KUTGW...

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the factory of lies, alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.

One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome circle jerk).

Let the truth go where it may....

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:10:07 AM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the factory of lies,

Mark Lane`s Rush to Judgment.

> alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.
>
> One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome circle jerk).
>
> Let the truth go where it may....

It will never cross your mind.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 21:10:06 -0700 (PDT), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the
> factory of lies, alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.

Yep... it's a good way for lurkers to learn the truth, and the amount
of lies needed to believe the *first* investigation.

> One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon
> nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome
> circle jerk).
>
> Let the truth go where it may....

Indeed!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Hey Stoner,

Who killed JFK?

[lazu...@gmail.com]

Ben is our best and brightest by far!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


---Desiderius Erasmus (1500)

[Bud]

Stealing a line from Anthony Jeselnik, "I know Ben in the Biblical sense, I don`t believe a word he says".

[Ben Holmes]

I don't hold a candle to some of our better researchers... they simply
don't post here.

[Bud]

Nothing is really any different than if none of these retards looked into this event, lurkers.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I dunno, Ben. You're just as good a researcher as Boris or Healy.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I dunno, Ben. You're just as good a researcher as Boris or Healy.

No, they're much better than me. I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as "debate."

Or...Oswald must have been the lone assassin, because Dumb Fuck Chuck can quote the movie "Psycho." (For any lurkers paying attention, it's literally all Chuck can quote...he certainly can't quote "allll the experts")

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Chuckles can't even list the witnesses that the Warren Commission used
to constitute "persuasive evidence."

He can't... he knows it's a lie.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Got a case yet, Troofer?

(Crickets chirping...)

Let's watch Boris the Truther adjust the propeller on his tinfoil hat beanie to maximum speed while he speeds down to mommy's basement.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's all a big lie. Everyone hated JFK, everyone wanted big Vietnam War profits that JFK was going nip in the bud, everyone wanted to help LBJ avoid a corruption charge, everyone wanted to see Hoover stay past the mandatory retirement year, everyone wanted to see Jack Thompson succeed in killing his rival, JD Tippit, etc.

And even though only "seven or eight people" planned or carried it out, thousands HAD to cover it up because they had motives like retaining their government pensions, or perhaps sincere feelings that WW3 was imminent if the truth was revealed, so they thought they were doing the patriotic thing.

Okay, now that we have all of that out of the way as well as stipulating that all of the main media outlets were cowardly, and staff attorneys on the WC, right up to Earl Warren himself, were corrupt and frozen with fear regarding a possible nuclear exchange with the Soviets, tell us, Ben...

WHAT HAPPENED?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 5:20:40 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >

> > I dunno, Ben. You're just as good a researcher as Boris or Healy.
>
> No, they're much better than me. I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as "debate."

We haven't had a debate yet, Truther. You haven't put anything forward to debate.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It's all a big lie. Everyone hated JFK, everyone wanted big Vietnam War profits that JFK was going nip in the bud, everyone wanted to help LBJ avoid a corruption charge, everyone wanted to see Hoover stay past the mandatory retirement year, everyone wanted to see Jack Thompson succeed in killing his rival, JD Tippit, etc.
>
> And even though only "seven or eight people" planned or carried it out, thousands HAD to cover it up because they had motives like retaining their government pensions, or perhaps sincere feelings that WW3 was imminent if the truth was revealed, so they thought they were doing the patriotic thing.
>
> Okay, now that we have all of that out of the way as well as stipulating that all of the main media outlets were cowardly, and staff attorneys on the WC, right up to Earl Warren himself, were corrupt and frozen with fear regarding a possible nuclear exchange with the Soviets, tell us, Ben...
>
> WHAT HAPPENED?

Is it obvious to everyone by this comment that Chuck hasn't studied history a day in his life?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Got a case yet, Troofer?

Let's say I don't, and that changes NONE of the evidence that both you and the Dulles Commission run from every day of your yellow, shitty lives.

