Believers Can't Post Their Scenaro - Critics Can.

[Ben Holmes]

On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
<hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>> think for themselves.  So where they may agree on some basics, they
>> will disagree on other issues.
>>
>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>
>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.


And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.


>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>explanation.


Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
that my scenario contradicts.


>Unless you've got a better one.
>Bet you don't.


Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:

My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ


Will you, Huckster... be the first? Or will you run away like all the
rest?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Logical fallacies deleted.

Claiming that unknown snipers fired unknown caliber weapons an unknown number of times that caused unspecified wounds, etc. is not a conspiracy theory.

You'll need to do much better if you want to be taken seriously by anyone.

Flush.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >> will disagree on other issues.
> >>
> >> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >
> >No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>
>
> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

By this logic one religion is as good as another.

> >And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >explanation.
>
>
> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> that my scenario contradicts.

The autopsy report says that Kennedy was shot twice from behind and above. Does your "scenario"?

The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is.

> >Unless you've got a better one.
> >Bet you don't.
>
>
> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:

You were challenged to produce a cohesive scenario that explains the event better than the one the WC produced. You didn`t even try.

[Ben Holmes]

Chuckles is just like all other believers, both a coward and a liar...
and *STILL* can't name the state that the assassination occurred in.
Chuckles is that rara avis - an IGNORANT believer.

Here's what frightens Chuckles:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:12:15 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>
>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>
>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>
>>
>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>explanation.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>> that my scenario contradicts.
>
> The autopsy report says that Kennedy was shot twice from behind
> and above. Does your "scenario"?

An autopsy report that failed to examine the frontal wound isn't very
valid, is it?

Particularly when they were ORDERED not to dissect the neck wound.
What the autopsy LEGITIMATELY found doesn't contradict anything in my
scenario.

You lose.



Do you want to try again?

> The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is.

And yet, time and time again, I post it, and you can't refute it. Most
times, you don't even *try*.

>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>Bet you don't.
>>
>>
>> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:

Logical fallacy deleted.

Huckster decided to run... as did Chickenshit, Chuckles, Johnny McAss
and all other believers who've read it.

[Bud]

Non sequitur. You claimed your scenario was not in conflict with the evidence. Lied, didn`t you?

> Particularly when they were ORDERED not to dissect the neck wound.
> What the autopsy LEGITIMATELY found doesn't contradict anything in my
> scenario.

You aren`t the arbiter of what legitimate evidence is.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:03:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You claim the autopsy CONCLUSIONS are evidence... I point out that
they aren't based on the full evidence.

So you're lying again.

> You claimed your scenario was not in conflict with the evidence.

It's not. You've still not shown any conflict.

Pretending that *CONCLUSIONS* not based on the evidence is "evidence"
is simply a lie on your part.

> Lied, didn`t I?


Yep.

>> Particularly when they were ORDERED not to dissect the neck wound.
>> What the autopsy LEGITIMATELY found doesn't contradict anything in my
>> scenario.
>
> You aren`t the arbiter of what legitimate evidence is.

Yep... I am. You've been unable to refute the point.

>> You lose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you want to try again?

Guess not...

>>> The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is.
>>
>> And yet, time and time again, I post it, and you can't refute it.
>
> "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."

Yes, it is. You can't refute it.

>> Most
>> times, you don't even *try*.
>
> "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."

Lies won't convince anyone.

And nothing Chickenshit can lie about changes this fact.

[Bud]

The autopsy report is evidence. It is evidence that contradicts your "scenario". You simply lied.

> So you're lying again.
> > You claimed your scenario was not in conflict with the evidence.
> It's not. You've still not shown any conflict.

"The autopsy report says that Kennedy was shot twice from behind and above. Does your "scenario"?"

> Pretending that *CONCLUSIONS* not based on the evidence is "evidence"
> is simply a lie on your part.

"The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."

> > Lied, didn`t I?

Yes, you did.

>
> Yep.
> >> Particularly when they were ORDERED not to dissect the neck wound.
> >> What the autopsy LEGITIMATELY found doesn't contradict anything in my
> >> scenario.
> >
> > You aren`t the arbiter of what legitimate evidence is.
> Yep... I am.

Wrong. I am.

> You've been unable to refute the point.
> >> You lose.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you want to try again?
> Guess not...

I succeeded the first time.

> >>> The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is.
> >>
> >> And yet, time and time again, I post it, and you can't refute it.
> >
> > "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."
> Yes, it is.

Wrong. The evidence is what I say it is.

> You can't refute it.
> >> Most
> >> times, you don't even *try*.
> >
> > "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."
> Lies won't convince anyone.

You think it is a lie to say you aren`t the person who decides what evidence is?

Hot air.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>> think for themselves.  So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>
>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>
>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>
>
>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.

>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>explanation.
>
>
>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>that my scenario contradicts.

Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any

evidence that my scenario contradicts.

Chickenshit tried to post a CONCLUSION based on partial evidence, but
that simply doesn't fit the bill.

Both have failed to refute this fact.

>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>Bet you don't.
>
>
>Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:

And despite my FREQUENT assertion that not a single believer has ever
dared to respond to these posts - it *STILL* remains a fact that no
believer has dared to respond.

That tells the story folks!

Huckster has chosen cowardice over valor...

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> ><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>
> >>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>
> >>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >
> >
> >And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.

When begged arguments and burden shifting is all you have, you have nothing.

> >>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>explanation.
> >
> >
> >Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >that my scenario contradicts.
> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
> evidence that my scenario contradicts.
> Chickenshit tried to post a CONCLUSION based on partial evidence, but
> that simply doesn't fit the bill.

When you have to lie to make a point, you haven`t said anything.

The autopsy report *is* evidence, and it *does* contradict your ideas.

> Both have failed to refute this fact.
> >>Unless you've got a better one.
> >>Bet you don't.
> >
> >
> >Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> >of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> >much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
> And despite my FREQUENT assertion that not a single believer has ever
> dared to respond to these posts - it *STILL* remains a fact that no
> believer has dared to respond.

