Nutter Logical Fallacies

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 1:31:21 AM8/25/21

to

The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right. The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor. The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread.

But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.

BT George

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 4:17:09 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.

And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?

The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.

See above.

The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread.
>

See above.

> But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.

No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 4:29:40 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> See above.

> The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

> >
> See above.
> > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!

I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer," the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit. That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter. Of course, sometimes the Nutters give other reasons, but not every post can cover everything all at once, as Nutters always seem to demand. One of the multitude of Nutter Fallacies is that the unreliability of CT'ers proves the reliability of the Warren Commission. That is a logical fallacy, and I don't know why I'm trying to reason with a Fucktard sack of shit such as you. Just go fuck yourself.

John Corbett

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:28:49 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:31:21 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right. The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor. The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread.
>
> But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.

The classic straw man argument. Claim someone has made an argument that they never did and then attack it. This was one of Marsh's favorite tactics. That puts you in good company.

John Corbett

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:33:19 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> > And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> > The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> > See above.
> > The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
> Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
> Mr. BALL - A police officer.
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
> Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
> Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
> > >
> > See above.
> > > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> > No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> > Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!
> I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer," the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit.

That is the first step on the road to recovery. One has to recognize they have been believing bullshit before one can seek out the truth.

> That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter.

You took his remark out of context. He said it was after reading through the 26 volumes of testimony and saw the truth that he realized the CT authors were full of it. That they had been lying to him all along.

> Of course, sometimes the Nutters give other reasons, but not every post can cover everything all at once, as Nutters always seem to demand. One of the multitude of Nutter Fallacies is that the unreliability of CT'ers proves the reliability of the Warren Commission.

Strawman. The LN position is that Oswald was the assassin because all the credible evidence indicates that and there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice.

> That is a logical fallacy, and I don't know why I'm trying to reason with a Fucktard sack of shit such as you. Just go fuck yourself.

Now who can argue with that?

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:42:14 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:31:21 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.

You're employing a Straw man argument. That's another logical fallacy. That's where you don't attack someone's actual argument, but change it into something you feel you can attack. Quote someone saying anything close to that. Go ahead, we'll wait.

> The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.

Straw Man Logical Fallacy. Quote someone saying anything close to that.

> The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth.

Straw man Logical Fallacy. Quote someone saying anything close to that. Other than you, I mean.

> Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread.

The ones employing logical fallacies like false dichotomies are the conspiracy theorists here.

> But Nutters love their fallacies,

We love pointing out CT fallacies, yes. Employing them is unnecessary. We have the evidence on our side.

> and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.

Pointing out that you don't have evidence, you have logical fallacies is for the purpose of exposing the true nature of the JFK conspiracy theorist sources - authors like Mark Lane and the others you named.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:43:41 AM8/25/21

to

Ninja'd by John.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:45:59 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 6:33:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> > > And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> > > The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> > > See above.
> > > The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
> > Mr. BALL - A police officer.
> > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
> > Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
> > Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
> > Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
> > > >
> > > See above.
> > > > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> > > No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> > > Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!
> > I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer," the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit.
> That is the first step on the road to recovery. One has to recognize they have been believing bullshit before one can seek out the truth.
> > That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter.
> You took his remark out of context. He said it was after reading through the 26 volumes of testimony and saw the truth that he realized the CT authors were full of it. That they had been lying to him all along.

Yes. Once you see the truth it is hard to unsee it. That is precisely what happened to me.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 6:56:43 AM8/25/21

to

That's what Nutters do all the time, present Straw Man Arguments. Thank for for defining the proper Nutter terminology, Fuggtart.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:07:51 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> > And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> > The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> > See above.
> > The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
> Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
> Mr. BALL - A police officer.
> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
> Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
> Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
> > >
> > See above.
> > > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> > No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> > Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!
> I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer,"

Caerulio is I think the full name. He was a long-time poster at Alt.Assassination.JFK. Perhaps he would be kind enough to post a link to his excellent YouTube video on the backyard photo shadows.

> the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit. That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter. Of course, sometimes the Nutters give other reasons, but not every post can cover everything all at once, as Nutters always seem to demand. One of the multitude of Nutter Fallacies is that the unreliability of CT'ers proves the reliability of the Warren Commission.

No, you won't be able to quote anyone saying that. But you appear to be accepting that CT claims are unreliable, especially those that contradict other CT theories. You might want to consider why that is. Clearly, they can't all be right.

The CT's biggest problem is they have differing standards for evidence that points to Oswald and to that they think points to a conspiracy.

