SHOCKED.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Put up a case and let's compare it the the Oswald Alone narrative. Show all of your evidence, explain how many shots were fired and from where and when, etc.

And it'll be my turn to be shocked.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:48:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 13:43:54 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 4:35:53 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > If the science keeps negating the official narrative, then my speculative scenario or who was precisely where doesn't matter.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Lol.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No wonder history laughs at you. And your family and friends.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If you have any.

>> >> >
>> >> > Opinion and speculative scenarios are obviously very important to Chuck. Much more so than science.
>> >> >
>> >> > So here's a hypothetical for him: why didn't Oswald just shoot JFK driving north on Houston?
>> >> >
>> >> > Chuck will now not answer, and pretend that his non-answer somehow holds more potency than mine.
>> >>
>> >> Question for Boris:
>> >>
>> >> 1.) Why didn't your hit team shoot JFK driving north on Houston, nimrod?
>> >
>> > Cross-triangulation ambush. You're presuming the whole hit team was
>> > standing scrunched together in the 6th floor window?
>>
>>

>> Amusingly, Boris answered the question, despite Chuckles whining that
>> we "never" answer questions.
>>
>> Notice that although Chuckles RAN AWAY from the question, Boris
>> answered it quite credibly.
>
> I'm a retard, lurkers. Never happen.


Notice that Puddles didn't answer the question either?

>> >> 2.) How many times do you think the speculative, "Why didn't
>> >> Oswald fire when JFK was headed towards him?" question has been asked
>> >> here and at a zillion other forums, in books, and so on?
>> >
>> > A zillion? Has it really been THAT many times you've ignored and
>> > avoided the same question? Let's just chalk this up to a zillion and
>> > one then, shall we?
>> >

>> >And your next response will be a zillion and two.
>>

>> Amusingly, Chuckles will refuse to cite even *ONE* of these "zillion"
>> times, and he's completely unable to cite the answer coming from
>> **ANY** believer.
>>
>> Chuckles is a proven coward.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You're lying again, Puddles.

>> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
>> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
>
> Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.

Why would I repeat what has already been stated?

What would stop you from lying about it again?

>> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
>> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
>> >
>> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
>>
>>
>> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
>> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
>
> Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.

And Puddy lies again.

> And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
> detect the smell of gunsmoke.

".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."

Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.

What a MORON he is!

> And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
> have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,

Yes... I can and I already did. Those with experience will *naturally*
be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.

> or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone
> else, lurkers.

Here we have Puddy desperately denying that "experience" means
anything.

Of course, this is natural - the Parkland doctors had a great deal of
experience with gunshot wounds... and Puddy hates *that* too!

>> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
>> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.
>
> Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also
> avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that
> Chuck cited, lurkers.

Not "circular" at all. You just got through whining that I'd changed
the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
TOPIC.

It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
with wouldn't convince their own mother.

>> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
>> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
>> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
>> > they like the sound of.
>>
>>
>> So you failed.
>

> I was successful...


No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
on this topic.

>> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
>

> Always the misdirection to the WC.


It is, of course, what you rely on.

Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
document.

>> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
>> corroborate each other.
>
> I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
> support of an idea, lurkers.

No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.

> Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?

Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
eyewitness testimony & statements.

Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.

> I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
> information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.

You can't define this ...

You hold yourself as the arbitor.

That would be quite silly indeed to rely on a proven liar and coward
to judge the accuracy of the evidence.

>>You simply make empty claims and run.
>
> I critiqued the posters ideas, lurkers.

You failed.

>> The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
>> Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.
>
> Lurkers can see this for the lie it is by just looking at the name
> of the forum.

The name of a forum doesn't determine who is lying, Puddy.


> I'm a retard.


And clearly unwilling to debate.

>> You lost.
>>
>> >> and would
>> >> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
>> >> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
>> >> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
>> >
>> > How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??
>>
>> Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
>> gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.
>

> I'm a retard.


Anyone notice that Puddy couldn't defend his wacky assertion?

>> >> The wind direction
>> >> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
>> >> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
>> >> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
>> >> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
>> >> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
>> >>
>> >> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
>> >> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
>> >
>> > What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
>> > haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
>> > fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
>> > detect the smell of gunpowder.
>>
>> And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
>> established that red paint was used on the fire engine.
>
> What Ben is arguing here is that his assumption should be treated
> as fact, lurkers. It is a circular argument.

It's a simple fact that there was gunfire in Dealey Plaza.

It is therefore ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE that some would
smell gunsmoke.

There's no "circular reasoning" involved at all.

>> But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.
>
> Ben see it as faulty reasoning to question whether the idea is
> viable, lurkers. He wants it it accepted as being viable without all
> the bother of showing it is.

Puddy goes to Indy, and is suprised to see cars actually going fast.

He goes to the racetrack, and is surprised to see jockeys on their
horses.

He goes to a firing range, and is astounded to smell gunsmoke.

This is the sort of stupid reasoning that Puddy thinks...

No wonder he's a believer!


> I'm a tard.


You can't reason with someone who uses ad hominem to replace logical
argument & citations.

>> It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present.
>
> And it has been shown where that was, lurkers.

Indeed it was. The photo can be seen by anyone.
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/

> See, Ben will see this as circular, but it isn`t because a person was
> seen firing from that location.

Actually, he was *heard* from this location.

> It isn`t a FACT that there was
> gunsmoke anywhere other than that location,

That's true... at least as far as eyewitnesses and photos go. There
was certainly gunsmoke in the TSBD, but it wasn't witnessed,
photographed, or smelled.

> which is how Ben`s
> argument becomes circular. He is using something that is unestablished

The witnesses smelled it, the photo I cited shows it.

That's fairly "established" for any honest man.

> to confirm something that is unestablished, and each is used to
> confirm the other.

Yes, the photo corroborates those who smelled gunsmoke. And visa
versa.

>> You think it strange and "not
>> established" that anyone would smell it.
>
> I think Ben has to show that it is a viable idea and not demand
> that his *declaration* that it is viable be given weight, lurkers.

No, it's quite stupid indeed to have to "prove" that people can smell
gunsmoke when weapons are fired.

As David "Chester" Pein would say: it's common sense.

>> Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.
>
> My *belief* is that Ben hasn`t shown the idea to be viable,
> lurkers. And he won`t next post either.

You couldn't convince your dog of such a silly notion.

Your mother would laugh at you.

>> > First establish that such a thing is possible,
>>
>>
>> That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired?
>
> Is that what I`m asking, or is Ben being dishonest here, lurkers?

Yes... that's what you're asking.

>> I think
>> **YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.
>

> I'm a retard.


Not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.

>> You won't... of course. You know you're lying.

I predicted it, folks!

>> > then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
>> > rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
>> > you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?
>>
>> Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
>> around guns knows this to be a fact.
>
> Well, that settles it, lurkers. Ben says so.

ROTFLMAO!!! Why don't you have the courage to post your ideas in a
weapons forum. Listen to the laughter of NRA members who smell
gunsmoke every time they go shooting.

If you can convince a poster in a gun forum that your theory is
viable, get back to me.

>> There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
>> knows it well.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/

Puddles will now claim that he's never seen this photo before.

>> > You assume
>> > that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.
>>
>> No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
>> firearms can attest to.
>

> I'm a retard.


Feel free to post your thoughts in a gun forum. Watch them laugh at
you.

>> "Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
>> able to fire the shots because he did so.
>
> Assumes no other indications that he did so, lurkers. It is the
> other information that prevents it from being circular.

Circular reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be

able to outshoot vastly more qualified shooters.

>> Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
>> that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
>> that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
>> blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.
>>
>> If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
>> the extant Z-film.
>>
>> That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.
>
> I didn`t use the wind in support of any ideas, lurkers.

You responded to the post, critiquing what you thought was wrong, and
COMPLETELY MISSED the only real problem.

> I accept there was a wind, it didn`t impact my critique of the
> original poster ideas.

It was the only thing demonstrably wrong. You missed it.


> I'm a retard.

>
>
>> He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
>> gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
>> that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
>> right)
>
> Doesn`t Ben ideas assume the wind is going in the same direction
> as the limo, lurkers?

As I've never stated, or even *implied* the direction of the wind,
you're simply lying again.

The proof that you're lying will be your complete inability to cite
anything I stated that would make an honest person think that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 22:41:41 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Put up a case and let's compare it the the Oswald Alone narrative.
> Show all of your evidence, explain how many shots were fired and from
> where and when, etc.
>
>And it'll be my turn to be shocked.

It doesn't matter how detailed we get, Chuckles will whine that we
didn't cover this, or didn't explain that.

He continues to ask questions that HE HIMSELF refuses to answer.

That tells the tale.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:02:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 22:41:41 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Put up a case and let's compare it the the Oswald Alone narrative.
> > Show all of your evidence, explain how many shots were fired and from
> > where and when, etc.
> >
> >And it'll be my turn to be shocked.
>
> It doesn't matter how detailed we get, Chuckles will whine that we
> didn't cover this, or didn't explain that.

1.) You'll never get detailed. It destroys the hobby.

2.) You have a different case than Boris.

>
> He continues to ask questions that HE HIMSELF refuses to answer.
>
> That tells the tale.

It absolutely tells the tale. I carry no burden, we share no burden. There is the historically accepted case and the conclusions drawn from the body of evidence presented, and there is your vague case claiming JFK's body was kidnapped, a pre-autopsy autopsy performed (where they mysteriously left in the 13cm wound part in the summary thus proving conspiracy per Boris), the Zapruder and Nix films altered, mysterious deaths like Karyn Kupcinet, the evil LBJ as an assassin by proxy, and involvement at the highest levels by the CIA, FBI, DPD, etc. and maybe throw in the Mob, Cubans, the three tramps, and so on.

So, stop shooting spitballs at the WC and actually put together a detailed case.

Stop recruiting others to answer your begged questions.

Stop the constant Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot whereby each question asked of you results in retreating back to asking another question that's already been addressed.

Man-up.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 08:27:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:02:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 22:41:41 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Put up a case and let's compare it the the Oswald Alone narrative.
>> > Show all of your evidence, explain how many shots were fired and from
>> > where and when, etc.
>> >
>> >And it'll be my turn to be shocked.
>>
>> It doesn't matter how detailed we get, Chuckles will whine that we
>> didn't cover this, or didn't explain that.
>
>1.) You'll never get detailed. It destroys the hobby.

I can be just as detailed as you.

But you're afraid to post a scenario... you claim not to have one.

>2.) You have a different case than Boris.

I doubt it. I'm sure he accepts the fact that there were multiple
shooters in Dealey Plaza ... just as I do.

>> He continues to ask questions that HE HIMSELF refuses to answer.
>>
>> That tells the tale.
>
>It absolutely tells the tale.

Yep.

On that we can agree.

[Bud]

Lurkers must wonder what I wrote that terrified this coward that he had to change it. It was this...

"Let these retards use "cross-triangulation ambush" in the case they need to make, lurkers. Never happen."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > > >
> > > > I'll leave that to the experts: Humes Finck and Boswell.
> > >
> > > Interesting. Which one of them do you think wrote the following:
> > >
> > > "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this for the zillion and sixth time then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy to throw out all of the witnesses and rest on the forensics.
> > >
> > > Like the NAA test.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The forensics say he did it.
> > > > >
> > > > > They don't, actually.
> > > >
> > > > Um, yeah. They do.
> > >
> > > That was your cue to CITE some.
> > >
> > > instead you just pretend it's there.
> >
> > So Chuck won't be expounding on this then. I'll just "take his word" for it that these phantom forensics are out there, somewhere.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > > > The most important event in the 20th Century in US political life is left up to Lee Harvey Oswald's reliability. LOL! Well, thanks for the laugh tonight Boris.
> > >
> > > You see? Chuck is still stuck in the "Oswald did it" gear. It's quite easy to parse this together once you knock the gear stick loose.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > >
> > > No go on and tell me the CIA has never executed a coup, and therefore has no access to the people who can do it.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! So there's ZERO evidence Oswald may have ducked into the TT because of killing JFK and JDT? You're a hoot tonight Boris!
> > >
> > > He was in the TT to meet someone, as evidenced by the fact he kept moving seats and sitting next to different people in the theater.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Again Chuck asks me, "Were the lawyers liars?"
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't Mark Lane a lawyer?
> > >
> > > Yes, and as soon as you can cite a lie by Mark Lane which influenced the results of the Warren Report, we'll discuss his complicity in the assassination.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > They all agreed Oswald killed JFK.
> > >
> > > What Chuck sneakily leaves out at the end of that sentence is the word "alone."
> > >
> > > Russell's dissent is too copious to C&P it all:
> > >
> > > http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report
> > >
> > > And Hale Boggs...
> > >
> > > Boggs: Hoover lied his eyes out to the [Warren] Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it."
> > >
> > > An opinion of Hoover which is important, because....
> > >
> > > Cooper: I just don't have time [to be on the WC]
> > > LBJ: There ain't gonna be no time, all you're gonna do is evaluate a Hoover report that's ***already been made.*** (asterisks mine)
> > > 
> > > Even Dulles, the kingpin scum, refuses to say the assassination was carried out by one person:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZUzd46AWys
> > >
> > > Funny thing about that clip is Cooper is standing next to Dulles, and when the reporter asks "Can you say if you still think it was one man?" you can hear Cooper murmur something that sounds like "I don't believe that" before Dulles cuts him off.
> >
> > So Chuck is just ignoring this then. And amazingly, he LIED when he said he would watch the clip later. Lied. LIED. Watch how shocked I get.