>
> Let's watch Boris the Truther adjust the propeller on his tinfoil hat beanie to maximum speed while he speeds down to mommy's basement.

In case anyone is following along, this tidbid of genius from Chuck is a direct response to this comment I made: "I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as 'debate.'"

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 8:18:15 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Got a case yet, Troofer?
>
> Let's say I don't,

Wake us when you do.

> and that changes NONE of the evidence that both you and the Dulles Commission run from every day of your yellow, shitty lives.

Nobody cares what a critic has to say. Nobody. If you can`t produce something, STFU! This isn`t the "Bitch about the Warren Commission Forum".

Be honest, just come right out and admit you have nothing.

> >
> > Let's watch Boris the Truther adjust the propeller on his tinfoil hat beanie to maximum speed while he speeds down to mommy's basement.
>
> In case anyone is following along, this tidbid of genius from Chuck is a direct response to this comment I made: "I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as 'debate.'"

There is nothing to debate. If you guys had something to offer we would have heard about it by now. Your dismal failure to produce anything has already decided the issue.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Nobody cares what a critic has to say. Nobody. If you can`t produce something, STFU! This isn`t the "Bitch about the Warren Commission Forum".

Notice how strangely defensive the troll is of seven dead men for no apparent reason at all, pointing out this is not the "Warren Commission Forum" (which it kind of is, since they are central to the "investigation"), but spends an inordinate amount of time bitching about Ben, Healy and myself, in a forum that is also not the "Ben, Boris or Healy" forum.

The troll is DESPERATE for us to please, please, PLEASE stop talking about the Warren Commission. Cannot imagine why.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Got a case yet, Troofer?
>
> Let's say I don't, and that changes NONE of the evidence that both you and the Dulles Commission run from every day of your yellow, shitty lives.

Let's admit you don't have a case and never will, and don't have the balls to put anything out there, and let's understand your entire yellow, shitty life consists of shitting on JFK's memory by reducing what we remember of him to the Zapruder frames from world's most famous snuff film.

>
> >
> > Let's watch Boris the Truther adjust the propeller on his tinfoil hat beanie to maximum speed while he speeds down to mommy's basement.
>
> In case anyone is following along, this tidbid of genius from Chuck is a direct response to this comment I made: "I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as 'debate.'"

As predicted, not even a HINT of a case from Boris the Truther.

Get help, Boris.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

And the Truther is desperate to keep the focus ON the WC because the Truther has NOTHING to offer. You're the king of the Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

You can talk about the WC all you want, Truther. When are you going to lay out a case that better explains the event than the case they put out there? Stop firing nerf darts at the WC, and let's compare your case with their case.



I get it. You think they

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Let's admit you don't have a case and never will, and don't have the balls to put anything out there, and let's understand your entire yellow, shitty life consists of shitting on JFK's memory by reducing what we remember of him to the Zapruder frames from world's most famous snuff film.

You're making the extremely arrogant mistake of thinking that because I won't jump through your hoops and produce hundreds of pages worth of text that you won't even read, that somehow equates to an inability to do so. Which even if I was unable, does not change the evidence that you CAN'T and will NEVER answer to.

The Dulles Commission was appointed to do exactly what the Katzenbach memo stipulates (its motives are not even hidden). Hoover was a scumbag, and LBJ was the most evil motherfucker to ever sit in that office. And you follow every word out of their mouths with such trusting blindness that if you lived in Germany in the 1930s, one has an excellent idea of exactly where you'd be.

But since you've never studied history a day in your life, you don't even know what I'm referring to right now ;-)

> >
> > In case anyone is following along, this tidbid of genius from Chuck is a direct response to this comment I made: "I'm just good enough to render you a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only morons like you pass off as 'debate.'"