CTs set a very high bar for anything pointing to Oswald to pass over -- effectively, they paint it on the ceiling, and find reasons to reject all of it.

The shells found at the scene of the assassination? Well, the DPD turned two over to the FBI at first, and then a third later... we should disregard that hard evidence because of that. They reject evidence on specious grounds. The rifle recovered at the scene? Well, the money order should be assumed to need a bank stamp, like a check, and since it doesn't, it must be a forgery. And anyone who says the money order is in Oswald's handwriting must be a liar. And of course, all the Kleins' business records that show Oswald was shipped a rifle with the serial number C2766 must be forgeries as well. And the photos that show Oswald with that weapon? Forgeries! They must be, the shadows look wrong!

And anything that points away from Oswald, or towards a conspiracy, they paint that bar on the floor, so they accept anything and everything that they think can be utilized to argue for a conspiracy.

So a witness told her granddaughter - decades after the assassination - a story that conflicts with what she told the Warren Commission? Well, that's not evidence the woman is inflating her own importance in the eyes of her grandchild, that's evidence the Warren Commission changed people's testimony to frame Oswald.

> That is a logical fallacy, and I don't know why I'm trying to reason with a Fucktard sack of shit such as you.

If you were trying to reason with anyone, you would not utilize logical fallacies such as straw man arguments. Logical fallacies are the antithesis of reason.

> Just go fuck yourself.

I can't improve on John's answer.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:10:49 AM8/25/21

to

I agree. You're even dumber than Corbett. He out-thinks you at every turn, and always has the best insults. Maybe you could have him explain color photography to you.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:15:35 AM8/25/21

to

I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.

By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489

Hank

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:17:16 AM8/25/21

to

And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:19:22 AM8/25/21

to

Well, good for you! You can insult a dead man who can't respond. I bet your mother is proud of you! Of course, every comment you make insults the murdered president, shit bag.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:21:56 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 11:17:16 AM UTC, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:10:49 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 11:07:51 AM UTC, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:29:40 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > > > > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> > > > > And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> > > > > The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> > > > > See above.
> > > > > The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?

> > > > Mr. BALL - A police officer. probably just a logical straw man!
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minuprobably just a logical straw man! tes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.

> > > > Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
> > > > Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > > > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> > > > > No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> > > > > Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!
> > > > I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer,"
> > > Caerulio is I think the full name. He was a long-time poster at Alt.Assassination.JFK. Perhaps he would be kind enough to post a link to his excellent YouTube video on the backyard photo shadows.
> > > > the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit. That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter. Of course, sometimes the Nutters give other reasons, but not every post can cover everything all at once, as Nutters always seem to demand. One of the multitude of Nutter Fallacies is that the unreliability of CT'ers proves the reliability of the Warren Commission.
> > > No, you won't be able to quote anyone saying that. But you appear to be accepting that CT claims are unreliable, especially those that contradict other CT theories. You might want to consider why that is. Clearly, they can't all be right.
> > >
> > > The CT's biggest problem is they have differing standards for evidence that points to Oswald and to that they think points to a conspiracy.
> > >
> > > CTs set a very high bar for anything pointing to Oswald to pass over -- effectively, they paint it on the ceiling, and find reasons to reject all of it.
> > >
> > > The shells found at the scene of the assassination? Well, the DPD turned two over to the FBI at first, and then a third later... we should disregard that hard evidence because of that. They reject evidence on specious grounds. The rifle recovered at the scene? Well, the money order should be assumed to need a bank stamp, like a check, and since it doesn't, it must be a forgery. And anyone who says the money order is in Oswald's handwriting must be a liar. And of course, all the Kleins' business records that show Oswald was shipped a rifle with the serial number C2766 must be forgeries as well. And the photos that show Oswald with that weapon? Forgeries! They must be, the shadows look wrong!
> > >
> > > And anything that points away from Oswald, or towards a conspiracy, they paint that bar on the floor, so they accept anything and everything that they think can be utilized to argue for a conspiracy.
> > >
> > > So a witness told her granddaughter - decades after the assassination - a story that conflicts with what she told the Warren Commission? Well, that's not evidence the woman is inflating her own importance in the eyes of her grandchild, that's evidence the Warren Commission changed people's testimony to frame Oswald.
> > > > That is a logical fallacy, and I don't know why I'm trying to reason with a Fucktard sack of shit such as you.
> > > If you were trying to reason with anyone, you would not utilize logical fallacies such as straw man arguments. Logical fallacies are the antithesis of reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Just go fuck yourself.
> > >
> > > I can't improve on John's answer.
> > I agree. You're even dumber than Corbett. He out-thinks you at every turn, and always has the best insults. Maybe you could have him explain color photography to you.
> And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

Ultimately, all Hank Sienzant has is his empty soul and bulging bank account. Because he supports the murderers and always has, which makes him one of their boys, a murderer.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 9:39:01 AM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

This is an outright and provable lie.