Chuck is still ignoring it. And he can't explain why a signature is meaningless when the person doing the signing doesn't believe it, and SAYS SO.

> >
> > > > > > Do your critical thinking skills tell you he was on the 6th floor, or was he eating lunch downstairs?
> > > > >
> > > > > Downstairs. The man with the tan coat was on the sixth floor.
> > > >
> > > > With whom?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm
> > >
> > > [Chuck remains silent here.]
> >
> > And still does.

Chuck is still ignoring it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >Patsies, yes. The result of Vallee's license plate search suggested his connection to intelligence agencies.
> > >
> > > Silence. See above.
> >
> > And still is silent.
> >
> > Shock, I tell you. SHOCKED.
>
>
> Put up a case and let's compare it the the Oswald Alone narrative.

Oh, "let's compare", he says. Like I'm going to write up a report for you like a dancing monkey, and then you and I are going to sit down together and discuss it at length? You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy. You can't even point out an ENTRY shot in that BOH photo, let alone the "absence of bone and scalp" as described in the report.

And all the above....that's my case. So let's compare, Chuck. You bring the chips and I'll bring the drinks, and let's sit and comb over it all and compare together.

That's what you want, right?

[Bud]

Ben often uses ad hominem to avoid addressing points made, lurkers. He is an intellectual coward.

> >> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
> >> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
> >
> > Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.
>
>
> Why would I repeat what has already been stated?

"stated", not "shown", lurkers. This is why they are empty claims.

> What would stop you from lying about it again?

Ben doesn`t like critical thinking applied to the ideas of conspiracy advocates. Their ideas never fare well when this is done.

>
> >> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> >> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
> >> >
> >> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
> >>
> >>
> >> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> >> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
> >
> > Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.
>
>
> And Puddy lies again.

Empty claims piled on top of empty claim, lurkers. these guys have nothing to offer.

Did lurkers see Ben support this declaration...

"...people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."

He tried to support an empty claim with a further empty claim. That doesn`t help support the first claim the original poster made.

>
> > And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
> > detect the smell of gunsmoke.
>
>
> ".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
>
> Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.

So Ben is willing to expand his empty claim to all five senses, lurkers, what could matter less?

> What a MORON he is!

Not a moron enough to believe that sensed are heightened because you fire a gun, lurkers.

>
>
> > And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
> > have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,
>
>
> Yes... I can and I already did.

Empty claims piled on top of empty claims, lurkers.

> Those with experience will *naturally*
> be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.

And further empty claims, lurkers. And a circular argument, that assumes what hasn`t been shown.

> > or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone
> > else, lurkers.
>
>
> Here we have Puddy desperately denying that "experience" means
> anything.

Is that the argument I made, lurkers? Why isn`t Ben addressing what I actually said?

> Of course, this is natural - the Parkland doctors had a great deal of
> experience with gunshot wounds... and Puddy hates *that* too!

Again, Ben deceitfully misrepresents my position, lurkers. Mark Lane has taught him well.

Now let me state my true position once more, so that Ben can lie about it later. The Parkland doctors have ability to treat gunshot wounds. That is where their training is and their expertise lies. This does not confer upon them expertise in other fields outside of their area of expertise, like wound ballistics.

> >> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
> >> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.
> >
> > Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also
> > avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that
> > Chuck cited, lurkers.
>
>
> Not "circular" at all.

I just showed how it was, lurkers. Ben`s argument assumes that what they smelled, or reported smelling was gunsmoke. That is the point of contention.

> You just got through whining that I'd changed
> the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
> TOPIC.
>
> It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
> with wouldn't convince their own mother.
>
>
> >> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
> >> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
> >> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
> >> > they like the sound of.
> >>
> >>
> >> So you failed.
> >
> > I was successful...
>
>
> No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
> on this topic.

I was examining this posters ideas, lurkers, I don`t know why Ben insists on trying to misdirect to the WC.

> >> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
> >
> > Always the misdirection to the WC.
>
>
> It is, of course, what you rely on.

Notice Ben doesn`t deny that he always misdirects to the WC, lurkers.

> Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
> the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
> document.
>
>
> >> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
> >> corroborate each other.
> >
> > I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
> > support of an idea, lurkers.
>
>
> No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.
>
>
> > Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?
>
>
> Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
> eyewitness testimony & statements.

They bring up things, like this "gunsmoke" issue that they can go nowhere with. If they feel it is significant they should include it in the case they need to make. Never happen, lurkers.

> Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
> a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.

I was examining the ideas this poster advanced, lurkers.

>
> > I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
> > information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.
>
>
> You can't define this ...

I`m *doing* it, lurkers. I am showing the faults in their approaches.

> You hold yourself as the arbitor.

*I`ve* already decided, lurkers. Of course I arbitrate what I decide to believe. All I was doing here was examining the ideas the poster expressed, to see if they were valid. The "critics" don`t like it when their ideas are examined. They want to make declarations that aren`t scrutinized. The want to make claims they can`t support. They want to hold their ideas to a different standard than the ideas expressed by others, like the WC. This is why they will never put a case on the table, they know we would scrutinize it and they would have to defend it, and they know they couldn`t do this.

> That would be quite silly indeed to rely on a proven liar and coward
> to judge the accuracy of the evidence.

I am exposing the flawed approaches of conspiracy advocates. Ben doesn`t like his ideas scrutinized to see if they hold water, he wants them to be accepted without question. He can`t be bothered with showing he is right.

> >>You simply make empty claims and run.
> >
> > I critiqued the posters ideas, lurkers.
>
>
> You failed.

What did Ben just say about wanting to be arbiter, lurkers? He reserves that role for himself. Lurkers can decide whether Ben has successfully answered all the issues I raised with the posters ideas. They can decide whether the arguments were based on fact, or merely opinion. In my experience the conspiracy advocates can never tell the difference between the two.

> >> The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
> >> Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.
> >
> > Lurkers can see this for the lie it is by just looking at the name
> > of the forum.
>
>
> The name of a forum doesn't determine who is lying, Puddy.

It reveals who told this lie, lurkers...

"The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the Warren Commission."

And it is always good to see what I said that Ben was so terrified of that he had to remove it...

"The onus *here* is for the retards to put their case on the table for conspiracy. They are the ones selling an idea here. If and when they ever do this, we will judge it, check it for flaws and see if it is compelling. But we will never get to that point, because these tards will never pony up this case."

> > I'm a retard.
>
>
> And clearly unwilling to debate.
>
>
> >> You lost.
> >>
> >> >> and would
> >> >> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> >> >> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> >> >> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
> >> >
> >> > How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??
> >>
> >> Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
> >> gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Puddy couldn't defend his wacky assertion?

Have lurkers noticed that Ben calls for debate, yet the coward changes my words and misrepresents my positions?

>
>
> >> >> The wind direction
> >> >> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> >> >> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> >> >> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> >> >> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
> >> >> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
> >> >>
> >> >> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
> >> >> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
> >> >
> >> > What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
> >> > haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
> >> > fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
> >> > detect the smell of gunpowder.
> >>
> >> And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
> >> established that red paint was used on the fire engine.
> >
> > What Ben is arguing here is that his assumption should be treated
> > as fact, lurkers. It is a circular argument.
>
>
> It's a simple fact that there was gunfire in Dealey Plaza.

From one of the buildings that surround the Plaza, lurkers.

> It is therefore ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE that some would
> smell gunsmoke.

Do empty claims look better in all caps, lurkers? And the argument is still circular. It is only "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" if they actually smelled gunpowder. If they didn`t, then it is "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" that they did.

> There's no "circular reasoning" involved at all.

Of course it is, lurkers. The point of contention is whether the people who reported smelling gunpowder actually smelled gunpowder (a secondary argument might be made as to whether the smelling of gunpower establishes the knoll as the source of that smell). It can only be "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" if they actually did smell gunpowder, it couldn`t be if they didn`t smell gunpowder.

> >> But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.
> >
> > Ben see it as faulty reasoning to question whether the idea is
> > viable, lurkers. He wants it it accepted as being viable without all
> > the bother of showing it is.
>
>
> Puddy goes to Indy, and is suprised to see cars actually going fast.

Again, Ben wants his ideas accepted at face value without the bother of showing anything, lurkers.

> He goes to the racetrack, and is surprised to see jockeys on their
> horses.
>
> He goes to a firing range, and is astounded to smell gunsmoke.
>
> This is the sort of stupid reasoning that Puddy thinks...

Ben has to misrepresent my reasoning because he can`t address it, lurkers. How has anything he has presented help establish that it is a viable idea that what these witnesses reported smelling was actually gunsmoke? He wants to *assume* it was, and wants those *assumptions* treated as fact.

Do lurkers think it is viable idea that they could fart, and someone in a moving car a hundred feet away could smell it?

> No wonder he's a believer!

A lot of bluff, bluster and empty declarations, lurkers. And Ben is still no closer to showing the idea is viable.

>
> > I'm a tard.
>
>
> You can't reason with someone who uses ad hominem to replace logical
> argument & citations.

Lets make this deal then, lurkers. I`ll never call another poster here a retard if Ben agrees to never call another poster here a liar or coward. He wants to reserve the right to employ ad hominem will crying that other people are employing ad hominem. He is the worst kind of hypocrite, despite his tortured attempts to draw a distinction.

> >> It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present.
> >
> > And it has been shown where that was, lurkers.
>
>
> Indeed it was. The photo can be seen by anyone.
> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/

Again, Ben want to *declare* something without bothering to establish it is so, lurkers. He wants his empty claims treated as fact.

>
>
> > See, Ben will see this as circular, but it isn`t because a person was
> > seen firing from that location.
>
>
> Actually, he was *heard* from this location.

Actually the shooter on the 6th floor was both heard and seen, lurkers.

>
> > It isn`t a FACT that there was
> > gunsmoke anywhere other than that location,
>
>
> That's true... at least as far as eyewitnesses and photos go. There
> was certainly gunsmoke in the TSBD, but it wasn't witnessed,
> photographed, or smelled.

Another empty claim, lurkers. Ben can`t establish that what the witnesses who reported smelling gunsmoke did not smell the gunsmoke from the TSBD. He can merely give reasons why he doesn`t believe this could be so. But he doesn`t extend that to a knoll shooter, he *doesn`t* have to show it is possible, he need only declare it so.

> > which is how Ben`s
> > argument becomes circular. He is using something that is unestablished
>
>
> The witnesses smelled it, the photo I cited shows it.

Empty claims and circular arguments, lurkers.

> That's fairly "established" for any honest man.
>
>
> > to confirm something that is unestablished, and each is used to
> > confirm the other.
>
>
> Yes, the photo corroborates those who smelled gunsmoke. And visa
> versa.

Circular, one unestablished thing used to support another, lurkers.

If the smoke is motorcycle exhaust it corroborates there were motorcycles there. If what they smelled was not gunsmoke that might corroborate the effect Chunk mentioned.

> >> You think it strange and "not
> >> established" that anyone would smell it.
> >
> > I think Ben has to show that it is a viable idea and not demand
> > that his *declaration* that it is viable be given weight, lurkers.
>
>
> No, it's quite stupid indeed to have to "prove" that people can smell
> gunsmoke when weapons are fired.

Assumes what he is trying to show, lurkers.

And the argument is, of course misrepresented. The argument isn`t whether it is possible to smell things, it is whether under these conditions and circumstances the idea is viable.

> As David "Chester" Pein would say: it's common sense.

Does Ben allow this approach, lurkers? Does he not question it when it is employed?

> >> Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.
> >
> > My *belief* is that Ben hasn`t shown the idea to be viable,
> > lurkers. And he won`t next post either.
>
>
> You couldn't convince your dog of such a silly notion.
>
> Your mother would laugh at you.

Appeal to Canines and the Dead fallacy, lurkers. The graveyards are full of people who support my ideas, as evidence by their lack of opposition. When polled, dogs opted to lick their asses, showing their disdain for Ben`s ideas.

> >> > First establish that such a thing is possible,
> >>
> >>
> >> That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired?
> >
> > Is that what I`m asking, or is Ben being dishonest here, lurkers?
>
>
> Yes... that's what you're asking.

See, Ben doesn`t even understand the argument, lurkers. The argument is questioning whether the idea is viable. It hasn`t been shown to be.

>
>
> >> I think
> >> **YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
>
> Not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.

The argument I made that Ben was forced to run away from, lurkers...

"Always with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. For all I care it can stay unknown whether they actually smelled gunsmoke or not. Or retards can assume it was gunsmoke for all I care. But if they only want to pretend that it is established fact I need only point out why it isn`t established fact, with no obligation on my part to establish the contrary (which is a negative anyway, I can`t prove that anyone isn`t smelling gunpowder at *any* time)."