As predicted, Chuck squandered yet another opportunity to be a MAN and say, "This is what I believe, and this is why I believe it." An easy task for any LNer, since the evidence is spoonfed to them, with a bib underneath to catch all the drippings.

NEVER forget, lurkers...lone nut WC apologists can't defend their position. Not a "won't", a "can't".

Watch...

Who were "all the experts" that stated CE399 was *the* bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day?

Epithets and/or stonewalling to follow.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> And the Truther is desperate to keep the focus ON the WC because the Truther has NOTHING to offer. You're the king of the Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

Failing to study the Warren Commission in relation to the Kennedy assassination is as stupid as failing to study the Axis Alliance in relation to WWII. Why would you NOT? It's ***critical***. Read a history book, Dumb Fuck.

>
> I get it. You think they

Chuck is such an idiot and so tired of his own shit that he SNIPS himself!

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 8:53:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Nobody cares what a critic has to say. Nobody. If you can`t produce something, STFU! This isn`t the "Bitch about the Warren Commission Forum".
>
> Notice how strangely defensive the troll is of seven dead men for no apparent reason at all, pointing out this is not the "Warren Commission Forum" (which it kind of is, since they are central to the "investigation"), but spends an inordinate amount of time bitching about Ben, Healy and myself, in a forum that is also not the "Ben, Boris or Healy" forum.

It doesn`t have to be that way. Get Ben to stop making his phony challenges to "believers". This is what takes things where they go, I don`t start a lot of posts attacking retards. *We* don`t really have to do anything. We don`t owe you answers. We don`t have to explain our opinions. *You* have to pony something the fuck up.

> The troll is DESPERATE for us to please, please, PLEASE stop talking about the Warren Commission. Cannot imagine why.

Bitch about the Warren Commission Report until you are blue in the face, retard, see if it changes. You and Ben keep thrusting things in our face as if it is out job to explain these things to your satisfaction. Nobody signed up for that. Until you can produce something all we need to do is point out that you don`t have anything.

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:09:53 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > And the Truther is desperate to keep the focus ON the WC because the Truther has NOTHING to offer. You're the king of the Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
>
> Failing to study the Warren Commission in relation to the Kennedy assassination is as stupid as failing to study the Axis Alliance in relation to WWII.

What a stupid analogy. The Warren Commission didn`t even exist when Kennedy was assassinated. It was the reaction to an action. It didn`t have the slightest thing to do with the event itself.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It doesn`t have to be that way. Get Ben to stop making his phony challenges to "believers".

They're only phony inasmuch as he knows those challenges will never be met. I think if any of you assholes actually met one of these challenges, you might stun a critic into utter silence, if even for a few minutes while we processed the impossibility of what just happened.

>
> This is what takes things where they go, I don`t start a lot of posts attacking retards.

Your first post to me was an attack.

Now you're about to justify running like a coward...

>
> *We* don`t really have to do anything. We don`t owe you answers. We don`t have to explain our opinions. *You* have to pony something the fuck up.

Funny that Bugliosi would write a 2,000-page book then, isn't it?

>
> Bitch about the Warren Commission Report until you are blue in the face, retard, see if it changes.

Such dishonesty, coming from someone that has previously BARGAINED with me to stop talking about the Warren Commission.

>
> You and Ben keep thrusting things in our face as if it is out job to explain these things to your satisfaction. Nobody signed up for that.

LOL!! You've been here since the day the Internet was invented. This is the "House of Bud". You are the dictionary definition of "signed up for it," motherfucker.

>
> Until you can produce something all we need to do is point out that you don`t have anything.

I could produce 4K Ultra HD footage of the second shooter, and you'd stomp your foot and whine. You have your belief system in place. Just have the balls to admit nothing will change it, instead of pretending.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, but I'll give it an answer, even though you've heard it before:

The definition of consilience has been explained to you but you don't follow it.