What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 9:42:58 AM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.
>
>By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.
>
>http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>
>Hank

Your "example" of a logical fallacy is just silly. What was the
question that Wade was asked?

Mark Lane dealt quite clearly and honestly with that - and you can't
support your claim.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 11:57:20 AM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:42:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.
> >
> >By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.
> >
> >http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
> >
> >Hank
> Your "example" of a logical fallacy is just silly. What was the
> question that Wade was asked?

What was the point Wade was making? What was the strawman logical fallacy Lane advanced instead?

>
> Mark Lane dealt quite clearly and honestly with that - and you can't
> support your claim.

By your own count, how many witnesses came forward on the weekend of the assassination to say they saw a person with a gun, or just a gun sticking out a window on an upper floor of the Depository?

Here, I'll make it easy on you. I'll make it multiple choice:
A. None
B. One witness
C. Two, three, or four witnesses.
D. Four, five, or six witnesses.
E. Seven or more witnesses.

Which of those is the correct answer, Ben?

You'll run from answering. You hate to get pinned down to something you'll actually have to defend with evidence. And sound reasoning. Can't forget that.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 12:02:31 PM8/25/21

to

Thank you for being so quick to prove my points. I can only point out what I said in comparison to what you wrote above:

And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 12:06:37 PM8/25/21

to

Cite some evidence of a conspiracy. Make an argument for why that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not ad hominem, not a straw man argument, not a false dictomony, not begged questions, nor other logical fallacies.

Throw your best arguments out here, complete with citations to the evidence (not to what some conspiracy author wrote, that's NOT evidence), and complete with citations to this supposed evidence you have. You claimed it is "an outright and provable lie".

I'm asking you to prove it.

We both know you won't.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 12:17:24 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
>>
>> This is an outright and provable lie.
>>
>> What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.
>
>Cite some evidence of a conspiracy.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 12:22:12 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:42:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.
>>>
>>>By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.
>>>
>>>http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>>>
>>>Hank
>>
>> Your "example" of a logical fallacy is just silly. What was the
>> question that Wade was asked?
>
>What was the point Wade was making? What was the strawman logical fallacy Lane advanced instead?

Actually, I went into great detail, and quoted his exact words. You
can deal with the topic in that post:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

>> Mark Lane dealt quite clearly and honestly with that - and you can't
>> support your claim.
>
> By your own count, how many witnesses came forward on the weekend of
> the assassination to say they saw a person with a gun, or just a gun
> sticking out a window on an upper floor of the Depository?

Non sequitur. What was Wade advancing? What were his introductory
statement? (Not the mythical question you pretend was asked.)

...

>You'll run from answering.

Watch folks, as Huckster proves HIMSELF to be the runner. The proof
will be found here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

> You hate to get pinned down to something you'll actually have to
> defend with evidence. And sound reasoning. Can't forget that.

I did. You'll find it here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

Run coward... RUN!

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 12:47:15 PM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
> >>
> >> This is an outright and provable lie.
> >>
> >> What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.
> >
> >Cite some evidence of a conspiracy.
> There you go again, moving the goalposts.

Ben runs. Challenged to cite some evidence of a conspiracy, Ben pretends that's moving the goalposts. This after I said all CTs have "is ad hominem and other logical fallacies" and he called that "an outright and provable lie".

>
> It's *YOU* that is using logical fallacies, isn't it?

No, Ben. It's you and other CTs.

>
>
> I have, of course, many times given evidence for conspiracy. Here,
> for example, is a rather long detailed scenario you've run from
> repeatedly:
>
> The Challenge - Part 1
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ

<snip>

Months ago, I went to the first link in the above and pointed out the problems.

I did that here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qwScRqHe3HM/m/IibY9tOZAAAJ

You ran. Your response to the above deleted all my points made in response to your part one.
You did that here.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qwScRqHe3HM/m/Uvb_S9-bAAAJ

I saw no reason to continue pointing out errors because you didn't argue any of the points. You just deleted my arguments and called me names. As I said elsewhere, you can't make reasoned argument from the evidence. You didn't even try.

