Proof That Huckster's A Cowardly Liar - (#10)

[Ben Holmes]

I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.

So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
*ONLY* correct and citable way.

Is there any evidence that Vincent Bugliosi told the truth when he
claimed that Carrico & Perry had described the throat wound as
"ragged?"

Cite for your answer.

Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.

(As indeed, EXACTLY what happened thus far...)

[Chuck Schuyler]

Discussed endlessly.

But never to your satisfaction:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/q5ayL43HaSs/m/kF4zOJMBK3kJ

Also:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=bugliosi+throat+wound+ragged

Please stop the endless fringe resets. You're lying when you say people haven't addressed this issue.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

You're the definition of insanity, skippy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 8:36:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
>>
>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
>>
>> Is there any evidence that Vincent Bugliosi told the truth when he
>> claimed that Carrico & Perry had described the throat wound as
>> "ragged?"
>>
>> Cite for your answer.
>>
>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>
>> (As indeed, EXACTLY what happened thus far...)
>
>
>Discussed endlessly.

And amusingly, not *ONCE* have believers acknowledged the simple
truth: Bugliosi lied.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Discussed here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=bugliosi+throat+wound+ragged

There is no proof he lied, as DVP pointed out.

That's your answer.

Stop the constant eristic argumentation.

Stop the crooked questions. (Ben: "And my prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the *ONLY* correct and citable way." The rare lurker will note Ben's crooked question framing. The rare lurker will note Ben didn't respond to the substance of the link that addressed Ben's crooked question.)

So, Ben, what is the *ONLY* correct and citable way to answer your question? Be specific.

Running to commence in 3...2...1...

[John Corbett]

Because he didn't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 8:35:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at 8:36:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> I've often found that the more information, evidence, citations you
>>>> give, the more rope you give for believers to run from.
>>>>
>>>> So this is as simple a question as it possible to ask. And my
>>>> prediction is that not a *SINGLE* believer will answer it in the
>>>> *ONLY* correct and citable way.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any evidence that Vincent Bugliosi told the truth when he
>>>> claimed that Carrico & Perry had described the throat wound as
>>>> "ragged?"
>>>>
>>>> Cite for your answer.
>>>>
>>>> Or run, as I expect every single believer to do.
>>>>
>>>> (As indeed, EXACTLY what happened thus far...)
>>>
>>>
>>>Discussed endlessly.
>> And amusingly, not *ONCE* have believers acknowledged the simple
>> truth: Bugliosi lied.
>
>Discussed here:

False citation deleted. Sorry stupid, DVP isn't one to tell the truth
about Bugliosi.

>There is no proof he lied, as DVP pointed out.

The proof is OBVIOUS. Neither you nor Davy Von Peiny can cite either
Perry or Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged."

That simply never happened.


>That's your answer.


Nope... it's a lie.

>Stop the constant eristic argumentation.

You need to look in a mirror.

>So, Ben, what is the *ONLY* correct and citable way to answer your question? Be specific.

The only correct and citable way is to reply that Carrico and Perry
CANNOT be quoted saying what Bugliosi said that they did.

>Running to commence in 3...2...1...

Indeed! Watch folks, as Chuckles is COMPLETELY incapable of citing
for Bugliosi's assertion.

[Chuck Schuyler]

More knots to untangle, more tar babies to fight, more fields to plow that have been endlessly plowed, more eristic argumentation, more crooked questions.

Bugliosi made a mistake, Ben. DVP points out the mistake. And DVP covered this with you over a DECADE ago, yet you persist in bringing it up as if it's a fresh new "gotcha!" time and time again.

Bugs conflated (in that portion of RH) the description of the trachea wound (described as "ragged") with the throat wound on the outer skin (described as "smooth").

You highlighted a mistake in RH. Good for you. Yay! Bugs made a number of mistakes in RH that many have brought up. DVP found a number of mistakes in RH, and he's probably Bugliosi's biggest fan.

No lie, just a mistake. It's really that simple. The trachea wound under the surface was ragged, and the throat wound at the surface was smooth. The end. Except with you, because this will come right back again in a month or a year with your demand to have it readdressed. A classic fringe reset. You'll claim it wasn't addressed "in the only possible way it can be addressed," or some silliness.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=bugliosi+throat+wound+ragged

Go ahead and stomp your tiny feet and shake your tiny fists at the heavens and have the last word and snip the link (again!) and snip my response.

You know you want to. You know you can't help yourself.

[BT George]

And an understandable mistake. I think he conflated the *name* of which doctor who said ragged. See this from addendum also posted to DVP's website on this topic:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html#Ragged-Addendum

[Chuck Schuyler]

And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged. We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.

Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi. Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:17:18 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

Notice folks, that Chuckles couldn't do it.

>> That simply never happened.
>>
>>
>>>That's your answer.
>>
>>
>> Nope... it's a lie.
>>
>>>Stop the constant eristic argumentation.
>>
>> You need to look in a mirror.
>>
>>>So, Ben, what is the *ONLY* correct and citable way to answer your question? Be specific.
>>
>> The only correct and citable way is to reply that Carrico and Perry
>> CANNOT be quoted saying what Bugliosi said that they did.

Notice that not only did I *NOT* run, but I answered Chuckle's
question so well that *HE* ran away...

>>>Running to commence in 3...2...1...
>>
>> Indeed! Watch folks, as Chuckles is COMPLETELY incapable of citing
>> for Bugliosi's assertion.

End post logical fallacies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
> that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.

Was it?

> We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.

By any credible and early witnesses?

> Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
> ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.

Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
doesn't it?

I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.

> Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.

And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.

It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.


Don't you just HATE that?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
> > that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.
> Was it?

The witness said it was. Conspiracy advocates have to call the witnesses liars, what they related doesn`t support their faith.

> > We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.
> By any credible and early witnesses?

<snicker> Ben is now attempting to set up some crooked criteria.

> > Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
> > ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.
> Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
> pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
> doesn't it?

Not far less.

And Mark Lane doesn`t outright lie very often, but he is being dishonest in almost every installment you post.

> I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.
> > Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.
> And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.
>
> It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.

Did any of the doctors at Parkland say the wound was ragged, Ben?

> Don't you just HATE that?

I`m fine with it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:11:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
>>> that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.
>>
>> Was it?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.
>>
>> By any credible and early witnesses?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
>>> ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.
>>
>> Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
>> pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
>> doesn't it?
>
> Not far less.

You're lying, Chickenshit. You've labeled asserted *OMISSIONS* as
lies. That's far less than what Bugliosi got caught doing.


> And Mark Lane doesn`t outright lie very often...


You've not quoted a single instance.


Nor will you...

> but he is being dishonest in almost every installment you post.

An opinion that you can't support... so it's clearly, by your
standards, a lie.

>> I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.
>>
>>> Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.
>>
>> And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.
>>
>> It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Don't you just HATE that?
>
> I`m fine with it.

Good. Go comfort Chuckles then...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:30:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:11:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> >> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
> >>> that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.
> >>
> >> Was it?
> Logical fallacy deleted.

<snicker> Citing a witness is a fallacy?

> >>> We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.
> >>
> >> By any credible and early witnesses?
> Logical fallacy deleted.

You are playing silly games, trying to contrive some reason to disregard the information Atkin provided because it conflicts with your silly ideas. the same silly games conspiracy types have been playing for decades.

And if you disregard Atkin for not being "early enough" (i.e. the information didn`t appear until he testified), then how much good conspiracy fodder must you also flush from other witnesses?

> >>> Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
> >>> ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.
> >>
> >> Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
> >> pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
> >> doesn't it?
> >
> > Not far less.
> You're lying, Chickenshit. You've labeled asserted *OMISSIONS* as
> lies. That's far less than what Bugliosi got caught doing.

Not far less.

> > And Mark Lane doesn`t outright lie very often...
>
>
> You've not quoted a single instance.

Fringe reset.

It has been done numerous times.

> Nor will you...
> > but he is being dishonest in almost every installment you post.
> An opinion that you can't support... so it's clearly, by your
> standards, a lie.

By your standard it is impossible to show that Mark Lane lied.

I don`t adhere to that standard.

> >> I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.
> >>
> >>> Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.
> >>
> >> And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.
> >>
> >> It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.
> Logical fallacy deleted.

Is there a bullet in the AP x-ray, Ben?

You repost your stuff, I`ll repost mine.

> >> Don't you just HATE that?
> >
> > I`m fine with it.
> Good. Go comfort Chuckles then...

I doubt he frets much over you endlessly reposting this crap.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
> > that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.

> Was it?

Per Akin, when he saw it, it appeared to him as slightly ragged.

> > We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.

> By any credible and early witnesses?

So now you're adding "early" and I suppose you can't define "early" or what exactly you're driving at by adding this qualifier.

Regarding witnesses, do you mean witnesses you'd accept? No. There is no witness that you would accept. However, are there witnesses that serious researchers and historians and investigators would accept? Yes.

> > Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
> > ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.

> Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
> pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
> doesn't it?

Changing the subject. This is about your lies, not Mark Lane's lies. There's plenty of lies from both of you to go around, but let's keep the focus on your lies.

>
> I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.

> > Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.

> And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.

Nah. You want to argue to argue. More tar babies to fight, more knots to untangle. You live for it.

DVP was his usual spell-everything-out-with-great-detail self when he tackled the subject. Mistakes aren't lies. Bugliosi made several on the topic you're bringing up again for the zillionth time, and DVP pointed them out. In addition, as Brock found, there is a witness--Akin--who described the outer throat wound on the skin as ragged when he saw it. The trachea wound was definitely described as ragged, and the trachea is part of the throat.

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

From the above:

"The throat contains various blood vessels, pharyngeal muscles, the nasopharyngeal tonsil, the tonsils, the palatine uvula, THE TRACHEA [emphasis mine], the esophagus, and the vocal cords."

>
> It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.

And we'll continue the beatings until morale improves.

>
>
> Don't you just HATE that?

No hate, just continued amazement at your non-stop, multi-decade snipe hunt and the energy you expend on trivial bullshit that's been discussed to exhaustion, and in this instance, the discussions go back over ten years. I spend waaaay too much time here, and I spend a FRACTION of the time at this board than you do. How do you manage?

Okay, I'm done on this one. You think Bugliosi lied about something, your critics think he was mistaken or confused, and there have been discussions about it at this board and at DVP's blog, where he addressed you by name and laid out his reasoning. I can't improve on what he wrote. You think there are no witnesses who described the outer skin wound in front of the throat as ragged, and Brock found a witness who did describe it, using the word "ragged" for the time period when he saw the wound. If you want to continue to believe Bugliosi lied, that's your prerogative.

But stop lying with your claim this hasn't been addressed. It just hasn't been addressed to YOUR satisfaction.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 23:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler

<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
>> > that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.
>
>> Was it?
>

>Per Akin...


Tut tut tut Chuckles... I asked a simple question, and you can't
answer it.

Why is that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:42:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 7:30:15 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 16:11:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:55:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 15:07:26 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
>>>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And indeed your find regarding Dr. Akin's statement provides proof
>>>>> that some regarded the outer wound (on the skin) as appearing ragged.
>>>>
>>>> Was it?
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> <snicker> Citing a witness is a fallacy?

You tell me:
Q. And explain exactly what happened and then just basically let the
jury know exactly what you observed?

A. Well, approximately the same time that Jamal was brought into the
emergency area I was inside the emergency area behind the double
doors. The double doors opened just as Jamal was placed on the mat
leading into the Emergency Room treatment area. At this time I didn't
know -- all I did was hear him say, "I shot the mother fucker and I
hope the mother fucker dies." And it was at this time that I realized
who it was in reference to, what was going on.

>>>>> We know the trachea wound was reported as ragged.
>>>>
>>>> By any credible and early witnesses?
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.

Logical fallacy deleted.

If you don't know the answers to the questions, just say so...

>>>>> Incredibly, this has all been covered at great length over ten years
>>>>> ago with DVP pointing out various errors in RH by Bugliosi.
>>>>
>>>> Not "errors" ... lies. Indeed, it takes far less than what Bugliosi
>>>> pulled for you to start yelling LIAR LIAR when it comes to Mark Lane,
>>>> doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Not far less.
>>
>> You're lying, Chickenshit. You've labeled asserted *OMISSIONS* as
>> lies. That's far less than what Bugliosi got caught doing.
>
> Not far less.

CHICKENSHIT IS NOW ON RECORD AS CLAIMING THAT NOTHING IS MORE THAN
SOMETHING!

What a moron!

(Of course, he already believes that everything came from nothing, so
this isn't a stretch for him.)

>>> And Mark Lane doesn`t outright lie very often...
>>
>>
>> You've not quoted a single instance.

And still refuse to do so.

Argumentum ad Tony Marshium.


>> Nor will you...


Another perfect prediction folks!

>>> but he is being dishonest in almost every installment you post.
>>
>> An opinion that you can't support... so it's clearly, by your
>> standards, a lie.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> I know you'll refuse to agree publicly, but it's true nontheless.
>>>>
>>>>> Ben just keeps bringing this up, over and over again. It never stops.
>>>>
>>>> And cowards like you and Davy Von Pieny just keep lying about it.
>>>>
>>>> It's going to KEEP coming up until believers tell the truth.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> Don't you just HATE that?
>>>
>>> I`m fine with it.
>>
>> Good. Go comfort Chuckles then...
>
> I doubt he frets much over you endlessly reposting this crap.

And yet, that's PRECISELY what he whines about all the time. Indeed,
he's made "fringe reset" his rallying cry.

Proven liar, aren't you?

[Ben Holmes]

Bump.