The idea that CE399 caused the non fatal wounds in JFK and JBC developed as evidence from the "experts" (the cops who collected it, the forensics exams, the examination of photos of the relative heights and positions of JFK and JBC in the limo, etc.) made it clear in the minds of most of the committee members (the "persuasive" bit you have a problem with) that this is how it happened. Remember, the FBI issued their own report earlier with a different idea on the shot sequence. The single bullet "theory" is the result from the testimony, evidence collected, forensics exams, etc. from all of the experts who had input.

Now, before you Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot with a question born from my answer, explain what happened in a way superior to what the WC concluded.

By the way, I don't have a position separate than the historically accepted conclusion. You do. You have the burden of explaining all of the freaky sh!t in a way superior to the conclusions you rail against. So stop turning it on me. Stop snapping rubber bands at the WC and put up a case.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 8:25:58 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It doesn`t have to be that way. Get Ben to stop making his phony challenges to "believers".
>
> They're only phony inasmuch as he knows those challenges will never be met.

Then they are phony. Of course the challenges will never be met IN BEN'S MIND. (Or your mind.) What could matter less? Every history book in every college, high school and middle school that discusses this rapidly aging event in US history records Oswald as JFK's killer. There isn't ONE history book in any college HS or middle school that mentions a syllable about LBJ killing his predecessor.

>I think if any of you assholes actually met one of these challenges, you might stun a critic into utter >silence, if even for a few minutes while we processed the impossibility of what just happened.

Silly. You have disease called conspiracism. You can't be convinced you're wrong anymore than the clinically diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic can be convinced they're not being spied on by a microchip implanted in their skull.

>
> >
> > This is what takes things where they go, I don`t start a lot of posts attacking retards.
>
> Your first post to me was an attack.
>
> Now you're about to justify running like a coward...
>
> >
> > *We* don`t really have to do anything. We don`t owe you answers. We don`t have to explain our opinions. *You* have to pony something the fuck up.
>
> Funny that Bugliosi would write a 2,000-page book then, isn't it?

It didn't help you, did it?
>

[Jason Burke]

Too bad you can't, shithead.
Mainly because there was no second shooter.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Who were "all the experts" that stated CE399 was *the* bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day?
> >
> > Epithets and/or stonewalling to follow.
>
> It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, but I'll give it an answer, even though you've heard it before:
>
> The definition of consilience has been explained to you but you don't follow it.

I see you've failed already. I asked you, WHO were "all the experts"? I didn't ask you what the evidence was, most of the shitty examples which you list have been debunked to death and back again. But hey, at least you tried.

>
> The idea that CE399 caused the non fatal wounds in JFK and JBC developed as evidence from the "experts" (the cops who collected it,

You don't believe the cops.

>
> the forensics exams,

You don't believe forensics either.

>
> the examination of photos of the relative heights and positions of JFK and JBC in the limo, etc.)

Staring at a photo all day is not going to make evidence appear, sorry.

>
> made it clear in the minds of most of the committee members (the "persuasive" bit you have a problem with) that this is how it happened.

Such a difficult conclusion to come to when their minds were already made up. I notice you also said MOST of the committee members, meaning even you acknowledge there was a schism within the WC as to the veracity of the evidence (unless that was a LNer faux pas. You might be punished for it!)

>
> Remember, the FBI issued their own report earlier with a different idea on the shot sequence.

Tell us about it.

>
> The single bullet "theory" is the result from the testimony, evidence collected, forensics exams, etc. from all of the experts who had input.

No, the SBT was a hypothesis the WC adopted as fact, and built their case around by leading witnesses with a one-sided line of questioning rather than follow the natural flow of the testimony to see where it lead.

>
> Now, before you Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot with a question born from my answer, explain what happened in a way superior to what the WC concluded.

It's amusing how often you point to human fallibility when needed, yet cling to the belief that the WC and their investigation were free from flaws. You'll claim otherwise, but cite no examples.

>
> By the way, I don't have a position separate than the historically accepted conclusion.