> More importantly - just this morning, I proved where you were ignorant
> of facts, and where Mark Lane told the absolute truth... you need to
> get busy retracting your lies on that post...

You were challenged to put up or shut up. Provide evidence. And links, and a reasoned argument.
You certainly didn't do it here. You claim you did it elsewhere. And as predicted you didn't cite any evidence, you didn't make a reasoned argument, and all you did was resort to ad hominem.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 1:06:54 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
>>>>
>>>> This is an outright and provable lie.
>>>>
>>>> What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.
>>>
>>>Cite some evidence of a conspiracy.
>> There you go again, moving the goalposts.
>
>Ben runs.

I didn't run... I pointed out a logical fallacy... then cited where
I'd already done this.

> Challenged to cite some evidence of a conspiracy, Ben pretends that's
> moving the goalposts. This after I said all CTs have "is ad hominem
> and other logical fallacies" and he called that "an outright and
> provable lie".

Yep... you changed the topic from "ad hominem and other logical
fallacies" - and didn't put it on the EVIDENCE.

You demand I prove something with the evidence.

You've refused to do so - why should I?

You've made a statement you can't support, why are you asking *ME* to
support your statement?

>> It's *YOU* that is using logical fallacies, isn't it?
>
>No, Ben. It's you and other CTs.

Your very first statement in the post cited below is a provable
logical fallacy. Indeed, your first statement in *THIS* thread is a
logical fallacy... you're just full of 'em, aren't you?

>> I have, of course, many times given evidence for conspiracy. Here,
>> for example, is a rather long detailed scenario you've run from
>> repeatedly:
>>
>> The Challenge - Part 1
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
><snip>

Of *COURSE* you snipped... you didn't want people to see the massive
amount of content that you have NEVER responded to.

Here it is again:

The Challenge - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ

>Months ago, I went to the first link in the above and pointed out the problems.

You've **NEVER** responded in any of those threads.

That's a fact.

>I did that here:
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qwScRqHe3HM/m/IibY9tOZAAAJ
>
>You ran. Your response to the above deleted all my points made in response to your part one.
>You did that here.
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qwScRqHe3HM/m/Uvb_S9-bAAAJ

If your cites aren't the same as the ones I provided, then you
provably haven't responded to those posts.

See how simple that is?

> I saw no reason to continue pointing out errors

You never responded to any of those posts...

> because you didn't argue any of the points. You just deleted my
> arguments and called me names. As I said elsewhere, you can't make
> reasoned argument from the evidence. You didn't even try.

I make reasoned arguments all the time - indeed, it's cowards like
**YOU** who refuse to support the WC that you so believe in.

The only arguments you make are attempted refutations of what critics
post.

>> More importantly - just this morning, I proved where you were ignorant
>> of facts, and where Mark Lane told the absolute truth... you need to
>> get busy retracting your lies on that post...
>
>You were challenged to put up or shut up.

I cited both my scenario - and the most recent post where you got
caught using logical fallacies and lies:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

Lie, Huckter, and claim that's not true.

> Provide evidence. And links, and a reasoned argument.

Sure. Here you go:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

>You certainly didn't do it here.

You're lying again, Huckster.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 2:10:28 PM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:42:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.
> >>>
> >>>By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
> >>>
> >>>Hank
> >>
> >> Your "example" of a logical fallacy is just silly. What was the
> >> question that Wade was asked?
> >
> >What was the point Wade was making? What was the strawman logical fallacy Lane advanced instead?
> Actually, I went into great detail, and quoted his exact words. You
> can deal with the topic in that post:

His exact words were, "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out."

Wade is pointing out the shooter was seen in the Depository by quite a few witnesses. That's the point Wade made.

Mark Lane tweaked that, and created a straw man argument to attack:
"Point One - A number of witnesses saw *Oswald* at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

What Wade said is absolutely true. A number of witnesses did see *the person with the gun* in the bookstore building.." What Mark Lane attacked was a different claim entirely: "A number of witnesses saw *Oswald*".

Lane changed "the person with the gun" to "Oswald" so he could attack Wade's true claim.

>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
> >> Mark Lane dealt quite clearly and honestly with that - and you can't
> >> support your claim.
> >
> > By your own count, how many witnesses came forward on the weekend of
> > the assassination to say they saw a person with a gun, or just a gun
> > sticking out a window on an upper floor of the Depository?
> Non sequitur.