>
> >> You won't... of course. You know you're lying.
>
>
> I predicted it, folks!

Ben cowardly cuts out the counter-argument and declares victory, lurkers.

> >> > then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
> >> > rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
> >> > you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?
> >>
> >> Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
> >> around guns knows this to be a fact.
> >
> > Well, that settles it, lurkers. Ben says so.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! Why don't you have the courage to post your ideas in a
> weapons forum. Listen to the laughter of NRA members who smell
> gunsmoke every time they go shooting.

Lurkers can note that this has no resemblance to the actual argument I am making, lurkers. If Ben wants, let him take my actual argument to such a forum and gather responses. I`ve outlined it several times, but chances are he has no idea what it is.

> If you can convince a poster in a gun forum that your theory is
> viable, get back to me.

Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.

> >> There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
> >> knows it well.
> >
> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
>
> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/
>
> Puddles will now claim that he's never seen this photo before.

Did Ben establish what is seen as gunsmoke lurkers? Or smoke at all, for that matter.

>
> >> > You assume
> >> > that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.
> >>
> >> No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
> >> firearms can attest to.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
>
>
> Feel free to post your thoughts in a gun forum. Watch them laugh at
> you.

Ben now claims the firm support of unknown, unnamed people in gun forums, my dead mother and dogs everywhere, lurkers. What chance do I have against the forces Ben has arrayed against me in his mind?

> >> "Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
> >> able to fire the shots because he did so.
> >
> > Assumes no other indications that he did so, lurkers. It is the
> > other information that prevents it from being circular.
>
> Circular reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
> able to outshoot vastly more qualified shooters.

That isn`t circular reasoning, lurkers, it is apples and oranges.

> >> Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
> >> that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
> >> that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
> >> blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.
> >>
> >> If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
> >> the extant Z-film.
> >>
> >> That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.
> >
> > I didn`t use the wind in support of any ideas, lurkers.
>
>
> You responded to the post, critiquing what you thought was wrong, and
> COMPLETELY MISSED the only real problem.

Ben can make an issue about this with the other poster if he likes, lurkers.

> > I accept there was a wind, it didn`t impact my critique of the
> > original poster ideas.
>
>
> It was the only thing demonstrably wrong.

Empty claim, lurkers. Let Ben demonstrate.

>You missed it.
>
>
> > I'm a retard.
> >
> >
> >> He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
> >> gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
> >> that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
> >> right)
> >
> > Doesn`t Ben ideas assume the wind is going in the same direction
> > as the limo, lurkers?
>
>
> As I've never stated, or even *implied* the direction of the wind,
> you're simply lying again.

That was my understanding of his convoluted thought, lurkers. I didn`t give much thought, or care, about it.

> The proof that you're lying will be your complete inability to cite
> anything I stated that would make an honest person think that.

Lurkers are free to try to decipher Ben`s idea any way they see fit.

[Bud]

I doubt you can dance. And if you never start it, you`ll never have anything, and if you never have anything how can you be relevant? A thousand disjointed thoughts that can`t be put into a cohesive format can`t be compelling.

> and then you and I are going to sit down together and discuss it at length?

No, we`ll pick your ideas apart. It will be fish in a barrel time. In fact just having them out in the light of day will win it for us. They will be readily be seen by *everyone* (even yourself) as wildly fantastic and retarded.

> You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy.

Where did you establish that they do?

> You can't even point out an ENTRY shot in that BOH photo, let alone the "absence of bone and scalp" as described in the report.

What did Boswell say about the BOH photo?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> No, we`ll pick your ideas apart. It will be fish in a barrel time.

Bud lies, lurkers. He runs from the points I made, lurkers.

>
> > You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy.
>
> Where did you establish that they do?

The medical evidence. Where did you establish Father Huber has the expertise to know what a white sheet is?

>
> > You can't even point out an ENTRY shot in that BOH photo, let alone the "absence of bone and scalp" as described in the report.

Anti-science Bud continues to run from this, and ask his stupid anti-science questions, lurkers.

>
> What did Boswell say about the BOH photo?

Q. Do you remember seeing the photographs themselves or do you remember taking the photographs?

Boswell: I've never seen the one of inside of the chest. The one of the skull wound, I thought I remembered seeing it, but I--now, I've seen an awful lot of pictures like in Livingstone's books. Where those came from, I don't know. And whether they're fabricated, some of them, or not--and I may be confusing pictures I've seen that are alleged to be autopsy photographs.

Did I answer wrong, lurkers?

[Bud]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > No, we`ll pick your ideas apart. It will be fish in a barrel time.
>
> Bud lies, lurkers. He runs from the points I made, lurkers.

<snicker> You made points?

> >
> > > You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy.
> >
> > Where did you establish that they do?
>
> The medical evidence. Where did you establish Father Huber has the expertise to know what a white sheet is?

You think expertise is needed to do this, stupid? Why don`t you just leave this thinking stuff to those better suited?

> >
> > > You can't even point out an ENTRY shot in that BOH photo, let alone the "absence of bone and scalp" as described in the report.
>
> Anti-science Bud continues to run from this, and ask his stupid anti-science questions, lurkers.

I addressed this...

"And photos can be subject to subjective interpretation. They can be misleading. All evidence needs to be looked at correctly. And Boswell`s hands are seen in that photo, what did he say he was doing? This might also give insight and understanding about what is seen also."

But you aren`t looking for understanding, you are looking to play silly games.

> > What did Boswell say about the BOH photo?
>
> Q. Do you remember seeing the photographs themselves or do you remember taking the photographs?
>
> Boswell: I've never seen the one of inside of the chest. The one of the skull wound, I thought I remembered seeing it, but I--now, I've seen an awful lot of pictures like in Livingstone's books. Where those came from, I don't know. And whether they're fabricated, some of them, or not--and I may be confusing pictures I've seen that are alleged to be autopsy photographs.
>
> Did I answer wrong, lurkers?

Of course you did, you looked at the wrong thing incorrectly. How else could it be?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Bud the anti-science retard asks a stupid question...

>
> > >
> > > > You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy.

...and then provides the answer himself:

>
> You think expertise is needed to do this, stupid? Why don`t you just leave this thinking stuff to those better suited?

Thanks, dummy.

> >
> > Boswell: I've never seen the one of inside of the chest. The one of the skull wound, I thought I remembered seeing it, but I--now, I've seen an awful lot of pictures like in Livingstone's books. Where those came from, I don't know. And whether they're fabricated, some of them, or not--and I may be confusing pictures I've seen that are alleged to be autopsy photographs.
> >
> > Did I answer wrong, lurkers?
>
> Of course you did, you looked at the wrong thing incorrectly. How else could it be?

Bud the anti-science retard demands I play his retard games. It's not enough for me to quote what Boswell said, but now I'm supposed guess *which* specific quote Bud the anti-science retard was thinking. Clearly Bud the anti-science retard is playing another game with the deaths of these men, lurkers.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 4:02:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bud the anti-science retard asks a stupid question...
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > You can't even explain why the official autopsy photo contradicts the official autopsy.
>
> ...and then provides the answer himself:
>
> >
> > You think expertise is needed to do this, stupid? Why don`t you just leave this thinking stuff to those better suited?
>
> Thanks, dummy.

Your argument is that the expertise necessary to conduct an autopsy is on a par with determining the color of a sheet? I knew you couldn`t make distinctions but I didn`t think you were afflicted this badly.

> > >
> > > Boswell: I've never seen the one of inside of the chest. The one of the skull wound, I thought I remembered seeing it, but I--now, I've seen an awful lot of pictures like in Livingstone's books. Where those came from, I don't know. And whether they're fabricated, some of them, or not--and I may be confusing pictures I've seen that are alleged to be autopsy photographs.
> > >
> > > Did I answer wrong, lurkers?
> >
> > Of course you did, you looked at the wrong thing incorrectly. How else could it be?
>
> Bud the anti-science retard demands I play his retard games. It's not enough for me to quote what Boswell said, but now I'm supposed guess *which* specific quote Bud the anti-science retard was thinking.

What photo were we discussing, stupid?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Your argument is that the expertise necessary to conduct an autopsy is on a par with determining the color of a sheet? I knew you couldn`t make distinctions but I didn`t think you were afflicted this badly.

The autopsy is not the thing in question, "stupid".

>
> What photo were we discussing, stupid?

An ironic epithet here, coming from a moron who doesn't even know what photo we're talking about.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Translation: Boris has no case.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Translation: Boris has no case.

And so when I say "all of the above is my case", Dumb Fuck Chuck takes that to mean I have no case.

Why do you want to hear my case, dummy? You want to sit by the fire and discuss it with me? I bet.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 24, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Your argument is that the expertise necessary to conduct an autopsy is on a par with determining the color of a sheet? I knew you couldn`t make distinctions but I didn`t think you were afflicted this badly.
>
> The autopsy is not the thing in question, "stupid".

Then why are you quoting the report?

> >
> > What photo were we discussing, stupid?
>
> An ironic epithet here, coming from a moron who doesn't even know what photo we're talking about.

We were discussing the BOH photo, and I suggested you look up what Boswell had to say about it. Predictably you went off hunting for the wrong thing to focus on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

It's not "ad hominem" to point out a lie.

>> >> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
>> >> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
>> >
>> > Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Why would I repeat what has already been stated?
>
> "stated", not "shown", lurkers. This is why they are empty claims.

You're lying again, Puddles.

>> What would stop you from lying about it again?
>
> Ben doesn`t like critical thinking applied to the ideas of
> conspiracy advocates. Their ideas never fare well when this is done.

Ad hominem can't replace citations & logical argument based on the
evidence.

>> >> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
>> >> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
>> >> >
>> >> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
>> >> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
>> >
>> > Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.
>>
>> And Puddy lies again.
>
> Empty claims piled on top of empty claim, lurkers. these guys have
> nothing to offer.

Lies piled on top of lies.

> Did lurkers see Ben support this declaration...
>
> "...people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> accurate senses in regard to gunfire."

Yep... an entirely accurate and credible statement.

> He tried to support an empty claim with a further empty claim.
> That doesn`t help support the first claim the original poster made.

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> > And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
>> > detect the smell of gunsmoke.
>>
>> ".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
>>
>> Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.
>
> So Ben is willing to expand his empty claim to all five senses,
> lurkers, what could matter less?

My statement is accurate. You've not refuted it. Nor will you.

>> What a MORON he is!
>
> Not a moron enough to believe that sensed are heightened because
> you fire a gun, lurkers.

The statement was that *experience* does this. Puddy's lying again.

>> > And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
>> > have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,
>>
>> Yes... I can and I already did.
>
> Empty claims piled on top of empty claims, lurkers.

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> Those with experience will *naturally*
>> be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.
>
> And further empty claims, lurkers. And a circular argument, that
> assumes what hasn`t been shown.

You're lying again, Puddy.

And when you're forced to lie about the most common and everyday
experience that people have, you've demonstrated nothing other than
your inherent dishonest.

>> > or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone
>> > else, lurkers.
>>
>> Here we have Puddy desperately denying that "experience" means
>> anything.
>
> Is that the argument I made, lurkers? Why isn`t Ben addressing
> what I actually said?

This is, of course... your claim. That "experience" doesn't mean
anything when it comes to the ability to recognize what one has
experience with.

It's a silly argument, and quite clearly a lie.

>> Of course, this is natural - the Parkland doctors had a great deal of
>> experience with gunshot wounds... and Puddy hates *that* too!
>
> Again, Ben deceitfully misrepresents my position, lurkers. Mark
> Lane has taught him well.

Parkland doctors *DID* have quite a bit of experience with gunshot
wounds.

You just *HATE* that fact.

> Now let me state my true position once more, so that Ben can lie
> about it later. The Parkland doctors have ability to treat gunshot
> wounds. That is where their training is and their expertise lies. This
> does not confer upon them expertise in other fields outside of their
> area of expertise, like wound ballistics.

Anyone notice that once again, Puddles just RAN from the fact that the
Warren Commission *RECOGNIZED* their ability to tell entry from exit?

As long as it was on Connally, and not JFK... that is.

Puddles *STILL* refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Or answer it.

>> >> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
>> >> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.
>> >
>> > Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also
>> > avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that
>> > Chuck cited, lurkers.
>>
>> Not "circular" at all.
>
> I just showed how it was, lurkers. Ben`s argument assumes that
> what they smelled, or reported smelling was gunsmoke. That is the
> point of contention.

Puddles... are you capable of describing the phenomena known as
"experience?"

>> You just got through whining that I'd changed
>> the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
>> TOPIC.
>>
>> It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
>> with wouldn't convince their own mother.

Puddles had nothing to say...

>> >> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
>> >> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
>> >> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
>> >> > they like the sound of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> So you failed.
>> >
>> > I was successful...
>>
>> No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
>> on this topic.
>
> I was examining this posters ideas, lurkers, I don`t know why Ben
> insists on trying to misdirect to the WC.

Nope... it's not "misdirection."

