A Mexican, a Moron and the Biggest Stump on the Planet walk into a bar...

[Bud]

Bartender says "What are you having, Gil?"

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 15:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 6:22:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Bartender says "What are you having, Gil?"

You mad ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>
> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>
> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Bud likes to refer to people as "stumps", but the truth is that the only stump here is Bud.
Bud is too stupid to realize that I punked him in that "virus" post.

I wanted to show the world how someone would react to being wrongly accused of something they didn't do.
And Bud reacted exactly the same way Lee Harvey Oswald reacted.

He denied everything.
He said it was ridiculous.
He said it was crazy.

His reaction was exactly as described in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKGp4WNZ7us

So tell us Bud, how does it feel to be Lee Harvey Oswald ?
How does it feel to be outsmarted by a "stump" ?
ROFLMAO

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
> > that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> > get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
> >
> > It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> > where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
> >
> > So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
> Bud likes to refer to people as "stumps", but the truth is that the only stump here is Bud.
> Bud is too stupid to realize that I punked him in that "virus" post.

You're stupid enough to think you did. You are a legend in your own mind.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> You're stupid enough to think you did. You are a legend in your own mind.

I guess Ben must have taken another dump, cuz here you are.

No, I'm in YOUR mind. I'm in YOUR head.
You wait here every day for me to post, like a stalker.

You think every new poster is me.
You have Gil Jesus Derangement Syndrome. ( GJDS )

When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
I'm a nemesis you can't live without.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here laughing my ass off.
You know who's entertained by you and your pals ? Me.
I'm amazed at the level of stupidity, ignorance and gullibility of you all.
Even the so-called, "professor".

Not only did Bud react just like Oswald reacted, your group was once again exposed as the gullible braindead who believe everything they're told.

Here's a question for you and you Lone Nut Cementheads:
If you had been wrongly accused of killing the President, how would you have responded ?

I'll bet you would have responded just like Oswald and just like Bud.
You would have emphatically denied the charges.

[Steven Galbraith]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

When I posted to Bud in response saying that he (Bud) didn't have the ability to hack the google groups system in order to change people's names - and only conspiracists names - I got this in return.

"Wrong professor.
I think he has the ability to change the names of anyone, but chooses to target only the conspiracy theorists.
This where he fucked up.
He never did it to someone on your side, proving it wasn't a Google glitch.

He's full of shit and so are you.
Class dismissed. "

But see? He was only joking, it was a trap. He was showing us that Bud reacted like Oswald did and that somehow helps exonerates Oswald. You know the same Oswald who left the scene of the crime immediately after the shooting? The same Oswald who didn't stay around to help the police, to tell them where he was and what he heard. The same Oswald who was in a movie theater and who tried to shoot the police who questioned him. Yes, he thinks Bud reacted just like Oswald did.

[Steven Galbraith]

If Bud had acted like Oswald he (Bud) would have fled the newsgroup. Gone, vanished, left the scene of the crime. But he didn't. The analogy exposes the problem that Oswald defenders have to face: his leaving the scene and not assisting the police.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 07:46:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:39:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:48:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
>>> that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
>>> get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
>>>
>>> It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
>>> where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
>>>
>>> So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
>> Bud likes to refer to people as "stumps", but the truth is that the only stump here is Bud.
>> Bud is too stupid to realize that I punked him in that "virus" post.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
> > that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> > get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
> >
> > It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> > where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
> >
> > So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
> Bud likes to refer to people as "stumps", but the truth is that the only stump here is Bud.

Hardly.

> Bud is too stupid to realize that I punked him in that "virus" post.

You`re lying, of course. You actually thought I had given you a virus, and now that I pointed out how stupid that was you are backtracking.

> I wanted to show the world how someone would react to being wrongly accused of something they didn't do.

Like when you accused the cops of executing that Mexican? Were you "punking" me then, too?

> And Bud reacted exactly the same way Lee Harvey Oswald reacted.

I see Oswald in front of a bunch of newsmen, having the chance to explain things. I see him in contact with his family member, with the opportunity to explain things. He offered nothing because he was guilty and had nothing.

> He denied everything.
> He said it was ridiculous.
> He said it was crazy.

Nobody reacts like Oswald did in that situation except guilty people.

> His reaction was exactly as described in this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKGp4WNZ7us
>
> So tell us Bud, how does it feel to be Lee Harvey Oswald ?

You`re an idiot. You could be used as a gauge for ideas, if you embrace them they must be wrong.

> How does it feel to be outsmarted by a "stump" ?

Couldn`t I just claim I knew what you were up to and wanted you to make this response? Wouldn`t that be as meaningless as your claims here?

> ROFLMAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

[Steven Galbraith]

If you had acted like Oswald you would have fled the newsgroup. Went to see a movie after picking up a revolver and loading it and getting 10 extra bullets. Not stay around. His analogy just exposed the problems with his client's actions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 10:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>If you had acted like Oswald...

Speculation isn't evidence.

[Bud]

Reasoning isn`t speculation.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 12:32:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:03:20 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 10:46:36 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > You're stupid enough to think you did. You are a legend in your own mind.
> I guess Ben must have taken another dump, cuz here you are.
>
> No, I'm in YOUR mind. I'm in YOUR head.
> You wait here every day for me to post, like a stalker.
>
> You think every new poster is me.
> You have Gil Jesus Derangement Syndrome. ( GJDS )
>

This is why I hang around here. CTs are always good for at least one belly laugh a day. This one
did the trick.

> When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
> I'm a nemesis you can't live without.

I don't recall ever writing that. I don't recall ever thinking that. I have noted when you bail out of
a thread when another of your lame arguments has been refuted and you have no rebuttal.

I have one or two occasions asked where Yellowpanties is because he has a routine where he
disappears on weekends and then reappears on Mondays to swamp post. In that regard he has
something in common with Oswald. Oswald broke his routine when he went to the Paine house
on a Thursday night which was noteworthy. It was also noteworthy when Yellowpanties didn't
take his usual Monday morning dump. Since I no longer respond to his childish posts, I no
longer find that to be noteworthy. IOW, I don't give a shit.

>
> Meanwhile, I'm sitting here laughing my ass off.

Sine you're all ass, that's quite an accomplishment.

> You know who's entertained by you and your pals ? Me.
> I'm amazed at the level of stupidity, ignorance and gullibility of you all.
> Even the so-called, "professor".

Not surprising an idiot like you would think the intelligent people are the idiots.

>
> Not only did Bud react just like Oswald reacted, your group was once again exposed as the gullible braindead who believe everything they're told.
>

No we believe things that are believable and backed up by credible evidence. You on the other
hand believe in myths based on assumptions, speculation, and imagination.

> Here's a question for you and you Lone Nut Cementheads:
> If you had been wrongly accused of killing the President, how would you have responded ?

Having never been wrongly accused of killing a President, I can only speculate since your
question calls for speculation. I believe I would deny it. I speculate I would deny it if I had killed
a President, so my denial is not an indication of whether I had or had not killed a President.

>
> I'll bet you would have responded just like Oswald and just like Bud.
> You would have emphatically denied the charges.

Yes I would, whether the charges were or were not true. I don't think it makes a lot of sense
to judge a person's guilt or innocence based on whether they deny the charges against them.
Even if they do so emphatically. For some strange reason, you find it probative that Oswald
denied his guilt.

[Bud]

Let`s say the police showed you a photo of your head superimposed on a body holding a rifle. I think you might mention this as evidence of you are being framed every chance you got. Not Oswald, to him it isn`t worth mentioning.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:07:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:03:20?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 10:46:36?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> You're stupid enough to think you did. You are a legend in your own mind.
>> I guess Ben must have taken another dump, cuz here you are.
>>
>> No, I'm in YOUR mind. I'm in YOUR head.
>> You wait here every day for me to post, like a stalker.
>>
>> You think every new poster is me.
>> You have Gil Jesus Derangement Syndrome. ( GJDS )
>>

>> When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
>> I'm a nemesis you can't live without.
>
>I don't recall ever writing that. I don't recall ever thinking that.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/BI_ZOaLh-30/m/29tla-YeCQAJ

Getting so old that you can't remember...

WHAT A MORON!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 7:39:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
> > that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
> > get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
> >
> > It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
> > where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
> >
> > So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
> Bud likes to refer to people as "stumps", but the truth is that the only stump here is Bud.
> Bud is too stupid to realize that I punked him in that "virus" post.
>
> I wanted to show the world how someone would react to being wrongly accused of something they didn't do.
> And Bud reacted exactly the same way Lee Harvey Oswald reacted.
>
> He denied everything.
> He said it was ridiculous.
> He said it was crazy.

Hello? Anybody home?

Both the innocent and the guilty typically deny everything.

You cannot tell anything about Oswald’s guilt or innocence because of his denials.

Need I remind you that Ted Bundy denied everything as well?

Until his execution was approaching, then he suddenly wanted to confess, but he needed more time to do it right and bring closure to the dead girls families.

>
> His reaction was exactly as described in this video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKGp4WNZ7us
>
> So tell us Bud, how does it feel to be Lee Harvey Oswald ?