Hilarious. We're discussing Wade's claim that ""First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun ..." Asking you to tell us how many witnesses claimed to see a person with the gun is a non sequitur how?

> What was Wade advancing?

This claim: "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun ..."

"What were his introductory
> statement? (Not the mythical question you pretend was asked.)

We're not discussing his introductory statement. We're discussing this one, Ben:
"First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out."

>
>
> ...
> >You'll run from answering.
> Watch folks, as Huckster proves HIMSELF to be the runner. The proof
> will be found here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

Sorry, no Ben.

> > You hate to get pinned down to something you'll actually have to
> > defend with evidence. And sound reasoning. Can't forget that.
> I did. You'll find it here:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>
> Run coward... RUN!

Defend Lane's changing "the person with the gun in Wade's statement to "Oswald". We'll wait.

You can't. Changing the words in a claim to make it easy to attack is the very definition of a straw man argument:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy

== quote ==
Logical Form:
Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.
== unquote ==

By changing Wade's "the man with the gun" into "Oswald" in his rebuttal, Lane turned a true statement by Wade into a different claim entirely and attacked that claim instead.

You will attempt to defend Lane's straw man argument of course (Lane is your hero for some reason) but you won't be able to defend Lane's changing of Wade's statement to make it easier to attack. It's still a straw man argument.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 2:21:23 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:10:27 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:22:12 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 08:57:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:42:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'd ask for a legitimate example, with a link and a quote, but we both know you will never provide it.
>>>>>
>>>>>By contrast, I could point out that Mark Lane was utilizing logical fallacies - including a straw man argument - from the very first article he wrote. In fact, from his very first point he ever made.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10217726&postcount=489
>>>>>
>>>>>Hank
>>>>
>>>> Your "example" of a logical fallacy is just silly. What was the
>>>> question that Wade was asked?
>>>
>>>What was the point Wade was making? What was the strawman logical fallacy Lane advanced instead?
>>
>> Actually, I went into great detail, and quoted his exact words. You
>> can deal with the topic in that post:
>
>His exact words were, "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the person with the gun on the sixth floor of the bookstore building, in the window—detailing the window—where he was looking out."
>
>Wade is pointing out the shooter was seen in the Depository by quite a few witnesses. That's the point Wade made.

No, that was *NOT* the point he was making. That has *NOTHING* to do
with his introductory statement.

You need to stop whining, and go to:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
And answer.

>Mark Lane tweaked that, and created a straw man argument to attack:
>"Point One - A number of witnesses saw *Oswald* at the window of the
> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

You're lying again, Huckster. The proof is contained here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

>What Wade said is absolutely true.

What Mark Lane said is absolutely true.

> A number of witnesses did see *the person with the gun* in the
> bookstore building.." What Mark Lane attacked was a different claim
> entirely: "A number of witnesses saw *Oswald*".

So all you're saying is that Wade lied.

>Lane changed "the person with the gun" to "Oswald" so he could attack Wade's true claim.

No, Lane took Wade at his word, and addressed what Wade actually said.

*YOU* are lying... the proof is contained here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

You're just afraid to answer it there - because it's all laid out...
you want to piecemeal an attempted refutation here, and it won't work.

>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>>>> Mark Lane dealt quite clearly and honestly with that - and you can't
>>>> support your claim.
>>>
>>> By your own count, how many witnesses came forward on the weekend of
>>> the assassination to say they saw a person with a gun, or just a gun
>>> sticking out a window on an upper floor of the Depository?
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>

>Hilarious. We're discussing Wade's claim:

Yes... his claim is PRECISELY quoted here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

>> What was Wade advancing?
>
> This claim: "First, there was a number of witnesses that saw the
> person with the gun ..."

You're lying again, Huckster.

(Amusingly, you must have read my refutation - because the "question"
has disappeared)

>"What were his introductory
>> statement? (Not the mythical question you pretend was asked.)
>
>We're not discussing his introductory statement.

Yes Huckster, we are.

Just as Henry Wade did.

Just as Mark Lane did.

>> ...
>>>You'll run from answering.
>>
>> Watch folks, as Huckster proves HIMSELF to be the runner. The proof
>> will be found here:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>
>Sorry, no Ben.

You can run, coward, but I'll simply keep posting it.

You've been caught dead to rights, and now you're TERRIFIED of the
truth.

You got caught PROVABLY lying.

>>> You hate to get pinned down to something you'll actually have to
>>> defend with evidence. And sound reasoning. Can't forget that.
>>
>> I did. You'll find it here:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>>
>> Run coward... RUN!
>

>Defend ...