I defend the evidence for conspiracy, **YOU** defend the Warren
Commission.

That you most often fail has nothing to do with me.

>> >> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
>> >
>> > Always the misdirection to the WC.
>>
>> It is, of course, what you rely on.
>
> Notice Ben doesn`t deny that he always misdirects to the WC, lurkers.

Why would I?

It's your bible.

It's the foundation of your belief.

Without the WCR, you have **NOTHING**.

>> Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
>> the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
>> document.

Anyone notice Pud's silence here?

>> >> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
>> >> corroborate each other.
>> >
>> > I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
>> > support of an idea, lurkers.
>>
>> No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.

Dead silence...

>> > Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?
>>
>>
>> Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
>> eyewitness testimony & statements.
>
> They bring up things, like this "gunsmoke" issue that they can go
> nowhere with. If they feel it is significant they should include it in
> the case they need to make. Never happen, lurkers.

Au contraire... we go quite a distance with it. We force believers
like you to lie about ordinary things such as "experience."

>> Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
>> a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.
>
> I was examining the ideas this poster advanced, lurkers.

Anyone notice that Puddles couldn't contradict me?

>> > I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
>> > information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.
>>
>> You can't define this ...
>
> I`m *doing* it, lurkers. I am showing the faults in their
> approaches.

By lying about "experience?"

You're not going to get anywhere by lying.

>> You hold yourself as the arbitor.
>
> *I`ve* already decided, lurkers.

Of course you have. But the sad fact is, you can't defend your
decision, nor support it.

>> That would be quite silly indeed to rely on a proven liar and coward
>> to judge the accuracy of the evidence.
>
> I am exposing the flawed approaches of conspiracy advocates. Ben
> doesn`t like his ideas scrutinized to see if they hold water, he wants
> them to be accepted without question. He can`t be bothered with
> showing he is right.

You're the one whining that experience doesn't mean anything... not I.

>> >>You simply make empty claims and run.
>> >
>> > I critiqued the posters ideas, lurkers.
>>
>> You failed.
>
> What did Ben just say about wanting to be arbiter, lurkers?

Oh, I'll be happy to let lurkers also note the same thing.

>> >> The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
>> >> Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.
>> >
>> > Lurkers can see this for the lie it is by just looking at the name
>> > of the forum.
>>
>>
>> The name of a forum doesn't determine who is lying, Puddy.
>
> It reveals who told this lie, lurkers...
>
> "The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
> Warren Commission."

Why would you label that a "lie?"

It's a perfectly true statement.

>> > I'm a retard.
>>
>>
>> And clearly unwilling to debate.
>>
>>
>> >> You lost.
>> >>
>> >> >> and would
>> >> >> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
>> >> >> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
>> >> >> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
>> >> >
>> >> > How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??
>> >>
>> >> Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
>> >> gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Puddy couldn't defend his wacky assertion?
>
> Have lurkers noticed that Ben calls for debate, yet the coward
> changes my words and misrepresents my positions?

What's the definition of "experience?"

Why are you lying about it?

>> >> >> The wind direction
>> >> >> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
>> >> >> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
>> >> >> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
>> >> >> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
>> >> >> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
>> >> >> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
>> >> >
>> >> > What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
>> >> > haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
>> >> > fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
>> >> > detect the smell of gunpowder.
>> >>
>> >> And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
>> >> established that red paint was used on the fire engine.
>> >
>> > What Ben is arguing here is that his assumption should be treated
>> > as fact, lurkers. It is a circular argument.
>>
>> It's a simple fact that there was gunfire in Dealey Plaza.
>
> From one of the buildings that surround the Plaza, lurkers.

Are you now trying to argue that this gunfire was **NOT** in Dealey
Plaza?

How silly of you!

>> It is therefore ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE that some would
>> smell gunsmoke.
>
> Do empty claims look better in all caps, lurkers? And the argument
> is still circular. It is only "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE"
> if they actually smelled gunpowder. If they didn`t, then it is
> "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" that they did.

Rather stupid calling the common and ordinary "circular."

But that's simply what happens when a moron gets desperate.

And cannot explain people smelling gunsmoke at a location where a
rifle has provably been fired.

>> There's no "circular reasoning" involved at all.
>
> Of course it is, lurkers.

So it's "circular reasoning" if I claim that people in the stadium of
the Indy 500 hear roaring engines?

It's "circular reasoning" if I assert it's entirely natural to hear
thunder in a thunderstorm?



This merely shows how desperate Puddy is getting...

>> >> But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.
>> >
>> > Ben see it as faulty reasoning to question whether the idea is
>> > viable, lurkers. He wants it it accepted as being viable without all
>> > the bother of showing it is.
>>
>>
>> Puddy goes to Indy, and is suprised to see cars actually going fast.
>
> Again, Ben wants his ideas accepted at face value without the
> bother of showing anything, lurkers.

Do cars go fast at Indy?

>> He goes to the racetrack, and is surprised to see jockeys on their
>> horses.
>>
>> He goes to a firing range, and is astounded to smell gunsmoke.
>>
>> This is the sort of stupid reasoning that Puddy thinks...
>
> Ben has to misrepresent my reasoning because he can`t address it,
> lurkers.

This is PRECISELY your reasoning.

>> No wonder he's a believer!
>
> A lot of bluff, bluster and empty declarations, lurkers. And Ben
> is still no closer to showing the idea is viable.

I can't prove *YOU* a human being... if you were the one it needed
proving to.

I'm doing quite fine with others who read these posts.

>> > I'm a tard.
>>
>>
>> You can't reason with someone who uses ad hominem to replace logical
>> argument & citations.
>

> I'm a retard.

>
>> >> It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present.
>> >
>> > And it has been shown where that was, lurkers.
>>
>> Indeed it was. The photo can be seen by anyone.
>> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/
>
> Again, Ben want to *declare* something without bothering to
> establish it is so, lurkers. He wants his empty claims treated as
> fact.

Anyone notice that Puddy ran like a scared cat from the photo I linked
to? Puddles has NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER for the smoke that is
clearly seen in the photo.

>> > See, Ben will see this as circular, but it isn`t because a person was
>> > seen firing from that location.
>>
>> Actually, he was *heard* from this location.
>
> Actually the shooter on the 6th floor was both heard and seen, lurkers.

One shooter who's seen and heard means that no other shooter is
possible. Let's examine that logic for just a moment:

A person is seen in the extant Z-film clapping... so clearly, by
Puddy's logic, there was no one else in Dealey Plaza.

Or perhaps no-one *heard* him clapping, so he didn't exist.

Who knows?

The only thing that can be said for sure is that Puddy will deny
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that doesn't fit with his faith.

Even if it's ordinary common sense.

>> > It isn`t a FACT that there was
>> > gunsmoke anywhere other than that location,
>>
>> That's true... at least as far as eyewitnesses and photos go. There
>> was certainly gunsmoke in the TSBD, but it wasn't witnessed,
>> photographed, or smelled.
>
> Another empty claim, lurkers. Ben can`t establish that what the
> witnesses who reported smelling gunsmoke did not smell the gunsmoke
> from the TSBD. He can merely give reasons why he doesn`t believe this
> could be so. But he doesn`t extend that to a knoll shooter, he
> *doesn`t* have to show it is possible, he need only declare it so.

Puddles is now demanding that I prove what there's no evidence for.

He won't cite any evidence... he can't.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

>> > which is how Ben`s
>> > argument becomes circular. He is using something that is unestablished
>>
>> The witnesses smelled it, the photo I cited shows it.
>
> Empty claims and circular arguments, lurkers.

So what is it that you can see circled in the photo?

>> That's fairly "established" for any honest man.
>>
>> > to confirm something that is unestablished, and each is used to
>> > confirm the other.
>>
>> Yes, the photo corroborates those who smelled gunsmoke. And visa
>> versa.
>
> Circular, one unestablished thing used to support another,
> lurkers.
>
> If the smoke is motorcycle exhaust it corroborates there were
> motorcycles there. If what they smelled was not gunsmoke that might
> corroborate the effect Chunk mentioned.

Empty claim.


Puddles isn't stupid enough to directly assert that the smoke seen in
the photos is from a motorcycle.

>> >> You think it strange and "not
>> >> established" that anyone would smell it.
>> >
>> > I think Ben has to show that it is a viable idea and not demand
>> > that his *declaration* that it is viable be given weight, lurkers.
>>
>> No, it's quite stupid indeed to have to "prove" that people can smell
>> gunsmoke when weapons are fired.
>
> Assumes what he is trying to show, lurkers.

I don't have to "assume" that people can smell gunsmoke when weapons
are fired.

This is simply a fact.

> And the argument is, of course misrepresented. The argument isn`t
> whether it is possible to smell things, it is whether under these
> conditions and circumstances the idea is viable.

Then it's up to you to show that it's not possible.

You won't... of course.

>> As David "Chester" Pein would say: it's common sense.
>
> Does Ben allow this approach, lurkers? Does he not question it when
> it is employed?

When it actually *IS* common sense... of course.

>> >> Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.
>> >
>> > My *belief* is that Ben hasn`t shown the idea to be viable,
>> > lurkers. And he won`t next post either.
>>
>> You couldn't convince your dog of such a silly notion.
>>
>> Your mother would laugh at you.
>
> Appeal to Canines and the Dead fallacy, lurkers.

Anyone notice that Puddles didn't say what his mother did when he
tried to convince her that you can't smell gunsmoke in the vicinity of
a rifle firing?

>> >> > First establish that such a thing is possible,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired?
>> >
>> > Is that what I`m asking, or is Ben being dishonest here, lurkers?
>>
>> Yes... that's what you're asking.
>
> See, Ben doesn`t even understand the argument, lurkers. The
> argument is questioning whether the idea is viable. It hasn`t been
> shown to be.

Puddles is whining that I won't "prove" that you can smell gunsmoke
when a rifle has been fired.

>> >> I think
>> >> **YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard.
>>
>> Not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.
>
> The argument I made that Ben was forced to run away from, lurkers...
>

> "I'm a retard.


Still not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.

>> >> You won't... of course. You know you're lying.
>>
>> I predicted it, folks!
>
> Ben cowardly cuts out the counter-argument and declares victory,
> lurkers.

Calling people names isn't a "counter-argument."

Most people learned that in grade school.

>> >> > then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
>> >> > rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
>> >> > you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
>> >> around guns knows this to be a fact.
>> >
>> > Well, that settles it, lurkers. Ben says so.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! Why don't you have the courage to post your ideas in a
>> weapons forum. Listen to the laughter of NRA members who smell
>> gunsmoke every time they go shooting.
>
> Lurkers can note that this has no resemblance to the actual
> argument I am making, lurkers. If Ben wants, let him take my actual
> argument to such a forum and gather responses. I`ve outlined it
> several times, but chances are he has no idea what it is.

What, no courage???

Of course...

>> If you can convince a poster in a gun forum that your theory is
>> viable, get back to me.
>
> Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.

It *IS* your burden to defend your claims.

>> >> There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
>> >> knows it well.
>> >
>> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
>>
>> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/
>>
>> Puddles will now claim that he's never seen this photo before.
>
> Did Ben establish what is seen as gunsmoke lurkers? Or smoke at
> all, for that matter.

I can show that photo to hundreds of people ... and 99.99 percent of
them will call it "smoke."

The other .01 percent will imagine something...

>> >> > You assume
>> >> > that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.
>> >>
>> >> No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
>> >> firearms can attest to.
>> >
>> > I'm a retard.
>>
>> Feel free to post your thoughts in a gun forum. Watch them laugh at
>> you.
>
> Ben now claims the firm support of unknown, unnamed people in gun
> forums, my dead mother and dogs everywhere, lurkers. What chance do I
> have against the forces Ben has arrayed against me in his mind?

Don't whine about it... post your theories in forums with experience.
Watch 'em laugh at you.

>> >> "Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
>> >> able to fire the shots because he did so.
>> >
>> > Assumes no other indications that he did so, lurkers. It is the
>> > other information that prevents it from being circular.
>>
>> Circular reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
>> able to outshoot vastly more qualified shooters.
>
> That isn`t circular reasoning, lurkers, it is apples and oranges.

Empty claim.

>> >> Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
>> >> that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
>> >> that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
>> >> blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.
>> >>
>> >> If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
>> >> the extant Z-film.
>> >>
>> >> That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.
>> >
>> > I didn`t use the wind in support of any ideas, lurkers.
>>
>> You responded to the post, critiquing what you thought was wrong, and
>> COMPLETELY MISSED the only real problem.
>
> Ben can make an issue about this with the other poster if he likes, lurkers.

I'm pointing out *YOUR* error.

>> > I accept there was a wind, it didn`t impact my critique of the
>> > original poster ideas.
>>
>> It was the only thing demonstrably wrong.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers. Let Ben demonstrate.

Don't need to. I'm not the one making an impossible claim.

>>You missed it.
>>
>>
>> > I'm a retard.
>> >
>> >
>> >> He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
>> >> gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
>> >> that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
>> >> right)
>> >
>> > Doesn`t Ben ideas assume the wind is going in the same direction
>> > as the limo, lurkers?
>>
>> As I've never stated, or even *implied* the direction of the wind,
>> you're simply lying again.
>
> That was my understanding of his convoluted thought, lurkers. I
> didn`t give much thought, or care, about it.