You admit Bud was innocent and falsely charged by you. You still need to establish Oswald was innocent, not just assert it and repeat it.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Yes. Bud really is too stupid to be able to hack Google. He's a Nutter, after all, and not a particularly bright Nutter. I think all eventually will agree that your Drooling Little Buddy is as "innocent" as a box of rocks.

[Gil Jesus]

He couldn't remember a post from a little over a month ago ?
He's a liar to boot.

[John Corbett]

OK. That's one for you. I had forgotten that one. BFD.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

It never ceases to amaze me that Moron Corbett can't remember anything he said a month ago, like his promise that he was done with his haunting of the Nut House.

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:35:56 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Yes. Bud really is too stupid to be able to hack Google. He's a Nutter, after all, and not a particularly bright Nutter. I think all eventually will agree that your Drooling Little Buddy is as "innocent" as a box of rocks.

He also also has an intense hatred for Mexicans.
If he calls you a Mexican, that's supposed to be an insult, even if you're white and Portuguese.
That's what he calls "reasoning" and the world calls speculation.
Speculation is another way of saying you're guessing.
Bud does that a lot ( as do the rest of the Lone Nutters ) and that's why they're wrong so often.

And they never learn, they keep on speculating because they have to.

They have their own truth and it's unshakable:
The Warren Commission concluded Oswald was guilty. Nothing else matters.

No amount of physical evidence to the contrary can change that.
No amount of witness testimony to the contrary can change that.
No amount of evidence tampering can change that.
No amount of evidence of police corruption can change that.
No amount of mishandling evidence can change that.
No amount of evidence of witness harassment can change that.

A reasonable and prudent person would balk for the above reasons.
But these people are not reasonable and prudent.

They have their own truth and anyone who doesn't agree with it is a "conspiracy kook".

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:33:47 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that Moron Corbett can't remember anything he said a month ago, like his promise that he was done with his haunting of the Nut House.

Not only could he not remember writing it, he couldn't remember even THINKING it.
Five weeks later and he couldn't remember it even crossing his mind !!!!!
And this is the brightest and the best the Lone Nut side has to offer ?
ROFLMAO.

He's a troll. He has no credibility.
Everything he says is a lie.
He can't help it. He's a pathological liar.
His lies have been exposed by Ben and me time and time again.

And his insults have no affect on us because we don't value his opinion to begin with.
Just another Lone Nut Loser.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:40:23 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:35:56 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > Yes. Bud really is too stupid to be able to hack Google. He's a Nutter, after all, and not a particularly bright Nutter. I think all eventually will agree that your Drooling Little Buddy is as "innocent" as a box of rocks.
> He also also has an intense hatred for Mexicans.
> If he calls you a Mexican, that's supposed to be an insult, even if you're white and Portuguese.
> That's what he calls "reasoning" and the world calls speculation.
> Speculation is another way of saying you're guessing.

So you finally admit you've been guessing all these years.

> Bud does that a lot ( as do the rest of the Lone Nutters ) and that's why they're wrong so often.
>
> And they never learn, they keep on speculating because they have to.

Speculation is a belief reached in lieu of evidence. There is ample evidence that tells us Oswald
was the assassin. There is none that he had even a single accomplice. Ergo, the speculation is
being done by the CTs.

>
> They have their own truth and it's unshakable:
> The Warren Commission concluded Oswald was guilty. Nothing else matters.

The WC's conclusion is the truth, the only one there is. They found no compelling evidence of
conspirators. Ergo there is no reason to believe there were any. In the 59 years since the WCR
was released, no one has come up with any such evidence.

>
> No amount of physical evidence to the contrary can change that.

There is no physical evidence to the contrary.

> No amount of witness testimony to the contrary can change that.

Witnesses can be and often are wrong. It is not surprising that there would be witnesses that
contradict the truth.

> No amount of evidence tampering can change that.

There is no evidence of tampering, only speculation.

> No amount of evidence of police corruption can change that.

No one denies SOME police are corrupt. The pertinent question is whether there was any
corruption in the investigation of the assassination. No evidence of such exists.

> No amount of mishandling evidence can change that.

Because it is base on poor reasoning.

> No amount of evidence of witness harassment can change that.

Empty claims of such.

>
> A reasonable and prudent person would balk for the above reasons.

There is nothing reasonable or prudent about your thought process.

> But these people are not reasonable and prudent.

You are a poor judge of that.

>
> They have their own truth and anyone who doesn't agree with it is a "conspiracy kook".