Defend the lies you told.

Right here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 2:48:24 PM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> >>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an outright and provable lie.
> >>>>
> >>>> What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.
> >>>
> >>>Cite some evidence of a conspiracy.
> >> There you go again, moving the goalposts.
> >
> >Ben runs.
> I didn't run... I pointed out a logical fallacy... then cited where
> I'd already done this.
> > Challenged to cite some evidence of a conspiracy, Ben pretends that's
> > moving the goalposts. This after I said all CTs have "is ad hominem
> > and other logical fallacies" and he called that "an outright and
> > provable lie".
> Yep... you changed the topic from "ad hominem and other logical
> fallacies" - and didn't put it on the EVIDENCE.

I know what I was talking about - and I was saying
== quote ==

The CT's biggest problem is they have differing standards for evidence that points to Oswald and to that they think points to a conspiracy.

CTs set a very high bar for anything pointing to Oswald to pass over -- effectively, they paint it on the ceiling, and find reasons to reject all of it.

== unquote ==

In a followup post, I wrote "And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies [instead of evidence]" in response to yet more ad hominem from Airline Toilet Seat Guy.

You don't get to tell me what I was talking about.

>
> You demand I prove something with the evidence.

Yes, you claimed it was provably false. I'm asking you to prove it.

>
> You've refused to do so - why should I?

Shifting the burden.

>
> You've made a statement you can't support, why are you asking *ME* to
> support your statement?

I'm asking you to discuss the evidence of a conspiracy by putting forth your best reasoned argument for one, complete with citations. You're failing to do that, aren't you?

Don't you remember what I asked for?
== QUOTE ==

Cite some evidence of a conspiracy. Make an argument for why that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not ad hominem, not a straw man argument, not a false dictomony, not begged questions, nor other logical fallacies.

Throw your best arguments out here, complete with citations to the evidence (not to what some conspiracy author wrote, that's NOT evidence), and complete with citations to this supposed evidence you have. You claimed it is "an outright and provable lie".

I'm asking you to prove it.

We both know you won't

== UNQUOTE ==

> >> It's *YOU* that is using logical fallacies, isn't it?
> >
> >No, Ben. It's you and other CTs.
> Your very first statement in the post cited below is a provable
> logical fallacy. Indeed, your first statement in *THIS* thread is a
> logical fallacy... you're just full of 'em, aren't you?

So this is how you change the subject from the challenge I made to you. In the next few posts, you'll be pretending that challenge was never made, you'll be deleting many of my points, and you'll be resorting to ad hominem. In other words, what we've seen you do repeatedly.

> >> I have, of course, many times given evidence for conspiracy. Here,
> >> for example, is a rather long detailed scenario you've run from
> >> repeatedly:
> >>
> >> The Challenge - Part 1
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
> ><snip>
> Of *COURSE* you snipped... you didn't want people to see the massive
> amount of content that you have NEVER responded to.

No, I explained exactly why I snipped it. It was the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop, and when I did examine your first argument cited and pointed out the problems, you simply deleted my points.

Are you saying you changed the links and the ones today aren't the ones you posted months ago and I responded to back then?

>
> See how simple that is?
> > I saw no reason to continue pointing out errors
> You never responded to any of those posts...

I pointed out the errors from your posted scenario months ago. You deleted my responses. I documented that.

> > because you didn't argue any of the points. You just deleted my
> > arguments and called me names. As I said elsewhere, you can't make
> > reasoned argument from the evidence. You didn't even try.
> I make reasoned arguments all the time -

Hilarius. You delete my points almost all the time, invoke logical fallacies and call me names.

> indeed, it's cowards like **YOU**

See what I mean? Thanks for proving my point. This is just ad hominem.

> who refuse to support the WC that you so believe in.

And that's the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I don't need to support the WC while you lob spitballs at it. The Warren Commission's Final Report is still the best scenario on the table, because no competing scenario has been advanced.

When you actually put together one reasoned argument for conspiracy complete with citations to the evidence, we can talk. Until then, you're blowing smoke.

>
>
> The only arguments you make are attempted refutations of what critics
> post.

When critics post falsehoods or logical fallacies, I point them out, yes, as I have time. But not all the time. I have a life.

> >> More importantly - just this morning, I proved where you were ignorant
> >> of facts, and where Mark Lane told the absolute truth... you need to
> >> get busy retracting your lies on that post...

Link to the evidence? A reasoned argument? Anything?