I`ve pointed out many times what it is and what it isn`t. Chuck has also.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:01:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>
>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>
>>>
>>>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>
>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
>
> When begged arguments and burden shifting is all you have, you have nothing.

When logical fallacies are all you have, you have nothing.

>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>that my scenario contradicts.
>>
>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
>> evidence that my scenario contradicts.
>>
>> Chickenshit tried to post a CONCLUSION based on partial evidence, but
>> that simply doesn't fit the bill.
>
> When you have to lie to make a point, you haven`t said anything.


When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't said anything.


> The autopsy report *is* evidence, and it *does* contradict your ideas.

Nope.

>> Both have failed to refute this fact.
>>
>>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>>Bet you don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>>>of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>>>much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>>
>> And despite my FREQUENT assertion that not a single believer has ever
>> dared to respond to these posts - it *STILL* remains a fact that no
>> believer has dared to respond.
>
> I`ve pointed out many times what it is and what it isn`t. Chuck has also.

And yet, the fact remains: not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to
respond to so much as a SINGLE one of these posts...

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> ><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >...
> >>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>
> >>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>
> >>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >
> >

> >And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

Then why has every investigation concluded that Oswald was the lone shooter, with no known help?

> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.

Tough to refute kooks to THEIR satisfaction. You're a kook who believes Oswald was entirely innocent, Boris the Truther is a kook who believes Oswald was complicit--and by extension--would've therefore probably been executed or jailed for life. No need to fight all of the tar babies. Produce something specific that can be compared to the null hypothesis--Oswald alone, no known help--and we'll see what you have.

> >>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>explanation.
> >
> >
> >Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >that my scenario contradicts.

Your scenario contradicts the null hypothesis without laying out any specifics.

> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
> evidence that my scenario contradicts.

"Evidence" that leads you to believe what, specifically? That something else happened, somehow?

You're a silly little man with a silly, fading hobby.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:22:18 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>...
>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>
>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>
>>>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>
> Then why has every investigation concluded that Oswald was the lone
> shooter, with no known help?

Sorry moron, you don't need to know the names of every conspirator in
order to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
conspiracy - yet lurkers wouldn't know that from your deceitful post.

>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>explanation.
>>>
>>>
>>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>that my scenario contradicts.
>
> Your scenario contradicts the null hypothesis without laying out
> any specifics.

Prove it.

Answer *ANY* of the below cited posts, and show how I didn't lay out
any specifics.

But you can't... you're lying. Your response was merely a logical
fallacy that you can't support.

>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
>> evidence that my scenario contradicts.

Logical fallacies deleted.

So has Chuckles.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:01:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> >>><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>>>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> >>
> >> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
> >
> > When begged arguments and burden shifting is all you have, you have nothing.
> When logical fallacies are all you have, you have nothing.

Your post, not mine. Your ideas, not mine. When you lied to advance your ideas you weren`t saying anything.

> >>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>>>explanation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >>>that my scenario contradicts.
> >>
> >> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
> >> evidence that my scenario contradicts.
> >>
> >> Chickenshit tried to post a CONCLUSION based on partial evidence, but
> >> that simply doesn't fit the bill.
> >
> > When you have to lie to make a point, you haven`t said anything.
>
>
> When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't said anything.

I`m not the one claiming autopsy reports aren`t evidence.

> > The autopsy report *is* evidence, and it *does* contradict your ideas.
> Nope.

Lies are all you have.

"The main purposes of a medicolegal autopsy is to reveal the cause of death for the legal system, and in criminal deaths to collect trace evidence and other evidence in order to provide information to reconstruct and to interpret a chain of events, and in some cases to illustrate these findings in a court of law."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/forensic-autopsy

"Autopsy and toxicology reports are routinely used as evidence in lawsuits and in criminal cases."

https://legalbeagle.com/6118708-autopsy-report-vs-toxicology-report.html

> >> Both have failed to refute this fact.
> >>
> >>>>Unless you've got a better one.
> >>>>Bet you don't.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> >>>of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> >>>much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
> >>
> >> And despite my FREQUENT assertion that not a single believer has ever
> >> dared to respond to these posts - it *STILL* remains a fact that no
> >> believer has dared to respond.
> >
> > I`ve pointed out many times what it is and what it isn`t. Chuck has also.
> And yet, the fact remains: not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to
> respond to so much as a SINGLE one of these posts...

Nobody asked for a rehash of your gripes about the WC.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:32:10 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:22:18 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
> >> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> >>><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>...
> >>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>>>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >
> >>>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> >
> > Then why has every investigation concluded that Oswald was the lone
> > shooter, with no known help?

> Sorry moron, you don't need to know the names of every conspirator in
> order to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

Your fallacy here is a strawman argument. I never claimed one needs to know the names of all the conspirators to conclude there was a conspiracy.

>
> You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
> conspiracy -

That also concluded Oswald was the only known shooter, and that there was no known help.

yet lurkers wouldn't know that from your deceitful post.
> >> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>>>explanation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >>>that my scenario contradicts.
> >
> > Your scenario contradicts the null hypothesis without laying out
> > any specifics.

> Prove it.

Lurkers can read your Magnum Opus, Ben. Claiming that something else happened, somehow, doesn't cut it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:08:13 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

This is indeed your claim... but when it's pointed out, you realize
just how stupid it sounds.


So no, it's not a logical fallacy.

>> You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
>> conspiracy -
>

>That also ...


Nothing else needed. My statement was complete.

You merely show your dishonesty in your inability to publicly admit
it's accuracy.

>> yet lurkers wouldn't know that from your deceitful post.

Chuckles had nothing to say... he can't defend the indefensible.

>>>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>>explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>>>that my scenario contradicts.
>>>
>>> Your scenario contradicts the null hypothesis without laying out
>>> any specifics.
>
>> Prove it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Note folks, neither Chickenshit nor Chuckles have been able to prove
their claim.