In other words, you simply lied. And now that it's been pointed out,
you can't defend that lie.

Or accept responsibility.

>> The proof that you're lying will be your complete inability to cite
>> anything I stated that would make an honest person think that.
>
> Lurkers are free to try to decipher Ben`s idea any way they see fit.

Again, a refusal to support the lie you told.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Notice that Puddles ran again?

[Bud]

Beb is using ad hominem to avoid addressing the points made, lurkers. This is how intellectual cowards argue.

> >> >> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
> >> >> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
> >> >
> >> > Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why would I repeat what has already been stated?
> >
> > "stated", not "shown", lurkers. This is why they are empty claims.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddles.

These guys just refuse to support the things they say, lurkers. They think their empty declarations should be given weight.

>
> >> What would stop you from lying about it again?
> >
> > Ben doesn`t like critical thinking applied to the ideas of
> > conspiracy advocates. Their ideas never fare well when this is done.
>
>
> Ad hominem can't replace citations & logical argument based on the
> evidence.

These guys have to support the things they say, lurkers. If they don`t support what they`ve said, they haven`t said anything.

>
>
> >> >> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> >> >> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> >> >> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
> >> >
> >> > Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.
> >>
> >> And Puddy lies again.
> >
> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claim, lurkers. these guys have
> > nothing to offer.
>
>
> Lies piled on top of lies.

Did you lurkers see anything offered in support of the ideas expressed?

> > Did lurkers see Ben support this declaration...
> >
> > "...people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> > accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
>
>
> Yep... an entirely accurate and credible statement.

An empty claim, lurkers.

>
> > He tried to support an empty claim with a further empty claim.
> > That doesn`t help support the first claim the original poster made.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

Beb is running when he should be supporting the original posters empty claim, lurkers.

>
>
> >> > And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
> >> > detect the smell of gunsmoke.
> >>
> >> ".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
> >>
> >> Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.
> >
> > So Ben is willing to expand his empty claim to all five senses,
> > lurkers, what could matter less?
>
>
> My statement is accurate. You've not refuted it. Nor will you.

Beb hasn`t supported it, lurkers. You don`t refute *nothing*.

> >> What a MORON he is!
> >
> > Not a moron enough to believe that sensed are heightened because
> > you fire a gun, lurkers.
>
>
> The statement was that *experience* does this. Puddy's lying again.

Empty claim either way, lurkers. And doesn`t speak to the phenomenon that Chuck cited.

>
> >> > And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
> >> > have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,
> >>
> >> Yes... I can and I already did.
> >
> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claims, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

Let Beb show (not just say) that the things he is bringing up negate the phenomenon that Chuck cited, lurkers. The claim that it "doesn`t work" is still an empty one, as nothing that has been offered shows in the least that it "doesn`t work". In fact everything offered as been a non sequitur to the idea expressed.

>
> >> Those with experience will *naturally*
> >> be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.
> >
> > And further empty claims, lurkers. And a circular argument, that
> > assumes what hasn`t been shown.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.
>
> And when you're forced to lie about the most common and everyday
> experience that people have, you've demonstrated nothing other than
> your inherent dishonest.

Beb wants his ideas accepted without question, lurkers. He can`t be bothered to support the things he says.

Does Beb understand that he can`t establish that they smelled gunpowder in Dealey Plaza just because they had smelled gunpowder before, lurkers?

Or that just because they smelled gunpowder before that somehow makes them immune to the phenomenon that Chuck cited?

> >> You just got through whining that I'd changed
> >> the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
> >> TOPIC.
> >>
> >> It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
> >> with wouldn't convince their own mother.
>
>
> Puddles had nothing to say...

I commented on this remark further down, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
> >> >> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
> >> >> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
> >> >> > they like the sound of.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So you failed.
> >> >
> >> > I was successful...
> >>
> >> No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
> >> on this topic.
> >
> > I was examining this posters ideas, lurkers, I don`t know why Ben
> > insists on trying to misdirect to the WC.
>
>
> Nope... it's not "misdirection."

That is exactly what it is, lurkers. The original poster posted information in support of ideas. Both Chuck and myself were looking at both the information and the ideas to see if they were valid. Beb thinks whatever he interjects into a discussion needs to be dealt with. He is wrong a lot.

> I defend the evidence for conspiracy, **YOU** defend the Warren
> Commission.

No, lurkers, I don`t accept the role that Beb assigns. This is a conspiracy forum. The retards post their ideas and rational people look at those ideas and see if they hold water. Cowards like Beb don`t like to post their ideas, they know they are stupid and they are ashamed of them.

> That you most often fail has nothing to do with me.
>
>
>
> >> >> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
> >> >
> >> > Always the misdirection to the WC.
> >>
> >> It is, of course, what you rely on.
> >
> > Notice Ben doesn`t deny that he always misdirects to the WC, lurkers.
>
>
> Why would I?
>
> It's your bible.
>
> It's the foundation of your belief.
>
> Without the WCR, you have **NOTHING**.

Three straight lies, lurkers, not a record for Beb but still not bad.

Would Beb say that until the publication of the 9-11 Commission Report he had no idea what happened in that event? That without that work he was stumped?

> >> Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
> >> the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
> >> document.
>
>
> Anyone notice Pud's silence here?

I point out the case when Beb lies and claims there is no case, lurkers.

Since this is a conspiracy forum it incumbent of Beb and his ilk to put a similar case on the table in favor of the conspiracy angle. If tards have the answers they represent themselves to have why aren`t I seeing them presented in a cohesive, comprehensive package explaining this event?

> >> >> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
> >> >> corroborate each other.
> >> >
> >> > I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
> >> > support of an idea, lurkers.
> >>
> >> No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.
>
>
> Dead silence...

Beb merely talked over the point I made, never addressing it, lurkers. We were exploring the original posters ideas. he used the gunsmoke witnesses in support of an idea, not me.

> >> > Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
> >> eyewitness testimony & statements.
> >
> > They bring up things, like this "gunsmoke" issue that they can go
> > nowhere with. If they feel it is significant they should include it in
> > the case they need to make. Never happen, lurkers.
>
>
> Au contraire... we go quite a distance with it.

Nowhere, lurkers. Like all their ideas this one is dead in the water.

> We force believers
> like you to lie about ordinary things such as "experience."

Let Ben show how this impacts teh phenomenon that Chuck cited, lurkers. Just bringing something up doesn`t mean anything if it pertain to the ideas being expressed.

> >> Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
> >> a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.
> >
> > I was examining the ideas this poster advanced, lurkers.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Puddles couldn't contradict me?

Anyone notice that Beb keeps trying to bait me away from the discussion we were having, lurkers? Notice how once Beb got involved it became less and less about the ideas that were being discussed? He wants to distract and muddy the water even more because he knows he can`t support the ideas the original poster was expressing.

> >> > I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
> >> > information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.
> >>
> >> You can't define this ...
> >
> > I`m *doing* it, lurkers. I am showing the faults in their
> > approaches.
>
>
> By lying about "experience?"

Let Beb show how it speaks to the issue being discussed, lurkers. Or more likely more meaningless declarations with nothing shown.

> You're not going to get anywhere by lying.
>
>
> >> You hold yourself as the arbitor.
> >
> > *I`ve* already decided, lurkers.
>
>
> Of course you have.

It is a fairly simple case, lurkers. A handful of the numerous indications of Oswald`s guilt is all any reasonably intelligent and rational person should need.

> But the sad fact is, you can't defend your
> decision, nor support it.

Why would I need to do either, lurkers? Where is it written that I have to justify the things I choose to believe to retards who show no ability to reason? I keep posting the .gif which *I* see as clearly showing Kennedy and Connally being hit with one bullet. What do I care if Beb or Boris accept what I plainly see? I think it shows their desperation to cling to some false narrative that their bias requires. That make it their problem, not mine.

> >> That would be quite silly indeed to rely on a proven liar and coward
> >> to judge the accuracy of the evidence.
> >
> > I am exposing the flawed approaches of conspiracy advocates. Ben
> > doesn`t like his ideas scrutinized to see if they hold water, he wants
> > them to be accepted without question. He can`t be bothered with
> > showing he is right.
>
>
> You're the one whining that experience doesn't mean anything... not I.

That is not an argument I made, lurkers.

>
> >> >>You simply make empty claims and run.
> >> >
> >> > I critiqued the posters ideas, lurkers.
> >>
> >> You failed.
> >
> > What did Ben just say about wanting to be arbiter, lurkers?
>
>
> Oh, I'll be happy to let lurkers also note the same thing.

Very big of Beb, isn`t it, lurkers?

>
>
> >> >> The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
> >> >> Warren Commission. YOU. Your failure is noticeable.
> >> >
> >> > Lurkers can see this for the lie it is by just looking at the name
> >> > of the forum.
> >>
> >>
> >> The name of a forum doesn't determine who is lying, Puddy.
> >
> > It reveals who told this lie, lurkers...
> >
> > "The onnus is on the Warren Commission, and those that support the
> > Warren Commission."
>
>
> Why would you label that a "lie?"

Because it is untrue and Beb knows it is untrue, lurkers. Anyone need only look at the name of the forum to determine the untruth of it.

> It's a perfectly true statement.

A complete and utter lie, lurkers. The name of the forum is not "Support the Warren Commission".

>
>
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >>
> >>
> >> And clearly unwilling to debate.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> You lost.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> and would
> >> >> >> readily know the real smell. Also, the wind was blowing from the west
> >> >> >> towards the TSBD from the underpass/grassy knoll direction, and smoke from
> >> >> >> the TSBD would not be able to travel into the wind.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How does that work for Smith, in the parking lot behind the knoll??
> >> >>
> >> >> Puddy's the sort of moron who thinks that the closer you are to
> >> >> gunfire, the less likely it is that you'll smell gunpowder.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >>
> >> Anyone notice that Puddy couldn't defend his wacky assertion?
> >
> > Have lurkers noticed that Ben calls for debate, yet the coward
> > changes my words and misrepresents my positions?
>
>
> What's the definition of "experience?"

Now he uses another cowardly tactic and tries to hijack the thread and make *this* the topic, lurkers.

> Why are you lying about it?

Notice Beb couldn`t contest that he was changing my words and misrepresenting my positions, lurkers?

>
> >> >> >> The wind direction
> >> >> >> could be established from objective sources such as the detailed weather
> >> >> >> records from nearby Love Field (reproduced in the HSCA 6 volumes) and the
> >> >> >> blowing of the flag on the Presidential limo as seen in photos and the
> >> >> >> Zapruder film. Didn't Mrs Kennedy also mention that as they turned the
> >> >> >> corner into Elm street, there was a strong breeze directly into their faces?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What you are claiming is that your pet theory is right, so all this physical
> >> >> >> evidence is no good because the witnesses must have imagined it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What you are arguing is that your pet idea is correct, while you
> >> >> > haven`t even established that it is a viable idea that if shots were
> >> >> > fired from the knoll under these conditions people would be able to
> >> >> > detect the smell of gunpowder.
> >> >>
> >> >> And the fire engine really isn't painted red, because you've not
> >> >> established that red paint was used on the fire engine.
> >> >
> >> > What Ben is arguing here is that his assumption should be treated
> >> > as fact, lurkers. It is a circular argument.
> >>
> >> It's a simple fact that there was gunfire in Dealey Plaza.
> >
> > From one of the buildings that surround the Plaza, lurkers.
>
>
> Are you now trying to argue that this gunfire was **NOT** in Dealey
> Plaza?

I`m being more specific, lurkers.

> How silly of you!
>
>
>
> >> It is therefore ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE that some would
> >> smell gunsmoke.
> >
> > Do empty claims look better in all caps, lurkers? And the argument
> > is still circular. It is only "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE"
> > if they actually smelled gunpowder. If they didn`t, then it is
> > "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" that they did.
>
>
> Rather stupid calling the common and ordinary "circular."

Rather stupid of Beb not to address the argument made, lurkers. The point of contention is whether they smelled gunpowder.

It is simple to determine it is circular, Lets say for the sake of argument that it was not gunpowder they smelled. In this case it could *never* be "ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE" that it was actually gunpowder that they smelled. Beb`s argument is circular, it assumes the point of contention.

> But that's simply what happens when a moron gets desperate.
>
> And cannot explain people smelling gunsmoke

Again Beb assumes the point of contention, lurkers.

>at a location where a
> rifle has provably been fired.

Which of course leads to the phenomenon that Chuck cited, lurkers.

And nothing has been offered that shows that it is even possible for them to have smelled gunpowder under the conditions as they existed.

>
> >> There's no "circular reasoning" involved at all.
> >
> > Of course it is, lurkers.
>
>
> So it's "circular reasoning" if I claim that people in the stadium of
> the Indy 500 hear roaring engines?

That would be a false equivalence fallacy, lurkers.

> It's "circular reasoning" if I assert it's entirely natural to hear
> thunder in a thunderstorm?