> >
> >You were challenged to put up or shut up.
> I cited both my scenario - and the most recent post where you got
> caught using logical fallacies and lies:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>
> Lie, Huckter, and claim that's not true.

I didn't get caught using logical fallacies. Lane did. I pointed it out. All your word games can't change the fact that Lane put words into Wade's mouth to change the import of what Wade said.

> > Provide evidence. And links, and a reasoned argument.
> Sure. Here you go:
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

This proves a conspiracy how?

Did you forget the challenge already?

== QUOTE ==

Cite some evidence of a conspiracy. Make an argument for why that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not ad hominem, not a straw man argument, not a false dictomony, not begged questions, nor other logical fallacies.

Throw your best arguments out here, complete with citations to the evidence (not to what some conspiracy author wrote, that's NOT evidence), and complete with citations to this supposed evidence you have. You claimed it is "an outright and provable lie".

I'm asking you to prove it.

We both know you won't

== UNQUOTE ==

> >You certainly didn't do it here.
> You're lying again, Huckster.

Still asking you to meet the challenge, Ben. You haven't to date.

Hank

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 3:14:07 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

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

>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:47:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:17:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 09:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 04:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>>>>>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And this is why conspiracy theorists such as yourself fail to convince. Ultimately, all they have is ad hominem and other logical fallacies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is an outright and provable lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we have is the EVIDENCE that you run from repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cite some evidence of a conspiracy.
>>>> There you go again, moving the goalposts.
>>>
>>>Ben runs.
>>
>> I didn't run... I pointed out a logical fallacy... then cited where
>> I'd already done this.

Notice that Huckster had no response.

>>> Challenged to cite some evidence of a conspiracy, Ben pretends that's
>>> moving the goalposts. This after I said all CTs have "is ad hominem
>>> and other logical fallacies" and he called that "an outright and
>>> provable lie".
>>
>> Yep... you changed the topic from "ad hominem and other logical
>> fallacies" - and didn't put it on the EVIDENCE.
>

>I know what I was talking about ...

You clearly and provably do not.

Cite for this mythical question you asserted was asked at the November
24th news conference.

But you won't.

You've already been proven a liar there.

>> You demand I prove something with the evidence.
>
>Yes, you claimed it was provably false. I'm asking you to prove it.

Nope. Your claims are YOURS to prove.

>> You've refused to do so - why should I?
>
>Shifting the burden.

You have the same burden I do.

Lie Huckster and claim you don't...

>> You've made a statement you can't support, why are you asking *ME* to
>> support your statement?
>
>I'm asking you to discuss the evidence of a conspiracy

And yet, you refuse to do so... why is that, Huckster?

>>>> It's *YOU* that is using logical fallacies, isn't it?
>>>
>>>No, Ben. It's you and other CTs.
>> Your very first statement in the post cited below is a provable
>> logical fallacy. Indeed, your first statement in *THIS* thread is a
>> logical fallacy... you're just full of 'em, aren't you?
>

>So this is how you change the subject...

Lie, Huckster, and tell everyone that logical fallicies weren't on
topic...

>>>> I have, of course, many times given evidence for conspiracy. Here,
>>>> for example, is a rather long detailed scenario you've run from
>>>> repeatedly:
>>>>
>>>> The Challenge - Part 1
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
>>><snip>
>> Of *COURSE* you snipped... you didn't want people to see the massive
>> amount of content that you have NEVER responded to.
>
>No, I explained exactly why I snipped it. It was the logical fallacy of a Gish Gallop,

Lie, and claim you requested anything less.

Lie, and claim that you'd accept 500 or 1,000 words on the conspiracy,
and the evidence for it.

I've changed no links. Follow ANY of my links, and quote your
response.

You can't.

*NO-ONE* can.

>> See how simple that is?
>>> I saw no reason to continue pointing out errors
>> You never responded to any of those posts...
>
>I pointed out the errors from your posted scenario months ago. You deleted my responses. I documented that.

Moron, aren't you? You never replied to ANY of those threads. You're
a coward.

>>> because you didn't argue any of the points. You just deleted my
>>> arguments and called me names. As I said elsewhere, you can't make
>>> reasoned argument from the evidence. You didn't even try.
>>

>> I make reasoned arguments all the time - indeed, it's cowards like
>> **YOU** who refuse to support the WC that you so believe in.
>
>And that's the logical fallacy of shifting ...

You have the same burden I do.