>> Answer *ANY* of the below cited posts, and show how I didn't lay out
>> any specifics.
>>
>> But you can't... you're lying. Your response was merely a logical
>> fallacy that you can't support.

Dead silence...

And Chuckles remains silent...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:06:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:01:37 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 11:29:29 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
>>>> <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>>>><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>...
>>>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
>>>
>>> When begged arguments and burden shifting is all you have, you have nothing.
>>
>> When logical fallacies are all you have, you have nothing.

Logical fallacy removed...

>>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>>explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>>>that my scenario contradicts.
>>>>
>>>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to point to any
>>>> evidence that my scenario contradicts.
>>>>
>>>> Chickenshit tried to post a CONCLUSION based on partial evidence, but
>>>> that simply doesn't fit the bill.
>>>
>>> When you have to lie to make a point, you haven`t said anything.
>>
>>
>> When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't said anything.
>
> I`m not the one claiming autopsy reports aren`t evidence.

The autopsy's OBSERVATIONS are evidence. Their conclusions, based on
a lie, isn't.

>>> The autopsy report *is* evidence, and it *does* contradict your ideas.
>> Nope.

Logical fallacies removed...

>>>> Both have failed to refute this fact.
>>>>
>>>>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>>>>Bet you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>>>>>of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>>>>>much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>>>>
>>>> And despite my FREQUENT assertion that not a single believer has ever
>>>> dared to respond to these posts - it *STILL* remains a fact that no
>>>> believer has dared to respond.
>>>
>>> I`ve pointed out many times what it is and what it isn`t. Chuck has also.
>>
>> And yet, the fact remains: not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to
>> respond to so much as a SINGLE one of these posts...

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Bud]

The autopsy report is evidence, you are simply lying, as the cites I provided that you removed showed.

For you kids out there, this is why it is bad to lie, you are forced to tell further lies to cover up for previous lies. Like in this case Ben lied and said his ideas were not in conflict with the evidence. When I pointed out, correctly, that the autopsy report is evidence and that it is in conflict with his ideas, he had to tell the lie that the autopsy report isn`t evidence in an attempt to cover up for his initial lie. If you are honest you can never fall in a web of your own lies like Ben did here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:24:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Misstating my position doesn't improve your position.

>
>
> So no, it's not a logical fallacy.
> >> You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
> >> conspiracy -
> >
> >That also ...
>
>
> Nothing else needed. My statement was complete.

Snippers gonna snip.

Every investigation has concluded Oswald alone shot JFK, with no KNOWN help.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:01:19 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Then why can't you publicly admit that you don't need to be able to
name conspirators in order to have a conspiracy?

>> So no, it's not a logical fallacy.
>>
>>>> You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
>>>> conspiracy -
>>>
>>>That also ...
>>
>> Nothing else needed. My statement was complete.
>
>Snippers gonna snip.

Cowards gonna run.

>> You merely show your dishonesty in your inability to publicly admit
>> it's accuracy.

More dishonesty!!!

>>>> yet lurkers wouldn't know that from your deceitful post.
>>
>> Chuckles had nothing to say... he can't defend the indefensible.

And remains silent.

>>>>>> Neither Chuckles nor Chickenshit has been able to refute this fact.
>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>>>>explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>>>>>that my scenario contradicts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your scenario contradicts the null hypothesis without laying out
>>>>> any specifics.
>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>> Note folks, neither Chickenshit nor Chuckles have been able to prove
>> their claim.

Chuckles remains silent again...

>>>> Answer *ANY* of the below cited posts, and show how I didn't lay out
>>>> any specifics.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't... you're lying. Your response was merely a logical
>>>> fallacy that you can't support.
>>
>> Dead silence...

Cowards gonna run...

[Chuck Schuyler]

You didn't ask me that, so your logical fallacy here--again--is a strawman argument.

But for the record, no, it isn't necessarily true that one would need to name conspirators to ascertain a conspiracy, but so far you haven't identified a conspiracy. You have lots of spooky music. Make your case for a specific conspiracy and we can compare it to the null hypothesis--Oswald alone, no KNOWN help. Please include your tests, recreations, forensic analysis of the evidence you dispute, and so on. That's how real research works, that's how the cops and FBI and criminal forensic labs conduct an investigation, that's what historians lean upon when reaching their conclusion, and on and on. Claiming that something else happened, somehow, and that the snipers are unknown, the wounds they inflicted unstated, the masterminds unidentified, etc. is not a conspiracy THEORY. It is the disease of CONSPIRACISM. Once you state exactly what it is you believe occurred, it can be tested and approved or discarded.

If you were a real researcher and not a blowhard, you would put your ideas out there for examination and INVITE criticism and INVITE those who are offering a different perspective to CHALLENGE your work. Stop shifting the burden and get busy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 07:13:35 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

>You didn't ask me that...


Why can't you publicly admit that you don't need to be able to name

conspirators in order to have a conspiracy?

>>>> So no, it's not a logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>>>>> You KNOW FOR A FACT that the last investigation concluded a probable
>>>>>> conspiracy -
>>>>>
>>>>>That also ...
>>>>
>>>> Nothing else needed. My statement was complete.
>>>
>>>Snippers gonna snip.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Re-read my post.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:20:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Still no answer... WHAT A COWARD!!!

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >> will disagree on other issues.
> >>
> >> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >
> >No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>
>
> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
When will that proof be forthcoming?

And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the supposed particular conspirators.

>
>
> >And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >explanation.
>
>
> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> that my scenario contradicts.

Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you intend to start?

And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points? If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct. You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the question once more.

>
>
> >Unless you've got a better one.
> >Bet you don't.
>
>
> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:

> My Scenario - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ

You first part presents this as the first link:
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf

It has a bunch of assertions presented as fact. But no evidence is cited to support those assertions that I can see. So yeah, I guess this is right in your wheelhouse -- that's pretty much all you do, assert stuff but fail to prove any of it.

I didn't read beyond the first link in your part one. We'll await the evidence for this scenario:
http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf

Based on your history, I honestly don't expect any will be forthcoming.