It isn't our truth. It is the only truth.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:53:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> He's a troll. He has no credibility.
> Everything he says is a lie.
> He can't help it. He's a pathological liar.
> His lies have been exposed by Ben and me time and time again.
>

Ben and Me is a story about a mouse. Gil is The Mouse That Roared.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:35:46 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:56:34 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:40:23?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 12:35:56?AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>> Yes. Bud really is too stupid to be able to hack Google. He's a Nutter, after all, and not a particularly bright Nutter. I think all eventually will agree that your Drooling Little Buddy is as "innocent" as a box of rocks.
>> He also also has an intense hatred for Mexicans.
>> If he calls you a Mexican, that's supposed to be an insult, even if you're white and Portuguese.
>> That's what he calls "reasoning" and the world calls speculation.
>> Speculation is another way of saying you're guessing.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Bud does that a lot ( as do the rest of the Lone Nutters ) and that's why they're wrong so often.
>>
>> And they never learn, they keep on speculating because they have to.
>
>Speculation is a belief reached in lieu of evidence.

Indeed true. One wonders why believers CONSTANTLY speculate...

> There is ample evidence that tells us Oswald
>was the assassin.

This is an empty claiim made without any citation to evidence
supporting it... Chickenshit poiints out that this is a lie.

> There is none that he had even a single accomplice.

This is simply a lie on your part. A lie you will NEVER support...

>> They have their own truth and it's unshakable:
>> The Warren Commission concluded Oswald was guilty. Nothing else matters.

Logical fallacies deleted.

>> No amount of physical evidence to the contrary can change that.
>
>There is no physical evidence to the contrary.

None that the WC was honest enough to deal with, true.

But the NAA proves the WC and you a liar.

>> No amount of witness testimony to the contrary can change that.
>
>Witnesses can be and often are wrong. It is not surprising that there would be witnesses that
>contradict the truth.

But, in this case, that's EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS. You can't name a
*SINGLE* eyewitness you believe completely in their contemporary
statements & testimony. This is devastating to your honesty & faith.

>> No amount of evidence tampering can change that.
>
>There is no evidence of tampering, only speculation.

Another blatant lie on your part.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

>> No amount of evidence of police corruption can change that.
>
>No one denies SOME police are corrupt. The pertinent question is whether there was any
>corruption in the investigation of the assassination. No evidence of such exists.

Again, you're simply lying.

>> No amount of mishandling evidence can change that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> No amount of evidence of witness harassment can change that.
>
>Empty claims of such.

Such a BLATANT lie!

>> A reasonable and prudent person would balk for the above reasons.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But these people are not reasonable and prudent.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have their own truth and anyone who doesn't agree with it is a "conspiracy kook".

Logical fallacy deleted.

Isn't it amusing how sad it is when you strip beliievers of their lies
& logical fallacies?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:03:41 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

And *this* is what it takes to be a believer...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:53:12 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well stated.

And when you can't even remember something from such a recent past,
how can you possibly be trusted to say what happened over 60 years
ago?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 03:00:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:53:13?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>> He's a troll. He has no credibility.
>> Everything he says is a lie.
>> He can't help it. He's a pathological liar.
>> His lies have been exposed by Ben and me time and time again.

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt HATES the fact that I don't bother
with logical fallacies...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 02:17:25 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 5:03:42?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 6:43:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 15:07:39 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:03:20?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When I don't post for a few days, you cry, "Where's Gil " ?
>>>>> I'm a nemesis you can't live without.
>>>>
>>>>I don't recall ever writing that. I don't recall ever thinking that.
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/BI_ZOaLh-30/m/29tla-YeCQAJ
>>>
>>> Getting so old that you can't remember...
>>>
>>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>> He couldn't remember a post from a little over a month ago ?
>> He's a liar to boot.
>
>OK. That's one for you. I had forgotten that one. BFD.

If you can forget your own post from such a recent past, your
reasoning ability is quite flawed indeed.

[Bud]

Ben was almost man enough to make an actual argument here. Almost.

[Bud]

What is the correlation between reasoning and memory?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

[John Corbett]

The point he was trying to make is a lie. The truth is the WC put very little probative value in
the NAA results. The presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's cheek cast was not
deemed significant at all. From Appendix 10, page 562:

"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface."

Nothing in the above conclusion is a lie. It is an example of looking at the correct things correctly
which is a foreign concept to somebody like Yellowpanties.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 11:43:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:38:19?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

You're lying, of course.

> The truth is the WC put very little probative value in
>the NAA results.

That doesn't change the facts. The NAA is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

> The presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's cheek cast was not
>deemed significant at all.