>> The only arguments you make are attempted refutations of what critics
>> post.
>
> When critics post falsehoods or logical fallacies, I point them out,
> yes, as I have time. But not all the time. I have a life.

You merely admit that I'm right.

>>>> More importantly - just this morning, I proved where you were ignorant
>>>> of facts, and where Mark Lane told the absolute truth... you need to
>>>> get busy retracting your lies on that post...
>
>Link to the evidence? A reasoned argument? Anything?

Given above... you ran.

>>>You were challenged to put up or shut up.
>> I cited both my scenario - and the most recent post where you got
>> caught using logical fallacies and lies:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ
>>
>> Lie, Huckter, and claim that's not true.
>
>I didn't get caught using logical fallacies.

Then why do you refuse to address them?

Indeed, I pointed out TWO logical fallacies right at the very
beginning.

One by the original poster, one by you.

LIE AND DENY IT, COWARD!

>>> Provide evidence. And links, and a reasoned argument.
>> Sure. Here you go:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wFjOXHMFFgo/m/eSQgtykqAgAJ

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>You certainly didn't do it here.
>> You're lying again, Huckster.
>
>Still asking you to meet the challenge, Ben. You haven't to date.

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

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 4:33:02 PM8/25/21

to

You snip my responses and ignore the point I originally made.

Don't you remember what I asked for?
== QUOTE ==
Cite some evidence of a conspiracy. Make an argument for why that is evidence of a conspiracy.

Not ad hominem, not a straw man argument, not a false dictomony, not begged questions, nor other logical fallacies.

Throw your best arguments out here, complete with citations to the evidence (not to what some conspiracy author wrote, that's NOT evidence), and complete with citations to this supposed evidence you have. You claimed it is "an outright and provable lie".

I'm asking you to prove it.

We both know you won't
== UNQUOTE ==

You still haven't.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 4:45:22 PM8/25/21

to

On Wed, 25 Aug 2021 13:33:00 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant

Remember folks, I predicted it!

>You snip my responses...

End posting gets no interest from me.

Deleted.

You've just ran from EVERYTHING I posted above.

BT George

unread,

Aug 25, 2021, 7:22:36 PM8/25/21

to

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 3:29:40 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 8:17:09 AM UTC, BT George wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 12:31:21 AM UTC-5, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
> > > The fact that Judyth Vary Baker is wrong means that Arlen Specter is right.
> > And we ever said that where? Or could it be we *said* she is *demonstrably* wrong/deceptive *and* the *overall* evidence supports what Arlen Specter had to say?
> > The fact that Jim Marrs shilled for Ancient Alien Gold Diggers means that Lee Harvey Oswald shot from the 6th floor.
> > See above.
> > The fact that Robert Groden is a liar means that the Warren Commission told the truth. Simplistic false dichotomies are Nutter Butter Spread. Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
> Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
> Mr. BALL - A police officer.

> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worknad. ed there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we snad. tared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.

> Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
> Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
> Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
> > >
> > See above.
> > > But Nutters love their fallacies, and are constantly whipping them out in public and playing with them for all to see. They think that makes them look smart.
> > No. Believing the most straightforward and credible explanations that are backed by a superior quality of *real* evidence makes one look smart---because it is!
> > Favoring the most convoluted, speculative, and poorly evidence explanations makes one look dumb---because it is!

> I had in mind the recent 12 Step confession of "caer," the reason given for his current Nutter "sobriety," that he found the conspiracy theorists to be full of shit. That was his reason given for being a Lone Nutter. Of course, sometimes the Nutters give other reasons, but not every post can cover everything all at once, as Nutters always seem to demand. One of the multitude of Nutter Fallacies is that the unreliability of CT'ers proves the reliability of the Warren Commission. That is a logical fallacy, and I don't know why I'm trying to reason with a Fucktard sack of shit such as you. Just go fuck yourself.

No if you don't mind---or even if you do--I have no plans of that. But the vast weight of excrement is *clearly* on the CT side.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 26, 2021, 2:03:02 AM8/26/21

to

Your premise is false, that there is a "CT side." There are truthers and liars and fools, and they all identify themselves as belonging to Nutters or CT'ers, but there is no CT side. That is your straw man creation so that you may attack me for something Groden said. Try again to go fuck yourself.

Sky Throne 19efppp

unread,

Aug 26, 2021, 2:18:17 AM8/26/21

to

There's no reasoning with you, Fucktard. You insist that Clyde Haygood was standing on a surface at least 24 inches below his feet. Such a person cannot be reasoned with. Such a person should be insulted. Fucktard.