Go ahead, surprise us. Or not. I know what the odds are.

And of course, no surprise here, but the above "Chicago Plot" link concludes with: "Prove the conspiracy never happened."

Which is of course a whopper of a logical fallacy. You should know by now (you've been told frequently enough) that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and yet, here you are, citing a story with no documentation that does exactly that, makes a bunch of unsourced assertions and asks that the story be disproven.

Does the rest of part one get any better? Are the other parts of your scenario equally [cough] "well documented"?

Hank

[Bud]

Even the article doesn`t present what is produced as proof, merely "strong indications", which of course is subjective.

And if you do to page nine in the article (page12 in Microsoft Word) you find...

"Our main source.

Our main supply of information was one of the Secret Service agents on duty at the time of
the conspiracy. In cooperating with us, he broke the "old boy system" of the Secret Service
and regulations forbidding press contacts among individual agents. His terms: total anonymity."

So almost the whole fantastic yarn rests on the say-so of an anonymous source. Weak tea, as ted gittinger used to say.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>
>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>
>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>
>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>
>What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.

I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
conspiracy... and you hate that.

The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.

>As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
>When will that proof be forthcoming?

I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
believe that more than one person was involved?

The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?

> And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
> involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
> them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
> supposed particular conspirators.

And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

Shall we do it again?

>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>explanation.
>>
>>
>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>> that my scenario contradicts.
>
> Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
> theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
> intend to start?

Been there, done that... YOU ran away.

> And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?

No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.

> If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.

Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
one person involved.

Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?

> You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> question once more.

You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says

that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
question once more.


>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>Bet you don't.
>>
>>
>> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>
>> My Scenario - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>

>You first part...


Deleted.

If you're too frightened to click on the links, AND RESPOND TO THE
POSTS, then there's no sense in pretending that you've answered
anything at all.

Looks like we have our answer... Huckster is too afraid to post his
scenario - knowing full well that I can match, in both length, detail,
and number of citations - ANY scenario he could dare post.

And neither is he capable of refuting my scenario.

WHAT A COWARD!!!

[Bud]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> >> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>>
> >>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >>
> >> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> >
> >What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
> conspiracy... and you hate that.

So it doesn`t matter what country you think attacked America at Pearl Harbor, as long as you accept one country did.

> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.

<snicker> You see a disagreement about the split second the bullet enters Kennedy`s body on a par with completely dissimilar ideas regarding the whole event?

Talk about your false equivalencies.

> >As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
> >When will that proof be forthcoming?
> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
> believe that more than one person was involved?

Who cares what they believe? Until they get to the point where they can show things it isn`t significant.

> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?
> > And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
> > involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
> > them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
> > supposed particular conspirators.
> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> Shall we do it again?

Perhaps they feel Marina got the bullets Oswald used. Unless they can make a positive case for the possibility it isn`t very meaningful.

> >>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>>explanation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >> that my scenario contradicts.
> >
> > Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
> > theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
> > intend to start?
> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
> > And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?
> No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.

Nonsense. You know where we all stand on every major aspect of the case. You guys are all over the map.

> > If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.
> Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
> one person involved.

So Vikings who believed in Valhalla are the same as Christian`s belief in heaven, as long as they both accept an afterlife.

The Greeks who believed in Zeus are no different than any believer in God, as long as the accept the existence of a divine being.

> Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?

Who said you get to?

You define it nonspecifically so you can get all the clowns under one circus tent.

> > You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
> > that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> > question once more.
> You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says
> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> question once more.

It has been shown to my satisfaction that Oswald killed Kennedy. It hasn`t been shown to my satisfaction that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination. That is where you are supposed to come in, but you can`t do it with faulty arguments that show nothing.

> >>>Unless you've got a better one.
> >>>Bet you don't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> >> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> >> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
> >
> >> My Scenario - Part 1
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
> >
> >You first part...
>
>
> Deleted.
>
> If you're too frightened to click on the links, AND RESPOND TO THE
> POSTS, then there's no sense in pretending that you've answered
> anything at all.

No used responding to the posts when you are only doing to delete what people write.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> >> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>>
> >>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >>
> >> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> >
> >What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.

> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
> conspiracy... and you hate that.

Strawman argument. No one is asking you to accept a "believer's" definition of conspiracy.

>
> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.

Yet you just did. One fallacy you are employing is called a false equivalence fallacy, or comparing apples and oranges.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence

The Oswald Alone side has a fully formed conclusion based on hard science, tens of thousands of interviews, and so on. You, on the other hand, simply believe something else happened somehow. Tied in with your false equivalence fallacy is a fallacy of false precision.

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

Claiming that "believers" are in the same boat with you because of a possible 1/18th to roughly 1/2 of a second difference of opinion on when the so-called "magic bullet" pierced JFK is logically fallacious. You set the bar incredibly high for the Oswald Alone side, while you skate on even supplying the basic information one would need to compare your theory to the null hypothesis: Oswald alone, no KNOWN help.

> >As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
> >When will that proof be forthcoming?

> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
> believe that more than one person was involved?

More straw.

>
> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?

Ad hominem.

> > And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
> > involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
> > them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
> > supposed particular conspirators.

> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.

Laughable. JFK kooks are like different ships on different oceans, carrying different cargos to different ports, and they all pretend like they're sailing in the same convoy.

> Shall we do it again?
> >>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>>explanation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >> that my scenario contradicts.
> >
> > Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
> > theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
> > intend to start?

> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.

Lol. Ben's theory: something else happened, somehow.

> > And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?


> No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.

Another false equivalence fallacy. You are challenging, and you carry the burden of proof. One side has an established case, the other side has a nebulous idea that thousands killed JFK and later covered it up. Not real convincing to anyone not named David Healy. And maybe Boris the Truther.

> > If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.
> Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
> one person involved.
>
> Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?
> > You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
> > that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> > question once more.

> You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says
> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> question once more.

Explained over and over.

>
>
> >>>Unless you've got a better one.
> >>>Bet you don't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> >> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> >> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
> >
> >> My Scenario - Part 1

Nonsense snipped.