This is an appeal to tradition fallacy.

>
> You do. You have the burden of explaining all of the freaky sh!t in a way superior to the conclusions you rail against.

And who is it I have that burden to?

>
> So stop turning it on me. Stop snapping rubber bands at the WC and put up a case.

Why? I'm not Johnny Cochrane. The evidence is case enough. This cowardly comment from the troll also implies that if my case were strong enough, it might change your mind. Hilarious.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > I could produce 4K Ultra HD footage of the second shooter,
>
> Too bad you can't, shithead.
> Mainly because there was no second shooter.

No, mainly because there was no 4K Ultra HD technology in 1963. But hey, you try SO HARD to wave your hands and get noticed in here, I thought I'd do my good deed for the month and toss a pity comment your way, just so you'd feel included, since even the LNers here completely ignore you.

Just so you know, when we talk about JFK being shot, we mean the president...NOT the airport* in New York.

*a place where planes go vroom-vroom.

[Bud]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 9:25:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It doesn`t have to be that way. Get Ben to stop making his phony challenges to "believers".
>
> They're only phony inasmuch as he knows those challenges will never be met.

So why make them? What is the purpose of a never ending string of playing retard trading cards and challenges to explain things to your satisfaction or you get to believe stupid shit? I think you and Ben should believe stupid shit, why do you need other people to facilitate this? Do you feel it validates or justifies the stupid shit you believe if you challenge "believers"? If you think your ideas are valid and the evidence supports them put a cohesive package on the table explaining this event.

> I think if any of you assholes actually met one of these challenges, you might stun a critic into utter silence,

No, as Chuck points out they merely pivot, and head off in some other direction. It is fighting a hydra, cutting off heads does help.

> if even for a few minutes while we processed the impossibility of what just happened.
>
> >
> > This is what takes things where they go, I don`t start a lot of posts attacking retards.
>
> Your first post to me was an attack.

You identified yourself as a conspiracy retard in your first post. And when exactly was the first time you posted in this forum, and under what name did you post?

> Now you're about to justify running like a coward...

How things appear to a retard is immaterial.

> >
> > *We* don`t really have to do anything. We don`t owe you answers. We don`t have to explain our opinions. *You* have to pony something the fuck up.
>
> Funny that Bugliosi would write a 2,000-page book then, isn't it?

Would it have been written if conspiracy retards hadn`t made a hobby of this event?

>
> >
> > Bitch about the Warren Commission Report until you are blue in the face, retard, see if it changes.
>
> Such dishonesty, coming from someone that has previously BARGAINED with me to stop talking about the Warren Commission.

This illustrates how the actual reality of something and how a conspiracy retard sees that thing are usually different.

> >
> > You and Ben keep thrusting things in our face as if it is out job to explain these things to your satisfaction. Nobody signed up for that.
>
> LOL!! You've been here since the day the Internet was invented. This is the "House of Bud". You are the dictionary definition of "signed up for it," motherfucker.

Of course you are never right, about anything. Ben left for a good long while, as did most of the conspiracy retards. Without the constant demands from conspiracy retards to explain stuff to their satisfaction and the playing of conspiracy retard trading cards the activity in this place dropped to nothing, it was a ghost town. LNers did not stay and make posts about things that show Oswald`s guilt or things that support the WC`s conclusions.

> >
> > Until you can produce something all we need to do is point out that you don`t have anything.
>
> I could produce 4K Ultra HD footage of the second shooter, and you'd stomp your foot and whine. You have your belief system in place. Just have the balls to admit nothing will change it, instead of pretending.

Isn`t speculating how I would react if you actually had something admitting you have nothing?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Multiple assassins.

