Gil's Prediction Hit's The Mark!!!

[Ben Holmes]

In the morning, Gil made this prediction:

**************************************************
Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.

Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
the questions with insults.

That's all the ignorant have.
*************************************************

That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
predicted!):


On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:28:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Jul 26, 8:59 pm, Gil Jesus <GJJm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In response to Bud's brainless and insulting questions, I felt the
>> need to ask the trolls about some questions regarding actual evidence
>> and testimony. More may be coming, depending on how much time I need
>> to spend on getting more videos online.
>>
>> If any of my associates would like to add some, please feel free.
>>
>> POP QUIZ, HOT-SHOTS:
>>
>> 1. What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?
>
> Who thinks the echo and the smoke are connected?
>
>> 2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard
>> to the murder of his brother, what would be the purpose of his
>> taking possession of his brother's brain and locking it away ?
>
> I read the brain was given to the Kennedy family, and likely buried
>with his body.
>
>> 3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".
>
> Name another murder that was filmed, and the movements of the
>victim`s body after being shot were an issue.
>
>> 4. Why is there no "jet effect" in any other REAL death videos ?
>
> You think all people who are shot should all react the same?
>
>> 5. In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many
>> other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible
>> evidence"?
>
> What are you talking about?
>
>> 6. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the
>> "Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time
>> of the autopsy ?
>
> Because the x-rays show the skull shattered, with some plates
>overlapping others. Paul Seaton`s site probably has a better
>explanation for this.
>
>> 7. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized
>> Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior
>> to the assassination ?
>
> Did they say?
>
>> 8. JFK was was breathing when they brought him in to Parkland
>> Hospital. He had a heartbeat. Proof that his brain stem WAS in
>> tact. Yet his brain stem was severed by the time his body was
>> seen in Bethesda for the autopsy.
>> How and when was it severed ?
>
> Probably the doctors were in on the conspiracy, and were ordered to
>finish JFK off if he was alive when he got to their table.
>
>> 9. The autopsy photograph of the rear of Kennedy's head does not
>> match the condition of the head as depicted in the
>> Humes-supervised Rydberg drawing.
>> Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie ?
>
> Neither.
>
>> 10. Can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy
>> specifically ?
>
> You mean besides shooting him?
>
>> 11. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any
>> 6.5mm ammunition ?
>
> The fact that he shot Kennedy with some indicates he bought some.
>Possible he stole it, or someone gave it to him also.
>
>> MORE MAY BE FORTHCOMING, BUT THIS SHOULD KEEP YOU GOVERNMENT DRONES
>> BUSY FOR A WHILE.
>
> Not even long enough for me to finish my coffee.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
>
> **************************************************
> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
>
> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
> the questions with insults.
>
> That's all the ignorant have.
> *************************************************
>
> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
> predicted!):

At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
>>
>> **************************************************
>> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
>> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
>> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
>>
>> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
>> the questions with insults.
>>
>> That's all the ignorant have.
>> *************************************************
>>
>> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
>> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
>> predicted!):
>
> At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.

This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.

[Bud]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
> >>
> >> **************************************************
> >> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
> >> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
> >> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
> >>
> >> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
> >> the questions with insults.
> >>
> >> That's all the ignorant have.
> >> *************************************************
> >>
> >> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
> >> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
> >> predicted!):
> >
> > At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.
> This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
> predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.

You guys never appreciate my assistance in helping formulate better, non fallacious and non loaded questions.

[Charles Schuyler]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:57:25 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
> >>
> >> **************************************************
> >> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
> >> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
> >> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
> >>
> >> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
> >> the questions with insults.
> >>
> >> That's all the ignorant have.
> >> *************************************************
> >>
> >> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
> >> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
> >> predicted!):
> >
> > At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.

> This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
> predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.

I have no problem seeing Bud's answers. Why can't you see them?

Bud answered, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

Never forget to put that in.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:49:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:57:25 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
>>>>
>>>> **************************************************
>>>> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
>>>> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
>>>> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
>>>> the questions with insults.
>>>>
>>>> That's all the ignorant have.
>>>> *************************************************
>>>>
>>>> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
>>>> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
>>>> predicted!):
>>>
>>> At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.
>
>> This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
>> predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.
>
>I have no problem seeing Bud's answers. Why can't you see them?

Because they don't exist.

>Bud answered, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

To *anyone's* satisfaction... among honest people, of course.

>Never forget to put that in.

Never forget that you can't hide your dishonesty & cowardice in an
open forum...

Notice that Chuckles couldn't answer the questions any more than
Chickenshit could...