Your Magnum Opus is based on a series of logical fallacies that have been pointed out to you hundreds of times. There is no need to address your hobby points until you fix the begged questions and so on. Claiming something else happened, somehow, is not a "theory" about what transpired on 11/22/63. If you want to be taken seriously and not regarded as a crackpot, fix your arguments.

[Hank Sienzant]

Worse than that... The whole article could be a work of fiction presented "as told by an anonymous source". There's nothing in there that's verifiable. Nothing.

This then is Ben's evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
> >> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
> >>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
> >>>> will disagree on other issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
> >>>
> >>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
> >>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
> >>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
> >>
> >> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> >
> >What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
> conspiracy... and you hate that.
>
> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.

Not close to the same thing. We (what you call perjoratively 'believers') agree that
1. Three shots were heard by the majority of witnesses.
2. Three shells were recovered from the sixth floor SE corner window of the Depository.
3. Numerous witnesses placed a shooter in that building.
4. Oswald's rifle was recovered from that building.
5. The witnesses described the shooter in terms that fit Oswald.
6. The shells recovered were fired from the rifle recovered.
7. two large fragments were recovered from the limo.
8. The two large fragments were most likely from the bullet that struck JFK in the head.
9. Those recovered fragments were fired from the rifle recovered.
10. A nearly whole bullet was recovered at Parkland Hospital, where the two shooting victims in the limo were taken.
11. That the nearly whole bullet fell out of Gov. Connally's pants leg onto his stretcher, then onto the floor on a different floor than Connally was on, but the same floor his stretcher was taken.
12. That nearly whole bullet was fired from the rifle recovered.

Hard evidence: #2, 4, 7, 10
Expert testimony: #6, 9, 12
Eyewitness testimony: #1, 3, 5, 11

What do you got that compares to that that all critics agree on?

> >As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
> >When will that proof be forthcoming?
> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
> believe that more than one person was involved?

Straw man argument. Not what I asked you to prove. I asked you to prove the conspiracy, not just assert it.

>
> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?

Of course that's the first thing that comes to mind - because you are stuck for a response to the question I asked, so you go straight to the logical fallacy of ad hominem (where you attack the messenger, not the message).

> > And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
> > involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
> > them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
> > supposed particular conspirators.
> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
> Shall we do it again?

You can repeat your logical fallacies all you wish, but it doesn't make your claimed conspiracy true, and it doesn't make every conspiracy theorist a believer in in.

> >>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
> >>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
> >>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
> >>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
> >>>explanation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
> >> that my scenario contradicts.
> >
> > Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
> > theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
> > intend to start?
> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.

Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.

> > And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?
> No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.

Again, false. See the above list for starters. Now list the shooting positions all conspiracy believers agree on, and cite the evidence for those. You won't do it, because you can't do it.

> > If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.
> Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
> one person involved.

Again, a meaninglessly low bar. By definition, a conspiracy means two or more conspiring together. If that's all conspiracy theorists agree on, they agree on nothing meaningful.

>
> Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?

Don't you just hate having such a low bar, and not being able to raise it?

> > You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
> > that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> > question once more.
> You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says
> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
> question once more.
>

You avoided the question.
And you forgot to snip it, Ben!

>
> >>>Unless you've got a better one.
> >>>Bet you don't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
> >> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
> >> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
> >
> >> My Scenario - Part 1
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
> >
> >You first part...
>
>
> Deleted.

Of course you deleted it. You have no meaningful response.

>
> If you're too frightened to click on the links, AND RESPOND TO THE
> POSTS, then there's no sense in pretending that you've answered
> anything at all.

Your challenge was "not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts".

I pointed out the problem with the initial link in your initial post. I need go no further until you establish that portion of your scenario is true.

Now you move the goalposts and claim I need to respond to every post. No. The ball remains in your court.

Nonsense. Where's your citations for the first link in the first post. It's a story with supposed anonymous sources.

>
> And neither is he capable of refuting my scenario.

Shifting the burden of proof. I don't need to refute it. You need to establish it.


>
> WHAT A COWARD!!!

Ad hominem. Attacking the messenger and avoiding the message. Cite the evidence for the first link in your first post.

Ball in your court.

Hank

[Bud]

Other common ground include...

We all believe Oswald had the rifle in the large bag he carried into work the say of the assassination. Ben seems unconvinced he even had a bag.

We all believe Oswald took that shot at Walker.

We all believe Oswald fled the scene of the crime shortly after shooting Kennedy, first trying a bus and then a cab.

We all believe Oswald went to his boardinghouse room and got his handgun.

We all believe Oswald killer officer Tippit.

We all believe Oswald tried to kill the arresting officers in the Texas theater.

We are all in agreement in much the same way historians are on most historical events, say Gettysburg, agreeing on most details, diverging slightly here and there on trivial points. For instance I believe Oswald was going to take another shot at Walker had he not been confronted by Tippit, others are skeptical or think there is insufficient evidence for that speculation.

That it where it will always stay. He has nothing to return it with.

> Hank

[healyd...@gmail.com]

all lone nut supporting cowards need irrational belief in that that makes case evidence/conclusions comfortable to their satisfaction...

they turn to jello when challenged... wobbly all over! As the WC was comfortable in 1964 so are the .johnites of 2021... wobbly all over, yet comfortable. Until of course you mention the name of Mark Lane (and his book Rush to Judgement, of course).

nutters, your arguments are fucked, as displayed here day after day, after day, after day, after...

[...]

[Hank Sienzant]

What is irrational about this case evidence and following it to its logical conclusion:

1. Three shots were heard by the majority of witnesses.
2. Three shells were recovered from the sixth floor SE corner window of the Depository.
3. Numerous witnesses placed a shooter in that building.
4. Oswald's rifle was recovered from that building.
5. The witnesses described the shooter in terms that fit Oswald.
6. The shells recovered were fired from the rifle recovered.
7. two large fragments were recovered from the limo.
8. The two large fragments were most likely from the bullet that struck JFK in the head.
9. Those recovered fragments were fired from the rifle recovered.
10. A nearly whole bullet was recovered at Parkland Hospital, where the two shooting victims in the limo were taken.
11. That the nearly whole bullet fell out of Gov. Connally's pants leg onto his stretcher, then onto the floor on a different floor than Connally was on, but the same floor his stretcher was taken.
12. That nearly whole bullet was fired from the rifle recovered.