There's no need to say anything more, because *YOU* refuse to say
anything more. When you're ready to grow up, and emulate Conan's
example, let me know.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:20:20 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Who were "all the experts" that stated CE399 was *the* bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day?
> > >
> > > Epithets and/or stonewalling to follow.
> >
> > It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, but I'll give it an answer, even though you've heard it before:
> >
> > The definition of consilience has been explained to you but you don't follow it.
>
> I see you've failed already. I asked you, WHO were "all the experts"? I didn't ask you what the evidence was, most of the shitty examples which you list have been debunked to death and back again. But hey, at least you tried.

And it's Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. You're right back and asking something I already answered.

>
>
> >
> > The idea that CE399 caused the non fatal wounds in JFK and JBC developed as evidence from the "experts" (the cops who collected it,
>
> You don't believe the cops.

You have no idea on how to weigh evidence. And by the way, your midget friend thinks the cops, following a phone call to the DPD by someone named Guy Persnell, were part of the assassination, and that a rogue cop named Jack Thompson, who felt dissed by being overlooked for a promotion, killed JD Tippit.

>
> >
> > the forensics exams,
>
> You don't believe forensics either.

I believe the experts who said the shots were from behind, that the 6th floor shells are from Oswald's rifle, that the rifle is HIS rifle, that the blanket fibers in the bag are consistent with the blanket in the Paine garage, the print evidence, etc.

>
> >
> > the examination of photos of the relative heights and positions of JFK and JBC in the limo, etc.)
>
> Staring at a photo all day is not going to make evidence appear, sorry.

What a lame answer. Continue.

>
> >
> > made it clear in the minds of most of the committee members (the "persuasive" bit you have a problem with) that this is how it happened.
>
> Such a difficult conclusion to come to when their minds were already made up.

But they couldn't fool you. Boris On the Trail of the Assassins!

I notice you also said MOST of the committee members, meaning even you acknowledge there was a schism within the WC as to the veracity of the evidence (unless that was a LNer faux pas. You might be punished for it!)

All of the members thought Oswald killed JFK if I recall. A few weren't sold on the SBT. So what? It's more proof the investigation was honest---and flawed, for that matter. It doesn't mean thy didn't get it right. If they all agreed with unanimity, you'd find THAT suspicious, too. Heads you win, tails the Warren Commission loses. It's a rigged game that you can't lose at.

>
>
> >
> > Remember, the FBI issued their own report earlier with a different idea on the shot sequence.
>
> Tell us about it.

You know about it already. You're an expert in JFK trivia like many of us.

>
> >
> > The single bullet "theory" is the result from the testimony, evidence collected, forensics exams, etc. from all of the experts who had input.
>
> No, the SBT was a hypothesis the WC adopted as fact, and built their case around by leading witnesses with a one-sided line of questioning rather than follow the natural flow of the testimony to see where it lead.

Begging the Question. Well then, explain the event better than the WC. Stop shooting spitballs at it and grow some gonads and PRODUCE a case.

>
>
> >
> > Now, before you Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot with a question born from my answer, explain what happened in a way superior to what the WC concluded.
>
> It's amusing how often you point to human fallibility when needed, yet cling to the belief that the WC and their investigation were free from flaws. You'll claim otherwise, but cite no examples.

I categorically state there were flaws with the WC, and for that matter, there were flaws in the 911 investigation, too. Like any investigation of this size (and many investigations quite a bit smaller), there is in-fighting, contradictions in the evidence, political wheeling-and-dealing of one sort or another (how can there NOT be when you've got Dems and Repubs sitting on the same committee?) and so on. So what?

>
>
> >
> > By the way, I don't have a position separate than the historically accepted conclusion.
>
> This is an appeal to tradition fallacy.

You're misusing the fallacy. I'm not appealing to tradition to get you to change your mind, etc.

>
> >
> > You do. You have the burden of explaining all of the freaky sh!t in a way superior to the conclusions you rail against.
>
> And who is it I have that burden to?