It's a scientific FACT that barium & antimony were present. You're
now desperately denying science. It's a FACT that the NAA test is
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Do you know how science works?

Where's the comparative tests made by Guinn?

And why are you claiming that the NAA is not PHYSICAL EVIDENCE?

> From Appendix 10, page 562:
>
>"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface."

Where's the expert testimony for this?

Why are you TERRIFIED of citing the underlying evidence? All you ever
cite is someone's opinion... never the actual evidence...

The WC can have any opinion they want - it doesn't change the FACT
that this is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.


>Nothing in the above conclusion is a lie...


That's your OPINION. And your opinion is worthless, coming, as it
does, from a proven liar.

> It is an example of looking at the correct things correctly

Cite for that claim.

But you won't, of course... you're simply lying again.

[Greg Parker]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 8:22:43 AM UTC+10, Bud wrote:
> Bartender says "What are you having, Gil?"

A MoFo, a cunt, and their best Bud walk into a bar.

Bartender says, "what'll it be Cunt?"

Bud says, I'll have a Shirley Temple... and put it in a doity glass.

[Gil Jesus]

I'm not surprised this mental midget uses as a screenname a slang word for marijuana.
From some of the shit he posts, it's evident that he must be high half the time.

[Greg Parker]

As an outsider I may be misreading it, but his post to me, looked borderline racist.

[Bud]

We need a wall to keep Gil`s people from crossing our borderline.

[Greg Parker]

Yeah. I'm sure. You'd fuckin curl up and die without Taco Bell.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:07:53 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> As an outsider I may be misreading it, but his post to me, looked borderline racist.

"BUD" is a racist. He's made it clear many times in the past that he hates Mexicans.
When he calls you a Mexican, it's meant to be an insult.

These assholes don't realize that their insults only affect me if I value their opinions.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:53:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> Yeah. I'm sure. You'd fuckin curl up and die without Taco Bell.

Rumor has it that his was the voice of the Chihuahua on the commerical, but when the Mexicans raised a stink because they were offended and the ad campaign was cancelled, he lost his job.
That why he hates Mexicans. They got him fired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sZ1DWsAHE

YO QUIERO TACO BELL

[Bud]

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 6:03:29 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:07:53 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > As an outsider I may be misreading it, but his post to me, looked borderline racist.
> "BUD" is a racist.

"Mexican" isn`t a race, stupid.

If Canadians were harming my country, I wouldn`t like them, either. And it`s really more Central Americans coming in illegally now.

> He's made it clear many times in the past that he hates Mexicans.

Actually I think Mexicans are honest, hard working people who belong in Mexico.

> When he calls you a Mexican, it's meant to be an insult.

It`s meant to be a joke, stupid.

> These assholes don't realize that their insults only affect me if I value their opinions.

You don`t realize that whether the jokes I make effect you is immaterial.

[Bud]

I`ve never tried it. Not even once.

[Bud]

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 6:10:01 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:53:21 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
> > Yeah. I'm sure. You'd fuckin curl up and die without Taco Bell.
> Rumor has it that his was the voice of the Chihuahua on the commerical, but when the Mexicans raised a stink because they were offended and the ad campaign was cancelled, he lost his job.
> That why he hates Mexicans. They got him fired.

I`m still pissed they cancelled Speedy Gonzales.
'

[Greg Parker]

You only miss Slowpoke Rodriguez.

> > YO QUIERO TACO BELL

[Greg Parker]

Good. It is fakeass Mexican. You'd like real Mexican.

[Bud]

"He pack a gon."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYi_hq2p1Ac

> > > YO QUIERO TACO BELL

[John Corbett]

I vaguely remember Speedy Gonzalez and don't remember Slowpoke Rodriguez at all but I
never realized they were part of the Looney Tunes lineup.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

This is Corbett "looking at the right things correctly."

[Bud]

Looney Tunes were always my favorite. Speedy was always swooping in and saving Slowpoke Rodriguez from the clutches of Sylvester.

A lot of the humor in the Looney Tunes cartoons was very adult oriented, I just saw this on Wikipedia...

"Speedy has the reputation of being a hit with the female mice. In many cartoons, when the mice decide to get Speedy to help them, one mouse will say words to the effect of "Speedy Gonzales is friend of my sister". Another mouse will say "Speedy Gonzales is friend of everyone's sister"."

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 20:27:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 03:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 05:00:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I vaguely remember Speedy Gonzalez and don't remember Slowpoke Rodriguez at all but I
>never realized they were part of the Looney Tunes lineup.

So senility is hitting you early.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 18:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 03:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 20:21:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 03:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 08:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>