Hard evidence: #2, 4, 7, 10
Expert testimony: #6, 9, 12
Eyewitness testimony: #1, 3, 5, 11

Go ahead. Tell us.

>
> they turn to jello when challenged... wobbly all over! As the WC was comfortable in 1964 so are the .johnites of 2021... wobbly all over, yet comfortable. Until of course you mention the name of Mark Lane (and his book Rush to Judgement, of course).

Uh, it's Rush to Judgment. Only one 'e' in the title. Shouldn't you at least know the correct name of the book you're citing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_to_Judgment

What points did you think Mark Lane made that still withstand inspection? Can you name three? Quote his claims and let's discuss.

>
> nutters, your arguments are fucked, as displayed here day after day, after day, after day, after...
>
> [...]

Assertions are not evidence.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you miserable fuck you, there's 300+ Rush to "Judgement" thread topics right here on this board, alone! That you (the coward that you are) ran from...

Speak to us you giant of falsehoods you!

> >
> > nutters, your arguments are fucked, as displayed here day after day, after day, after day, after...
> >
> > [...]
> Assertions are not evidence.

as in 1964 WC assertions/conclusions?

[Hank Sienzant]

Nothing to see here except logical fallacies of shifting the burden of proof and ad hominem. And it's still Judgment, not Judgement.

>
> Speak to us you giant of falsehoods you!

Asserting they are falsehoods does not make them falsehoods.

> > >
> > > nutters, your arguments are fucked, as displayed here day after day, after day, after day, after...
> > >
> > > [...]
> > Assertions are not evidence.
> as in 1964 WC assertions/conclusions?

Why don't you get specific and name some of those supposed assertions / conclusions that you believe aren't supported by the evidence? Please note I am not asking you to call me names. I am asking you to defend your charges.

[Hank Sienzant]

> > Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.

Errata:
My response should read:
> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.

Hank

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:39:30 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>This then is Ben's evidence.

My "evidence" is the same as yours... except *I* explain it, you run
from it.

What a coward!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 18:54:18 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 6:55:08 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>>
>>>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>>
>>>What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
>
>> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
>> conspiracy... and you hate that.
>
>Strawman argument. No one is asking you to accept a "believer's" definition of conspiracy.

Yet *YOU* refuse to accept what a critic states is the definition of
conspiracy.

Your definition depends on voting.

>> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
>> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
>> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.
>
>Yet you just did.

You're a moron or a liar... take your pick.

>>>As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
>>>When will that proof be forthcoming?
>
>> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
>> believe that more than one person was involved?
>>

>> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?
>>

>>> And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
>>> involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
>>> them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
>>> supposed particular conspirators.
>
>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>
>Laughable.

My definition is supported by the English language, and any dictionary
will provide a perfect citation.

Can you offer a definition of "conspiracy" that is both supported by
citation, and does *NOT* equate to what I stated?


The answer, of course, is no.

You lose.

>> Shall we do it again?
>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>> that my scenario contradicts.
>>>
>>> Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
>>> theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
>>> intend to start?
>
>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>>

>>> And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?
>
>
>> No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.
>>

>>> If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.
>> Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
>> one person involved.
>>
>> Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?
>>> You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
>>> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
>>> question once more.
>
>> You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says
>> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
>> question once more.
>
>Explained over and over.

And yet, you can't cite for your claim. Chickenshit asserts that the
inability to cite for a claim makes you a "Dumbass."

>>>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>>>Bet you don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>>>> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>>>> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>>>
>>>> My Scenario - Part 1
>
>Nonsense snipped.

And I'm happy to put back what TERRIFIES you every time you see it:

My Scenario - Part 1

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 03:13:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>>
>>>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>>
>>>What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
>> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
>> conspiracy... and you hate that.
>>
>> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
>> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
>> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.
>
>Not close to the same thing. We (what you call perjoratively 'believers') agree that

Don't you just HATE the fact that every last person who accepts a
conspiracy in this case agrees that more than one person was involved?

I deleted the rest of your nonsense... as it didn't address what I
stated.

>>>As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
>>>When will that proof be forthcoming?
>>
>> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
>> believe that more than one person was involved?
>
> Straw man argument. Not what I asked you to prove. I asked you to
> prove the conspiracy, not just assert it.

Nah... I think I'll just listen to your absolute refusal to address
YOUR OWN QUESTION.

Prove that Oswald alone shot JFK.

You'll run, of course... because that's what cowards do.

>> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
>>> involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
>>> them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
>>> supposed particular conspirators.
>>
>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>> Shall we do it again?
>
> You can repeat your logical fallacies all you wish, but it doesn't
> make your claimed conspiracy true, and it doesn't make every
> conspiracy theorist a believer in in.


You can repeat your logical fallacies all you wish, but it doesn't

make your claimed lone assassin true, and it doesn't make every
believer a believer in in. [sic]

>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>> that my scenario contradicts.
>>>
>>> Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
>>> theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
>>> intend to start?
>>
>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>

>Nonsense Ben...

I deleted the rest just to get to the proof that you're a liar:

You can run, Huckster, but you can't hide!

[Ben Holmes]

Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.

And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
"Dumbasses."

Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
post your scenario.

You refuse to do so, just as most believers do - for one very simple
reason - you can't support it. And you'd rather be bashing people who
CAN post a credible and supported scenario, than dare to do so
yourself.

What a COWARD you prove yourself to be!

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:50:52 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
> >> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
> >
> >Errata:
> >My response should read:
> >> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
> >
> >Hank
> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.
>
> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
> "Dumbasses."

>
> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
> post your scenario.