That would also be a false equivalence, lurkers.

> This merely shows how desperate Puddy is getting...

How does any of this speak to the ability of these witnesses to actually smell gunsmoke from a rifle fired on the knoll under the conditions they reported smelling gunsmoke, lurkers?

> >> >> But stupid reasoning like this can only be found among believers.
> >> >
> >> > Ben see it as faulty reasoning to question whether the idea is
> >> > viable, lurkers. He wants it it accepted as being viable without all
> >> > the bother of showing it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> Puddy goes to Indy, and is suprised to see cars actually going fast.
> >
> > Again, Ben wants his ideas accepted at face value without the
> > bother of showing anything, lurkers.
>
>
> Do cars go fast at Indy?

Has what to do with what, lurkers?

>
> >> He goes to the racetrack, and is surprised to see jockeys on their
> >> horses.
> >>
> >> He goes to a firing range, and is astounded to smell gunsmoke.
> >>
> >> This is the sort of stupid reasoning that Puddy thinks...
> >
> > Ben has to misrepresent my reasoning because he can`t address it,
> > lurkers.
>
>
> This is PRECISELY your reasoning.

Beb loves to lie, lurkers.

> >> No wonder he's a believer!
> >
> > A lot of bluff, bluster and empty declarations, lurkers. And Ben
> > is still no closer to showing the idea is viable.
>
> I can't prove *YOU* a human being... if you were the one it needed
> proving to.
>
> I'm doing quite fine with others who read these posts.

How so, lurkers? Have you seen Beb post the location of these witnesses in relation to the knoll, what they said, the timing of when they were in Dealey, and of the things that need to be looked at to see whether the idea is viable? No attempt was made to firm it up, no information was given to weigh, only the repeating of the claim without supporting it.

> >> > I'm a tard.
> >>
> >>
> >> You can't reason with someone who uses ad hominem to replace logical
> >> argument & citations.
> >
> > I'm a retard.
> >
> >> >> It's a FACT that gunsmoke was present.
> >> >
> >> > And it has been shown where that was, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Indeed it was. The photo can be seen by anyone.
> >> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/
> >
> > Again, Ben want to *declare* something without bothering to
> > establish it is so, lurkers. He wants his empty claims treated as
> > fact.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Puddy ran like a scared cat from the photo I linked
> to?

I did address the claim made about the photo, It was an empty one, lurkers.

> Puddles has NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER for the smoke that is
> clearly seen in the photo.

Another circular argument, lurkers.

>
>
> >> > See, Ben will see this as circular, but it isn`t because a person was
> >> > seen firing from that location.
> >>
> >> Actually, he was *heard* from this location.
> >
> > Actually the shooter on the 6th floor was both heard and seen, lurkers.
>
>
> One shooter who's seen and heard means that no other shooter is
> possible. Let's examine that logic for just a moment:
>
> A person is seen in the extant Z-film clapping... so clearly, by
> Puddy's logic, there was no one else in Dealey Plaza.
>
> Or perhaps no-one *heard* him clapping, so he didn't exist.
>
> Who knows?

If Beb doesn`t know perhaps he should ask and I will tell him, lurkers. Seeing a shooter is really the only way to determine the location of a shooter under these conditions, sound is invisible and reflects off of surfaces, and it is undetermined just how well people can locate the source of sound they don`t see the cause of under even optimum conditions.

A witness who only hears the shots can only tell you where they *think* the shots came from. A person who sees a shooter can tell you where a shooter *was*.

> The only thing that can be said for sure is that Puddy will deny
> ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that doesn't fit with his faith.

Ben wants his ideas taken on faith, lurkers. He wants to treat things as fact that he can`t show to be fact.

> Even if it's ordinary common sense.
>
>
> >> > It isn`t a FACT that there was
> >> > gunsmoke anywhere other than that location,
> >>
> >> That's true... at least as far as eyewitnesses and photos go. There
> >> was certainly gunsmoke in the TSBD, but it wasn't witnessed,
> >> photographed, or smelled.
> >
> > Another empty claim, lurkers. Ben can`t establish that what the
> > witnesses who reported smelling gunsmoke did not smell the gunsmoke
> > from the TSBD. He can merely give reasons why he doesn`t believe this
> > could be so. But he doesn`t extend that to a knoll shooter, he
> > *doesn`t* have to show it is possible, he need only declare it so.
>
>
> Puddles is now demanding that I prove what there's no evidence for.

So Beb can`t make an argument that what the witnesses reporting smelling was not gunsmoke from the TSBD, lurkers.

> He won't cite any evidence... he can't.
>
> IT DOESN'T EXIST.
>
>
> >> > which is how Ben`s
> >> > argument becomes circular. He is using something that is unestablished
> >>
> >> The witnesses smelled it, the photo I cited shows it.
> >
> > Empty claims and circular arguments, lurkers.
>
>
> So what is it that you can see circled in the photo?

How would I know, lurkers? I can`t imagine ever looking at that photo and saying "Hey, look at the smoke". The caption says it is a grainy reproduction of an original photo, that might be a clue.

> >> That's fairly "established" for any honest man.
> >>
> >> > to confirm something that is unestablished, and each is used to
> >> > confirm the other.
> >>
> >> Yes, the photo corroborates those who smelled gunsmoke. And visa
> >> versa.
> >
> > Circular, one unestablished thing used to support another,
> > lurkers.
> >
> > If the smoke is motorcycle exhaust it corroborates there were
> > motorcycles there. If what they smelled was not gunsmoke that might
> > corroborate the effect Chunk mentioned.
>
>
> Empty claim.

I made no claim, lurkers.

> Puddles isn't stupid enough to directly assert that the smoke seen in
> the photos is from a motorcycle.

Beb isn`t stupid enough to assert it is gunsmoke, lurkers. Or is he?

>
> >> >> You think it strange and "not
> >> >> established" that anyone would smell it.
> >> >
> >> > I think Ben has to show that it is a viable idea and not demand
> >> > that his *declaration* that it is viable be given weight, lurkers.
> >>
> >> No, it's quite stupid indeed to have to "prove" that people can smell
> >> gunsmoke when weapons are fired.
> >
> > Assumes what he is trying to show, lurkers.
>
>
> I don't have to "assume" that people can smell gunsmoke when weapons
> are fired.
>
> This is simply a fact.

Has Beb shown it possible under these conditions, lurkers?

> > And the argument is, of course misrepresented. The argument isn`t
> > whether it is possible to smell things, it is whether under these
> > conditions and circumstances the idea is viable.
>
>
> Then it's up to you to show that it's not possible.

BUZZZZ! Shifting the burden, lurkers.

>
> You won't... of course.
>
>
> >> As David "Chester" Pein would say: it's common sense.
> >
> > Does Ben allow this approach, lurkers? Does he not question it when
> > it is employed?
>
>
> When it actually *IS* common sense... of course.

With Ben as the arbiter, lurkers. Not buying it.

> >> >> Your belief is contradicted by the facts and the eyewitness testimony.
> >> >
> >> > My *belief* is that Ben hasn`t shown the idea to be viable,
> >> > lurkers. And he won`t next post either.
> >>
> >> You couldn't convince your dog of such a silly notion.
> >>
> >> Your mother would laugh at you.
> >
> > Appeal to Canines and the Dead fallacy, lurkers.
>
>
> Anyone notice that Puddles didn't say what his mother did when he
> tried to convince her that you can't smell gunsmoke in the vicinity of
> a rifle firing?

Anyone notice that my cleverness was wasted on Ben once more, lurkers?

>
>
> >> >> > First establish that such a thing is possible,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> That people could smell gunsmoke from weapons being fired?
> >> >
> >> > Is that what I`m asking, or is Ben being dishonest here, lurkers?
> >>
> >> Yes... that's what you're asking.
> >
> > See, Ben doesn`t even understand the argument, lurkers. The
> > argument is questioning whether the idea is viable. It hasn`t been
> > shown to be.
>
>
> Puddles is whining that I won't "prove" that you can smell gunsmoke
> when a rifle has been fired.

Beb should put that strawman to bed, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> I think
> >> >> **YOU** need to cite for it's improbability.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >>
> >> Not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.
> >
> > The argument I made that Ben was forced to run away from, lurkers...
> >
> > "I'm a retard.
>
>
> Still not an excuse for your inability to support your argument.

<snicker> I`ll put the argument that Ben ran from back in to force his to run again, lurkers...

"Always with the shifting of the burden, lurkers. For all I care it can stay unknown whether they actually smelled gunsmoke or not. Or retards can assume it was gunsmoke for all I care. But if they only want to pretend that it is established fact I need only point out why it isn`t established fact, with no obligation on my part to establish the contrary (which is a negative anyway, I can`t prove that anyone isn`t smelling gunpowder at *any* time)."

> >> >> You won't... of course. You know you're lying.
> >>
> >> I predicted it, folks!
> >
> > Ben cowardly cuts out the counter-argument and declares victory,
> > lurkers.
>
>
> Calling people names isn't a "counter-argument."

There was an argument there that Beb ran from, lurkers. I certainly don`t care if I hurt Beb`s tender feelings when I made the argument.

> Most people learned that in grade school.
>
>
> >> >> > then go from there. These are people, not bloodhounds, do
> >> >> > rifles actually emit such a smell that will stay intact in this wind
> >> >> > you mention and carry for a distance and be detectable?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. Absolutely. Quite a common experience, and anyone who's ever been
> >> >> around guns knows this to be a fact.
> >> >
> >> > Well, that settles it, lurkers. Ben says so.
> >>
> >> ROTFLMAO!!! Why don't you have the courage to post your ideas in a
> >> weapons forum. Listen to the laughter of NRA members who smell
> >> gunsmoke every time they go shooting.
> >
> > Lurkers can note that this has no resemblance to the actual
> > argument I am making, lurkers. If Ben wants, let him take my actual
> > argument to such a forum and gather responses. I`ve outlined it
> > several times, but chances are he has no idea what it is.
>
>
> What, no courage???

No shifting of the burden, lurkers. If Ben wants to support the ideas expressed by the original poster I sure would like to see him start.

> Of course...
>
>
> >> If you can convince a poster in a gun forum that your theory is
> >> viable, get back to me.
> >
> > Again with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.
>
>
> It *IS* your burden to defend your claims.

I`m examining the ideas expressed by the original poster, lurkers.

>
> >> >> There's even a photo of this gunsmoke from the Grassy Knoll. Puddles
> >> >> knows it well.
> >> >
> >> > Ben loves to lie, lurkers.
> >>
> >> https://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/11/americas-big-lie-fifty-years-of-the-cover-up-of-the-john-f-kennedy-assassination/
> >>
> >> Puddles will now claim that he's never seen this photo before.
> >
> > Did Ben establish what is seen as gunsmoke lurkers? Or smoke at
> > all, for that matter.
>
>
> I can show that photo to hundreds of people ... and 99.99 percent of
> them will call it "smoke."

Appeal to Retard Imagination fallacy, lurkers.

> The other .01 percent will imagine something...

>
>
> >> >> > You assume
> >> >> > that it must because the people smelled it, which is circular.
> >> >>
> >> >> No stupid... this is ordinary experience that anyone who's been around
> >> >> firearms can attest to.
> >> >
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >>
> >> Feel free to post your thoughts in a gun forum. Watch them laugh at
> >> you.
> >
> > Ben now claims the firm support of unknown, unnamed people in gun
> > forums, my dead mother and dogs everywhere, lurkers. What chance do I
> > have against the forces Ben has arrayed against me in his mind?
>
>
> Don't whine about it... post your theories in forums with experience.

It is the ideas of the original poster that I am exploring, lurkers. I wondering if Beb intends to offer anything in support of those ideas.

> Watch 'em laugh at you.
>
>
>
> >> >> "Circular" reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
> >> >> able to fire the shots because he did so.
> >> >
> >> > Assumes no other indications that he did so, lurkers. It is the
> >> > other information that prevents it from being circular.
> >>
> >> Circular reasoning is that Oswald was a good enough marksman to be
> >> able to outshoot vastly more qualified shooters.
> >
> > That isn`t circular reasoning, lurkers, it is apples and oranges.
>
>
> Empty claim.

It was an empty claim that it was circular reasoning, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Amusingly, you didn't catch the only *real* mistake that Mike made -
> >> >> that of the limo flags being capable of showing the wind direction -
> >> >> that would only have been possible if the wind was consistent and
> >> >> blowing HARDER than the speed of the limo.
> >> >>
> >> >> If there was no wind at all, the limo flags would look as they did in
> >> >> the extant Z-film.
> >> >>
> >> >> That Puddles missed this is an example of his poor reasoning skills.
> >> >
> >> > I didn`t use the wind in support of any ideas, lurkers.
> >>
> >> You responded to the post, critiquing what you thought was wrong, and
> >> COMPLETELY MISSED the only real problem.
> >
> > Ben can make an issue about this with the other poster if he likes, lurkers.
>
>
> I'm pointing out *YOUR* error.

I made no error, lurkers. I was examining the ideas the other poster presented. Beb tried to make it about some convoluted ideas he has about teh flags on the limo or some such nonsense.