[Charles Schuyler]

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:26:46 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:49:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler
> <ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 12:57:25 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
> >>>>
> >>>> **************************************************
> >>>> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
> >>>> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
> >>>> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
> >>>>
> >>>> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
> >>>> the questions with insults.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's all the ignorant have.
> >>>> *************************************************
> >>>>
> >>>> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
> >>>> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
> >>>> predicted!):
> >>>
> >>> At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.
> >
> >> This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
> >> predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.
> >
> >I have no problem seeing Bud's answers. Why can't you see them?

> Because they don't exist.

I see them. You do too, but you don't like the answers.

> >Bud answered, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

> To *anyone's* satisfaction... among honest people, of course.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

My answer is that Gil needs answer the questions he raises and provide a positive case for his allegations.

I'm waiting to hear his explanations--in detail--about what apparently has had him scratching his head in puzzlement for the last many decades.

Now, go ahead and claim he wasn't answered, but remember to put in that he wasn't answered TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 18:47:27 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler

Post them. Indeed... let's take one at random... the Warren
Commission asserted that there was "no credible evidence" fpr shots
from the Grassy Knoll. In what other court case were dozens of
eyewitnesses on the scene labeled as "no credible evidence?"

List a *CREDIBLE* response to this question... or admit you're a liar.

>>>Bud answered, but NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
>
>> To *anyone's* satisfaction... among honest people, of course.
>
>No True Scotsman fallacy.

And in this case, one that's true.

>>>Never forget to put that in.
>> Never forget that you can't hide your dishonesty & cowardice in an
>> open forum...

And Chuckles couldn't.

Why can't *YOU* do this?

Why do you keep asking others to do what YOU REFUSE TO DO?

> I'm waiting to hear his explanations--in detail--about what
> apparently has had him scratching his head in puzzlement for the last
> many decades.

That's strange... even a moron can figure it out from the questions
raised, why can't you?

> Now, go ahead and claim he wasn't answered, but remember to put in
> that he wasn't answered TO YOUR SATISFACTION.

No, that would simply be a lie.

[Charles Schuyler]

You already admit that he responded. You just didn't like the answers so you claimed he avoided answering.

Indeed... let's take one at random... the Warren
> Commission asserted that there was "no credible evidence" fpr shots
> from the Grassy Knoll. In what other court case were dozens of
> eyewitnesses on the scene labeled as "no credible evidence?"

Who are these "dozens" of eyewitnesses?

>
> List a *CREDIBLE* response to this question...

Who decides if the answer I give is credible? You? You're a nobody.

My answer(s) to your collective questions is that your questions are a series of hobby point accusations based off of subjective inferences. Until you STATE what you believe occurred with SPECIFICITY, no progress can be made, assuming you actually want to make progress in gaining a better understanding of the assassination.

I carry no burden. I make no separate claims. I am here at a website ostensibly dedicated to discussing the JFK assassination conspiracy theories. I'm still waiting to hear my first conspiracy theory from you or Gil. Your claim that some people did something (something else happened, somehow) is too vague. The only two posters who came close to putting something on the table were Bob Harris with his Z285 startle reaction theory (full of holes, but he gave it a shot), and Grizzlie Antagonist with his support of the Bonar Menninger 'Mortal Error' theory that the third shot was accidentally fired by SS Agent Hickey.

You seem absolutely incapable of understanding who carries the burden to provide something. There is no shared burden. One side has a fully-formed case, and the other side has never ending questions that they want answered, although ALL of the questions Team Oswald raises HAVE BEEN ANSWERED, just not to the satisfaction of Team Oswald.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 08:50:42 -0800 (PST), Charles Schuyler

Then you're simply a liar.


>I carry no burden...


You're lying again, Chuckles.

> You seem absolutely incapable of understanding who carries the

> burden to provide something...


The person who asserts it.


> There is no shared burden...


You're lying again. You have the SAME burden we do.


> One side has a fully-formed case...


And again, you're lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:57:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:39:07 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 1:00:30 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In the morning, Gil made this prediction:
>>>>
>>>> **************************************************
>>>> Ben, I don't expect to get straightforward answers to these
>>>> straightforward questions. They're just out there to show the lurkers
>>>> what type of foolish responses will be offered by the foolish.
>>>>
>>>> Either they'll run, answer the questions with questions, or respond to
>>>> the questions with insults.
>>>>
>>>> That's all the ignorant have.
>>>> *************************************************
>>>>
>>>> That same afternoon... Chickenshit responded... see if you can spot
>>>> all the questions Chickenshit used to avoid answering... (just as Gil
>>>> predicted!):
>>>
>>> At least I was nice enough to let him know some of the problems with his questions.
>>
>> This is a common evasion tactic by believers to avoid answering. Gil
>> predicted it in advance, and you didn't fail us.
>
> You guys never appreciate my assistance in helping formulate
> better, non fallacious and non loaded questions.

What makes you believe that a dishonest coward like you can teach
honest people anything?