You've never posted a scenario.

Your Magnum Opus is just a series of ad hominem attacks and assorted logical fallacies.

You should be embarrassed to even claim you've posted a "scenario" of some sort, but you are apparently incapable of being embarrassed.

You're a joke.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 8:50:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
> >> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
> >
> >Errata:
> >My response should read:
> >> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
> >
> >Hank
> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.

Using this standard Mark Lane`s book "Rush To Judgment" is nothing more than a collection of empty claims.

> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
> "Dumbasses."

Show where I took this position.

> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
> post your scenario.

It is easy to claim to have posted a scenario. Here, I`ll post one.. aliens killed JFK.

> You refuse to do so, just as most believers do - for one very simple
> reason - you can't support it.

Who said the ideas you expressed in that mishmash of talking points have been adequately supported?

> And you'd rather be bashing people who
> CAN post a credible and supported scenario, than dare to do so
> yourself.

"credible and supported scenario" is typical of the begged hot air you like to spew.

> What a COWARD you prove yourself to be!

How dishonest you show yourself to be.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:28:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:50:52 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
>>>
>>>Errata:
>>>My response should read:
>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
>>>
>>>Hank
>> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
>> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
>> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.
>>
>> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
>> "Dumbasses."
>
>>
>> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
>> post your scenario.
>
>
>You've never posted a scenario.

You're a cowardly liar who has repeatedly refused to post a scenario.
So you don't have any right to make such a false claim.

My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:28:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:50:52 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
> >>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
> >>>
> >>>Errata:
> >>>My response should read:
> >>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
> >>>
> >>>Hank
> >> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
> >> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
> >> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.
> >>
> >> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
> >> "Dumbasses."
> >
> >>
> >> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
> >> post your scenario.
> >
> >
> >You've never posted a scenario.
> You're a cowardly liar who has repeatedly refused to post a scenario.
> So you don't have any right to make such a false claim.

The work has already been done. I can add nothing to it.

You're the intrepid investigoogler who thinks you've got the crime figured out, yet you apparently can't provide any research for your whacky claims.

You're just a garden-variety crackpot, Ben. Years ago, nuts like you would stand on street corners and pass out leaflets, and after some good citizen complained, the cops would come by and shoo you away, and maybe crack you behind the knee with a swing from a billy-club, but now, guys like you can hang out in your mom's basement with your tinfoil beanies on, propellers spinning, and spew your oddball beliefs online. Perhaps this acts as a safety valve for malcontents like you and Healy and Boris the Truther, and perhaps the outlet keeps you from walking into a post office or school and emptying a few 9mm clips into some innocents.

If so, enjoy your fading hobby. At least others are safe while you peddle your online, "Something else happened, somehow," JFK conspiracy theory.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

fool, the WC1964 provided all the research needed. The error of your way(s) is pointed out... Thank critics for getting you believers up to speed.
snip the whinning
[...]

and back to the relevant:

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:09:47 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

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

>On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 11:27:51 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:28:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
>> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:50:52 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>>>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Errata:
>>>>>My response should read:
>>>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hank
>>>> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
>>>> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
>>>> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.
>>>>
>>>> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
>>>> "Dumbasses."
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
>>>> post your scenario.
>>>
>>>
>>>You've never posted a scenario.
>> You're a cowardly liar who has repeatedly refused to post a scenario.
>> So you don't have any right to make such a false claim.
>
>The work has already been done.

And has already been refuted by the HSCA & ARRB.

> I can add nothing to it.

Nor can you defend it.

And that fact tells the tale...

[Chuck Schuyler]

Word Salad. Quick, have the Filipino nurse at the Shady Oaks Retirement Home administer you another dose of Namenda.

((!!**BURP**!!))

[Ben Holmes]

Top post... Chuckles ran...

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Top post... Chuckles ran...
>
> As he does...
>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!

Ah, Ben's ol' stand-by...everybody RUNS! Everybody is a COWARD!

You're a goon.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 18:05:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 7:47:47 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Top post... Chuckles ran...
>>
>> As he does...
>>
>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!
>
>Ah, Ben's ol' stand-by...everybody RUNS! Everybody is a COWARD!
>
>You're a goon.

Even when you point it out, CHUCKLES RUNS AWAY!

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

Lurkers should read below to see what Chuckles ran from:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:25:44 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 19, 2021 at 7:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:17:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>>
>>>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>>
>>>What you specify is such a low bar to reach and you can't even do that.
>>
>> I'm just not stupid enough to accept a believer's definition of
>> conspiracy... and you hate that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> The EXACT same can be said of believers - who cannot come to a
>> consensus on what Zapruder frame the SBT hit... but unlike believers,
>> I would find it stupid to criticize you on such a basis.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>As you're begging the question and assuming what you need to prove.
>>>When will that proof be forthcoming?
>>
>> I need to prove to you that 100% of critics who accept a conspiracy
>> believe that more than one person was involved?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> The first thing that comes to mind... ARE YOU A MORON?

Even Chickenshit was unable to defend Huckster from his idiocy.

>>> And if we raise the bar a little higher and ask what people were
>>> involved, we're back to the thousand different theories, with all of
>>> them disagreeing with each other, and no two agreeing on all the
>>> supposed particular conspirators.
>>
>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>> Shall we do it again?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>explanation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>> that my scenario contradicts.
>>>
>>> Shifting the burder of proof. I don't need to point out how your
>>> theory is wrong. You need to establish it's correct. When do you
>>> intend to start?
>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>>> And do all conspiracy theorists agree with you on all your points?
>> No more than all believers agree with you on all your points.
>
> Nonsense. You know where we all stand on every major aspect of the
> case. You guys are all over the map.

Can't debate a liar... they will simply lie every time...

>>> If not, we're back to the one out of a thousand being correct.
>>
>> Nope... we're back to all of them accepting that there was more than
>> one person involved.

Logical fallacies deleted.

>> Don't you just HATE not being allowed to define the terms?

Logical fallacies deleted.