>
> >> > I accept there was a wind, it didn`t impact my critique of the
> >> > original poster ideas.
> >>
> >> It was the only thing demonstrably wrong.
> >
> > Empty claim, lurkers. Let Ben demonstrate.
>
>
> Don't need to.

Beb calls it "demonstrably wrong" but refuses to demonstrate, lurkers. This is how it becomes an empty claim.

> I'm not the one making an impossible claim.
>
>
>
> >>You missed it.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'm a retard.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> He focuses on trying to claim that people couldn't have smelled
> >> >> gunsmoke, despite common experience, and misses the only real mistake
> >> >> that Mike made. (And in a strong wind, and a slower limo, he'd be
> >> >> right)
> >> >
> >> > Doesn`t Ben ideas assume the wind is going in the same direction
> >> > as the limo, lurkers?
> >>
> >> As I've never stated, or even *implied* the direction of the wind,
> >> you're simply lying again.
> >
> > That was my understanding of his convoluted thought, lurkers. I
> > didn`t give much thought, or care, about it.
>
>
> In other words,

No other words needed, lurkers. Ben expressed some convoluted idea that I didn`t care about, so I didn`t follow it closely. I`m still not sure what the idea is, nor do I care. If I cared I would have challenged Beb to support the claims he was making, but I just didn`t care.

> you simply lied. And now that it's been pointed out,
> you can't defend that lie.
>
> Or accept responsibility.

Let Beb quote the lie, lurkers.

> >> The proof that you're lying will be your complete inability to cite
> >> anything I stated that would make an honest person think that.
> >
> > Lurkers are free to try to decipher Ben`s idea any way they see fit.
>
>
> Again, a refusal to support the lie you told.

Let Beb quote the lie, lurkers. And when he realizes there is a question mark at the end he`ll explain how it can be a lie.

[Bud]

Lurkers know that it is the person that is forced to remove another posters content that is the coward. Here it is again...

"Let these retards use "cross-triangulation ambush" in the case they need to make, lurkers. Never happen."

The retards have all these disjointed ideas like "cross-triangulation" but they can`t seem to put them together in a cohesive package and present them. A jigsaw puzzle of a thousand pieces, where no two can be put together.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

If you can't make an argument without addressing your mental problems,
then there's nothing to address.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:56:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Actually, *YOU* are using this to avoid supporting your empty claim.

>> >> >> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
>> >> >> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
>> >> >
>> >> > Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Why would I repeat what has already been stated?
>> >
>> > "stated", not "shown", lurkers. This is why they are empty claims.
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddles.
>
> These guys just refuse to support the things they say, lurkers.
> They think their empty declarations should be given weight.

You make an empty claim, then whine that *I'm* not supporting it.

Your claim, your burden. Carry your burden.

>> >> What would stop you from lying about it again?
>> >
>> > Ben doesn`t like critical thinking applied to the ideas of
>> > conspiracy advocates. Their ideas never fare well when this is done.
>>
>> Ad hominem can't replace citations & logical argument based on the
>> evidence.
>
> These guys have to support the things they say, lurkers. If they
> don`t support what they`ve said, they haven`t said anything.

So you believe that ad hominem *CAN* replace citations and logical
argument based on evidence???

Defend your claim.

>> >> >> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
>> >> >> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
>> >> >> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.
>> >>
>> >> And Puddy lies again.
>> >
>> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claim, lurkers. these guys have
>> > nothing to offer.
>>
>> Lies piled on top of lies.
>
> Did you lurkers see anything offered in support of the ideas
> expressed?

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> > Did lurkers see Ben support this declaration...
>> >
>> > "...people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
>> > accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
>>
>> Yep... an entirely accurate and credible statement.
>
> An empty claim, lurkers.

Can you define "experience," Puddy?

You clearly don't understand what it means.

>> > He tried to support an empty claim with a further empty claim.
>> > That doesn`t help support the first claim the original poster made.
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddy.
>
> Beb is running when he should be supporting the original posters
> empty claim, lurkers.

You can lie, Puddy, you can run ... but you can't hide in an open
forum.

>> >> > And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
>> >> > detect the smell of gunsmoke.
>> >>
>> >> ".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
>> >>
>> >> Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.
>> >
>> > So Ben is willing to expand his empty claim to all five senses,
>> > lurkers, what could matter less?
>>
>> My statement is accurate. You've not refuted it. Nor will you.
>
> Beb hasn`t supported it, lurkers. You don`t refute *nothing*.

Puddy even refuses to deny it's truth.

So no need to defend what Puddy accepts.

>> >> What a MORON he is!
>> >
>> > Not a moron enough to believe that sensed are heightened because
>> > you fire a gun, lurkers.
>>
>> The statement was that *experience* does this. Puddy's lying again.
>
> Empty claim either way, lurkers. And doesn`t speak to the
> phenomenon that Chuck cited.

Lied, didn't you?

>> >> > And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
>> >> > have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,
>> >>
>> >> Yes... I can and I already did.
>> >
>> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claims, lurkers.
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddy.
>

> Let Beb show (not just say) ...

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> >> Those with experience will *naturally*
>> >> be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.
>> >
>> > And further empty claims, lurkers. And a circular argument, that
>> > assumes what hasn`t been shown.
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddy.
>>
>> And when you're forced to lie about the most common and everyday
>> experience that people have, you've demonstrated nothing other than
>> your inherent dishonest.
>
> Beb wants his ideas accepted without question, lurkers. He can`t
> be bothered to support the things he says.

Au contraire... it's *YOU* that thinks that there's no such thing as
"experience" - or know what benefits it brings.

Indeed, you *KNOW* you're lying...

>> >> > or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone
>> >> > else, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Here we have Puddy desperately denying that "experience" means
>> >> anything.
>> >
>> > Is that the argument I made, lurkers? Why isn`t Ben addressing
>> > what I actually said?
>>
>> This is, of course... your claim. That "experience" doesn't mean
>> anything when it comes to the ability to recognize what one has
>> experience with.
>>
>> It's a silly argument, and quite clearly a lie.

Puddy fell silent...

>> >> Of course, this is natural - the Parkland doctors had a great deal of
>> >> experience with gunshot wounds... and Puddy hates *that* too!
>> >
>> > Again, Ben deceitfully misrepresents my position, lurkers. Mark
>> > Lane has taught him well.
>>
>> Parkland doctors *DID* have quite a bit of experience with gunshot
>> wounds.
>>
>> You just *HATE* that fact.

Puddy stays silent again...

>> > Now let me state my true position once more, so that Ben can lie
>> > about it later. The Parkland doctors have ability to treat gunshot
>> > wounds. That is where their training is and their expertise lies. This
>> > does not confer upon them expertise in other fields outside of their
>> > area of expertise, like wound ballistics.
>>
>>
>> Anyone notice that once again, Puddles just RAN from the fact that the
>> Warren Commission *RECOGNIZED* their ability to tell entry from exit?
>>
>> As long as it was on Connally, and not JFK... that is.
>>
>> Puddles *STILL* refuses to acknowledge this fact.
>>
>> Or answer it.

Puddy just HATES the truth.

>> >> >> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
>> >> >> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.
>> >> >
>> >> > Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also
>> >> > avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that
>> >> > Chuck cited, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> Not "circular" at all.
>> >
>> > I just showed how it was, lurkers. Ben`s argument assumes that
>> > what they smelled, or reported smelling was gunsmoke. That is the
>> > point of contention.
>>
>> Puddles... are you capable of describing the phenomena known as
>> "experience?"
>
> Does Beb understand that he can`t establish that they smelled
> gunpowder in Dealey Plaza just because they had smelled gunpowder
> before, lurkers?
>
> Or that just because they smelled gunpowder before that somehow
> makes them immune to the phenomenon that Chuck cited?

The U.S. justice system recognizes this fact. Showing that a witness
had experience with what he's testifying about makes the witness far
more credible.

This is simply a fact.

>> >> You just got through whining that I'd changed
>> >> the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
>> >> TOPIC.
>> >>
>> >> It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
>> >> with wouldn't convince their own mother.
>>
>> Puddles had nothing to say...
>
> I commented on this remark further down, lurkers.

Puddles ran again.

>> >> >> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
>> >> >> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
>> >> >> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
>> >> >> > they like the sound of.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you failed.
>> >> >
>> >> > I was successful...
>> >>
>> >> No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
>> >> on this topic.
>> >
>> > I was examining this posters ideas, lurkers, I don`t know why Ben
>> > insists on trying to misdirect to the WC.
>>
>> Nope... it's not "misdirection."
>
> That is exactly what it is, lurkers. The original poster posted
> information in support of ideas. Both Chuck and myself were looking at
> both the information and the ideas to see if they were valid. Beb
> thinks whatever he interjects into a discussion needs to be dealt
> with. He is wrong a lot.

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> I defend the evidence for conspiracy, **YOU** defend the Warren
>> Commission.
>

> No, lurkers, I'm a retard.

>
>> That you most often fail has nothing to do with me.
>>
>> >> >> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
>> >> >
>> >> > Always the misdirection to the WC.
>> >>
>> >> It is, of course, what you rely on.
>> >
>> > Notice Ben doesn`t deny that he always misdirects to the WC, lurkers.
>>
>> Why would I?
>>
>> It's your bible.
>>
>> It's the foundation of your belief.
>>
>> Without the WCR, you have **NOTHING**.
>
> Three straight lies, lurkers, not a record for Beb but still not bad.

Tell us, without any reference to the WCR or it's volumes, just what
happened on 11/22/63. Be sure to cite for it.

But you won't... thus proving yourself a liar.

>> >> Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
>> >> the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
>> >> document.
>>
>> Anyone notice Pud's silence here?
>
> I point out the case when Beb lies and claims there is no case, lurkers.

You're lying again, Puddles.

> I'm a tard.

>
>> >> >> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
>> >> >> corroborate each other.
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
>> >> > support of an idea, lurkers.
>> >>
>> >> No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.
>>
>> Dead silence...
>

> Beb merely...


You ran.

>> >> > Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?
>> >>
>> >> Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
>> >> eyewitness testimony & statements.
>> >
>> > They bring up things, like this "gunsmoke" issue that they can go
>> > nowhere with. If they feel it is significant they should include it in
>> > the case they need to make. Never happen, lurkers.
>>
>> Au contraire... we go quite a distance with it.
>
> Nowhere, lurkers. Like all their ideas this one is dead in the water.

And yet, you lie and run from what I post.

>> We force believers
>> like you to lie about ordinary things such as "experience."
>

> Let Ben show...


Tut tut tut, Puddles... what's the definition of "experience?"

>> >> Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
>> >> a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.
>> >
>> > I was examining the ideas this poster advanced, lurkers.
>>
>> Anyone notice that Puddles couldn't contradict me?
>

> Anyone notice...


That Puddles couldn't contradict me?

>> >> > I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
>> >> > information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.
>> >>
>> >> You can't define this ...
>> >
>> > I`m *doing* it, lurkers. I am showing the faults in their
>> > approaches.
>>
>> By lying about "experience?"
>

> Let Beb show ...

What's the definition of "experience?"

>> You're not going to get anywhere by lying.
>>
>> >> You hold yourself as the arbitor.
>> >
>> > *I`ve* already decided, lurkers.
>>
>> Of course you have.
>
> It is a fairly simple case, lurkers. A handful of the numerous
> indications of Oswald`s guilt is all any reasonably intelligent and
> rational person should need.

If this were true, you'd be shouting repeatedly what these
"indications" are, and how they solve the case.

Yet instead, you whine.

[Bud]

I was examining the ideas of the other poster, lurkers.

> >> >> >> So it's *NOT* an "empty claim" at all. Why bother lying so blatantly,
> >> >> >> Puddles? You know people are only going to point it out.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Lets see what support Ben has to offer, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would I repeat what has already been stated?
> >> >
> >> > "stated", not "shown", lurkers. This is why they are empty claims.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Puddles.
> >
> > These guys just refuse to support the things they say, lurkers.
> > They think their empty declarations should be given weight.
>
>
> You make an empty claim, then whine that *I'm* not supporting it.
>
> Your claim, your burden. Carry your burden.

I was examining the ideas of the other poster, lurkers.

> >> >> What would stop you from lying about it again?
> >> >
> >> > Ben doesn`t like critical thinking applied to the ideas of
> >> > conspiracy advocates. Their ideas never fare well when this is done.
> >>
> >> Ad hominem can't replace citations & logical argument based on the
> >> evidence.
> >
> > These guys have to support the things they say, lurkers. If they
> > don`t support what they`ve said, they haven`t said anything.
>
>
> So you believe that ad hominem *CAN* replace citations and logical
> argument based on evidence???
>
> Defend your claim.

I was examining the ideas of the other poster, lurkers. I have been supporting my claim that his ideas doesn`t work by making successful counter arguments.

> >> >> >> >> Many of those who testified about smelling gunsmoke were
> >> >> >> >> in the motorcade and were familiar with firearms (many Texans...)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The effect Chuck referenced doesn`t apply to Texans?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No stupid... people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> >> >> >> accurate senses in regard to gunfire.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ben supports the empty claim with a further empty claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> And Puddy lies again.
> >> >
> >> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claim, lurkers. these guys have
> >> > nothing to offer.
> >>
> >> Lies piled on top of lies.
> >
> > Did you lurkers see anything offered in support of the ideas
> > expressed?
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

Beb couldn`t either, lurkers.

>
> >> > Did lurkers see Ben support this declaration...
> >> >
> >> > "...people who are EXPERIENCED with gunfire will have more
> >> > accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
> >>
> >> Yep... an entirely accurate and credible statement.
> >
> > An empty claim, lurkers.
>
>
> Can you define "experience," Puddy?
>
> You clearly don't understand what it means.

Let Beb show how the definition of "experience" decides the issue in his favor, lurkers.

>
>
>
> >> > He tried to support an empty claim with a further empty claim.
> >> > That doesn`t help support the first claim the original poster made.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Puddy.
> >
> > Beb is running when he should be supporting the original posters
> > empty claim, lurkers.
>
>
> You can lie, Puddy, you can run ... but you can't hide in an open
> forum.

Still no support for the original posters claim, lurkers. Beb stepped in to support this guy, but he hasn`t offered anything in support of his claims.

> >> >> > And changes the argument, it wasn`t "gunfire", it was the ability to
> >> >> > detect the smell of gunsmoke.
> >> >>
> >> >> ".. will have more accurate senses in regard to gunfire."
> >> >>
> >> >> Puddy doesn't believe "smell" is a sense.
> >> >
> >> > So Ben is willing to expand his empty claim to all five senses,
> >> > lurkers, what could matter less?
> >>
> >> My statement is accurate. You've not refuted it. Nor will you.
> >
> > Beb hasn`t supported it, lurkers. You don`t refute *nothing*.
>
>
> Puddy even refuses to deny it's truth.

I don`t need to do anything but point out it is an empty claim, lurkers. No support will be forthcoming from Beb.

> So no need to defend what Puddy accepts.
>
>
> >> >> What a MORON he is!
> >> >
> >> > Not a moron enough to believe that sensed are heightened because
> >> > you fire a gun, lurkers.
> >>
> >> The statement was that *experience* does this. Puddy's lying again.
> >
> > Empty claim either way, lurkers. And doesn`t speak to the
> > phenomenon that Chuck cited.
>
>
> Lied, didn't you?

I correctly characterized it as an empty claim, lurkers. Let Beb show how experience impacts the phenomenon Chuck cited.

> >> >> > And Ben can`t show that these witnesses
> >> >> > have a superior ability to do this than anyone else,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes... I can and I already did.
> >> >
> >> > Empty claims piled on top of empty claims, lurkers.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Puddy.
> >
> > Let Beb show (not just say) ...
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

Lurkers know I am winning when Beb is forced to cut and run.

>
> >> >> Those with experience will *naturally*
> >> >> be more quick to recognize what they've previously experienced.
> >> >
> >> > And further empty claims, lurkers. And a circular argument, that
> >> > assumes what hasn`t been shown.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Puddy.
> >>
> >> And when you're forced to lie about the most common and everyday
> >> experience that people have, you've demonstrated nothing other than
> >> your inherent dishonest.
> >
> > Beb wants his ideas accepted without question, lurkers. He can`t
> > be bothered to support the things he says.
>
> Au contraire... it's *YOU* that thinks that there's no such thing as
> "experience" - or know what benefits it brings.

Beb thinks that saying a word somehow wins the point in his favor, lurkers. He can`t be troubled in showing how it does.

> Indeed, you *KNOW* you're lying...
>
>
> >> >> > or can`t be effected by the phenomenom that Chuck cited like anyone
> >> >> > else, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here we have Puddy desperately denying that "experience" means
> >> >> anything.
> >> >
> >> > Is that the argument I made, lurkers? Why isn`t Ben addressing
> >> > what I actually said?
> >>
> >> This is, of course... your claim. That "experience" doesn't mean
> >> anything when it comes to the ability to recognize what one has
> >> experience with.
> >>
> >> It's a silly argument, and quite clearly a lie.
>
>
> Puddy fell silent...

Strawman argument, lurkers, why should I comment on an argument I never made?

> >> >> Of course, this is natural - the Parkland doctors had a great deal of
> >> >> experience with gunshot wounds... and Puddy hates *that* too!
> >> >
> >> > Again, Ben deceitfully misrepresents my position, lurkers. Mark
> >> > Lane has taught him well.
> >>
> >> Parkland doctors *DID* have quite a bit of experience with gunshot
> >> wounds.
> >>
> >> You just *HATE* that fact.
>
>
> Puddy stays silent again...

Why repeat myself, lurkers?

> >> > Now let me state my true position once more, so that Ben can lie
> >> > about it later. The Parkland doctors have ability to treat gunshot
> >> > wounds. That is where their training is and their expertise lies. This
> >> > does not confer upon them expertise in other fields outside of their
> >> > area of expertise, like wound ballistics.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone notice that once again, Puddles just RAN from the fact that the
> >> Warren Commission *RECOGNIZED* their ability to tell entry from exit?
> >>
> >> As long as it was on Connally, and not JFK... that is.
> >>
> >> Puddles *STILL* refuses to acknowledge this fact.
> >>
> >> Or answer it.
>
>
> Puddy just HATES the truth.

Beb failed to establish how one thing spoke to the other, lurkers, nor did he show any understanding of the differences even after I explained them to him.

> >> >> >> They will *recognize* the smell of gunsmoke far quicker than people
> >> >> >> who don't have everyday experience with firearms.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Circular argument, assumes there was gunsmoke to smell. Also
> >> >> > avoids addressing whether they are less prone to the phenomenon that
> >> >> > Chuck cited, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not "circular" at all.
> >> >
> >> > I just showed how it was, lurkers. Ben`s argument assumes that
> >> > what they smelled, or reported smelling was gunsmoke. That is the
> >> > point of contention.
> >>
> >> Puddles... are you capable of describing the phenomena known as
> >> "experience?"
> >
> > Does Beb understand that he can`t establish that they smelled
> > gunpowder in Dealey Plaza just because they had smelled gunpowder
> > before, lurkers?
> >
> > Or that just because they smelled gunpowder before that somehow
> > makes them immune to the phenomenon that Chuck cited?
>
>
> The U.S. justice system recognizes this fact. Showing that a witness
> had experience with what he's testifying about makes the witness far
> more credible.
>
>
> This is simply a fact.

In the form of an empty claim, lurkers.

How does smelling gunpower speak to that person`s ability or lack thereof to distinguish it from other smells, or the possibility of imagining it when it doesn`t exist?

>
> >> >> You just got through whining that I'd changed
> >> >> the topic, now you're whining because I SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THE
> >> >> TOPIC.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's pretty sad when the only arguments that believers can come up
> >> >> with wouldn't convince their own mother.
> >>
> >> Puddles had nothing to say...
> >
> > I commented on this remark further down, lurkers.
>
>
> Puddles ran again.

No use being redundant, lurkers.

> >> >> >> > And the correct way to examine this is to quote all the witnesses
> >> >> >> > who mention smelling gunsmoke and see if they actually corroborate one
> >> >> >> > another. Conspiracy advocates never critically examine information
> >> >> >> > they like the sound of.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So you failed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I was successful...
> >> >>
> >> >> No Puddy, you failed. Your bible fails to mention *ANY* investigation
> >> >> on this topic.
> >> >
> >> > I was examining this posters ideas, lurkers, I don`t know why Ben
> >> > insists on trying to misdirect to the WC.
> >>
> >> Nope... it's not "misdirection."
> >
> > That is exactly what it is, lurkers. The original poster posted
> > information in support of ideas. Both Chuck and myself were looking at
> > both the information and the ideas to see if they were valid. Beb
> > thinks whatever he interjects into a discussion needs to be dealt
> > with. He is wrong a lot.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.

Ad hominem is the favorite escape devise of this intellectual coward, lurkers.

> >> I defend the evidence for conspiracy, **YOU** defend the Warren
> >> Commission.
> >
> > No, lurkers, I'm a retard.
> >
> >> That you most often fail has nothing to do with me.
> >>
> >> >> >> The Warren Commission didn't do this - and you can't cite any "study."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Always the misdirection to the WC.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is, of course, what you rely on.
> >> >
> >> > Notice Ben doesn`t deny that he always misdirects to the WC, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Why would I?
> >>
> >> It's your bible.
> >>
> >> It's the foundation of your belief.
> >>
> >> Without the WCR, you have **NOTHING**.
> >
> > Three straight lies, lurkers, not a record for Beb but still not bad.
>
> Tell us, without any reference to the WCR or it's volumes, just what
> happened on 11/22/63. Be sure to cite for it.

Right away with the shifting of the burden, lurkers.

> But you won't... thus proving yourself a liar.

Beb not supporting his claims is support for the idea that they are empty claims, lurkers.

>
> >> >> Since you refuse to offer your own scenario, and refer repeatedly to
> >> >> the WCR's scenario - it's only natural to refer to your foundational
> >> >> document.
> >>
> >> Anyone notice Pud's silence here?
> >
> > I point out the case when Beb lies and claims there is no case, lurkers.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddles.

It is what occurs, lurkers.

>
> > I'm a tard.
> >
> >> >> >> Nor can you list the witnesses and show that they did *NOT*
> >> >> >> corroborate each other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I didn`t use the witnesses that said they smelled gunsmoke in
> >> >> > support of an idea, lurkers.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you're desperately trying to defend an idea that you can't defend.
> >>
> >> Dead silence...
> >
> > Beb merely...
>
>
> You ran.

You know you are winning when intellectual cowards have to remove your words, lurkers.

>
> >> >> > Who brought them up? Who *always* brings them up?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes... it's true... it's always the critics that bring up the
> >> >> eyewitness testimony & statements.
> >> >
> >> > They bring up things, like this "gunsmoke" issue that they can go
> >> > nowhere with. If they feel it is significant they should include it in
> >> > the case they need to make. Never happen, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Au contraire... we go quite a distance with it.
> >
> > Nowhere, lurkers. Like all their ideas this one is dead in the water.
>
>
> And yet, you lie and run from what I post.

Beb misdirects towards me, as if this somehow moves his ideas forward, lurkers.

> >> We force believers
> >> like you to lie about ordinary things such as "experience."
> >
> > Let Ben show...
>
>
> Tut tut tut, Puddles... what's the definition of "experience?"

<snicker> Lurkers take note that when I don`t respond, Beb points it out, but when I do he removes my response.

> >> >> Likewise, it's virtually a certainty that you're reading the words of
> >> >> a believer if you see speculation on the case being posted.
> >> >
> >> > I was examining the ideas this poster advanced, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Anyone notice that Puddles couldn't contradict me?
> >
> > Anyone notice...
>
>
> That Puddles couldn't contradict me?

You know you are winning when intellectual cowards have to remove your words, lurkers.

> >> >> > I am challenging them to show that they looked at the
> >> >> > information these witnesses provided correctly, the right context.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't define this ...
> >> >
> >> > I`m *doing* it, lurkers. I am showing the faults in their
> >> > approaches.
> >>
> >> By lying about "experience?"
> >
> > Let Beb show ...
>
>
> What's the definition of "experience?"

You know you are winning when intellectual cowards have to remove your words, lurkers.

> >> You're not going to get anywhere by lying.
> >>
> >> >> You hold yourself as the arbitor.
> >> >
> >> > *I`ve* already decided, lurkers.
> >>
> >> Of course you have.
> >
> > It is a fairly simple case, lurkers. A handful of the numerous
> > indications of Oswald`s guilt is all any reasonably intelligent and
> > rational person should need.
>
>
> If this were true, you'd be shouting repeatedly what these
> "indications" are, and how they solve the case.

I`ve outlined the things that indicate Oswald`s guilt to me before, lurkers. Beb didn`t feel they were persuasive, what could matter less?

> Yet instead, you whine.
>
>
>
>
> >> But the sad fact is, you can't defend your
> >> decision, nor support it.
> >
> > Why would I need to do either, lurkers? Where is it written that I have to justify the things I choose to believe to retards who show no ability to reason? I keep posting the .gif which *I* see as clearly showing Kennedy and Connally being hit with one bullet. What do I care if Beb or Boris accept what I plainly see? I think it shows their desperation to cling to some false narrative that their bias requires. That make it their problem, not mine.

Beb had nothing to say here, lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

***********************************************************************

>> >> >> >> >> > It's apparently a pretty common psychological
phenomenon for the
>> >> >> >> >> > brain to "fill in the blanks." Could someone who hears sounds they
>> >> >> >> >> > recognize as gunfire also "remember" a gunpowder smell associated
>> >> >> >> >> > with the sound of the shots and the sight of the victim(s)slumping
>> >> >> >> >> > over or visibly hit? Looks possible, scientifically. And we know how
>> >> >> >> >> > into science "Mr. Science" is.

***********************************************************************

Still an empty claim, still uncited for.