>>> You say it's yours that is correct. But every conspiracy theorist says
>>> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
>>> question once more.
>> You say it's yours that is correct. But every believer says
>> that. What makes your theory special? It's correct? That's begging the
>> question once more.
>

> It has been shown to my satisfaction ...


You merely prove my point.

>>>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>>>Bet you don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>>>> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>>>> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>>>
>>>> My Scenario - Part 1
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
>>>
>>>You first part...
>>
>>
>> Deleted.
>>
>> If you're too frightened to click on the links, AND RESPOND TO THE
>> POSTS, then there's no sense in pretending that you've answered
>> anything at all.

Excuse deleted...

Huckster ran, Chickenshit ran, Chuckles doesn't know enough to not
run...

Cowards all.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:06:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 7:44:05 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:03:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 9:29:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:12:15 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 9:08:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
>>>>>> <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>>>>>>> think for themselves. So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>>>>>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>>>>>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>>>>>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>>>>

>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>
>>>>>>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>>>>>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>>>>>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>>>>>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>>>>>>explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>>>>>> that my scenario contradicts.
>>>>>

>>>>> The autopsy report says that Kennedy was shot twice from behind
>>>>> and above. Does your "scenario"?
>>>>
>>>> An autopsy report that failed to examine the frontal wound isn't very
>>>> valid, is it?
>>>
>>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> You claim the autopsy CONCLUSIONS are evidence... I point out that
>> they aren't based on the full evidence.
>
> The autopsy report is evidence.


Yes... describing what they found *IS* evidence, making false
conclusions based on partial evidence is only evidence of a coverup.

You're TERRIFIED of the fact that they were ordered not to dissect the
throat wound - which was described by Parkland CONTEMPORANEOUSLY as an
entry wound (Just one of the many things the WCR lied about)

I feel no need to conform to *conclusions* based on partial evidence.


> It is evidence that contradicts your "scenario". You simply lied.


Nope... you've still not been able to make your case. You've simply
run away from the points I raise.


>> So you're lying again.
>>
>>> You claimed your scenario was not in conflict with the evidence.
>>
>> It's not. You've still not shown any conflict.
>
> "The autopsy report says that Kennedy was shot twice from behind
> and above. Does your "scenario"?"


You can keep making stupid arguments, but I'm only going to point out
why you're wrong once.

No need to keep repeating the obvious.


>> Pretending that *CONCLUSIONS* not based on the evidence is "evidence"
>> is simply a lie on your part.
>>
>>> Lied, didn`t I?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>>> Particularly when they were ORDERED not to dissect the neck wound.
>>>> What the autopsy LEGITIMATELY found doesn't contradict anything in my
>>>> scenario.
>>>
>>> You aren`t the arbiter of what legitimate evidence is.
>>
>> Yep... I am.
>>
>> You've been unable to refute the point.
>>
>>>> You lose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you want to try again?
>>
>> Guess not...
>>
>>>>> The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is.
>>>>
>>>> And yet, time and time again, I post it, and you can't refute it.
>>>
>>> "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> You can't refute it.
>>
>>>> Most
>>>> times, you don't even *try*.
>>>
>>> "The "evidence" isn`t what you say it is."
>>
>> Lies won't convince anyone.

>>
>>>>>>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>>>>>>Bet you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>>>>>> of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>>>>>> much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>>>>

>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>>
>>>>>> My Scenario - Part 1
>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ

>>>> Huckster decided to run... as did Chickenshit, Chuckles, Johnny McAss
>>>> and all other believers who've read it.
>>
>> And nothing Chickenshit can lie about changes this fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:27:22 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, February 22, 2021 at 8:50:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 04:11:27 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that... YOU ran away.
>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby having to defend any argument.
>>>
>>>Errata:
>>>My response should read:
>>>> Nonsense Ben. You never cited the evidence for your scenario nor put up a defensible argument. You simply avoided that every time by claiming I already knew what you were citing - thereby avoiding having to defend any argument.
>>>
>>>Hank
>> Your argument is moot... if you cannot address my scenario thread by
>> REPLYING to it (and amusingly, not ONE SINGLE BELIEVER has been able
>> to do so) - then all you're making are empty claims.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And Chickenshit points out that those who make empty claims are
>> "Dumbasses."
>
> Show where I took this position.

Certainly. Just deny that you said that, and I'll be happy to cite.

But I never need to "prove" what you already know to be true.

>> Neither have *YOU* been able to do what was rather easy for me to do,
>> post your scenario.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You refuse to do so, just as most believers do - for one very simple
>> reason - you can't support it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Amusingly, Chickenshit can't post a scenario any more than Chuckles or
Huckster can.

>> And you'd rather be bashing people who
>> CAN post a credible and supported scenario, than dare to do so
>> yourself.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> What a COWARD you prove yourself to be!

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 06:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2011 22:33:35 -0500, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
><hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 10, 2:29 pm, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>>> For another, those in the CT movement are, or should be, encouraged to
>>> think for themselves.  So where they may agree on some basics, they
>>> will disagree on other issues.
>>>
>>> It's not as though we are a bunch of parrots. :-)
>>
>>No, you're not. But with 1000 different Conspiracy Theorists advancing
>>1000 different Conspiracy Theories, it stands to reason that at a
>>minimum, 999 are wrong in their particulars.
>
>
>And 100% of them are right that more than one person was involved.
>
>

>>And since you can't tell us which one is right, or even advance a
>>coherent theory about the assassination that makes sense, it also
>>stands to reason that the only explanation advanced to date that fits
>>the known evidence is still the best. And that would be the WC's
>>explanation.
>
>
>Untrue. You can't point to even so much as a *SINGLE* bit of evidence
>that my scenario contradicts.
>
>

>>Unless you've got a better one.
>>Bet you don't.
>
>
>Clearly, I do. Not only does it explain evidence the WCR was afraid
>of, not a *SINGLE* believer has dared to respond or refute even so
>much as a *SINGLE* one of these posts - let alone all of them:
>

Amusingly, Huckster ran from this...