No one, if you're dropping your claim. No claim, no burden, just like me. If you're at a conspiracy discussion board arguing a conspiracy killed JFK, one would assume you're here to discuss your conspiracy. So if that's not the case, stop with the faux outrage over all of the agencies and individuals who killed Camelot and wrecked America, and leave the board. Go back to your equally wacky 911 Truther bullshit.

>
> >
> > So stop turning it on me. Stop snapping rubber bands at the WC and put up a case.
>
> Why? I'm not Johnny Cochrane.

And this isn't a trial. The suspect was dead and we properly do not put the dead on trial. The WC was a fact finding commission to see if he'd had confederates and to ascertain the facts behind what he did.

>The evidence is case enough.

Which is why history records Oswald as JFK's killer and JD Tippit's killer.

>This cowardly comment from the troll also implies that if my case were strong enough, it might change >your mind. Hilarious.

Forget the "strong" case, let's hear your weak case.

Or don't you even have a weak case?

Hilarious.

Run along, Boris.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:20:20 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Who were "all the experts" that stated CE399 was *the* bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day?
>> > >
>> > > Epithets and/or stonewalling to follow.
>> >
>> > It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, but I'll give it an answer, even though you've heard it before:
>> >
>> > The definition of consilience has been explained to you but you don't follow it.
>>
>> I see you've failed already. I asked you, WHO were "all the experts"? I didn't ask you what the evidence was, most of the shitty examples which you list have been debunked to death and back again. But hey, at least you tried.
>
>And it's Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. You're right back and asking something I already answered.

You're lying again, Chuckles... no doubt inspired by Anthony Marsh,
who often claims to have already done something he cannnot cite.

And just like Anthony Marsh, you'll refuse to cite this previous
answer you never gave.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I did answer it yesterday. It's right on this thread at an earlier post in response to Boris. Put your legendary detective skills on display and find it. Doubtless you won't like the answer, but so what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're lying again, Chuckles.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> It's amusing how often you point to human fallibility when needed,
>> yet cling to the belief that the WC and their investigation were free
>> from flaws. You'll claim otherwise, but cite no examples.
>
> I categorically state there were flaws with the WC, and for that
> matter, there were flaws in the 911 investigation, too. Like any
> investigation of this size (and many investigations quite a bit
> smaller), there is in-fighting, contradictions in the evidence,
> political wheeling-and-dealing of one sort or another (how can there
> NOT be when you've got Dems and Repubs sitting on the same committee?)
> and so on. So what?

Boris is getting as good as I am with correct predictions...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Ben can't find it.

And these guys think they're qualified to analyze evidence better than the FBI, WC attorneys, DPD, etc.

Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't even begin to cover this.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Ben can't find it.
>
> And these guys think they're qualified to analyze evidence better than the FBI, WC attorneys, DPD, etc.

After further testing, Robert Frazier recanted his initial testimony and told the Warren Commission that CE399 was NOT fired from the Carcano, and in fact never struck a bone. He conducted several scientific experiments to reach these conclusions, and all the experts agreed. And it's right there in his testimony.

Can't you find it?

[Bud]

The all we need to say is "one assassin", lurkers.

> There's no need to say anything more, because *YOU* refuse to say
> anything more.

Then we can agree to disagree, lurkers.

> When you're ready to grow up,

Irony alert, lurkers.

> and emulate Conan's
> example, let me know.

So according to Ben Conan already has, lurkers. What is the problem?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Well sadly for you, he apparently "recanted" his recant, because here's an interview from 2013 with a 94 year old Robert Frazier. He still seems "onboard" with the WC conclusions.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-jfk-assassination-former-agent-recalls-his-role-in-the-investigation

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Well sadly for you, he apparently "recanted" his recant, because here's an interview from 2013 with a 94 year old Robert Frazier. He still seems "onboard" with the WC conclusions.
>
> https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/the-jfk-assassination-former-agent-recalls-his-role-in-the-investigation

LOL!! It's so amusing the way you are mysteriously able to produce citations when you CAN, and whine that it's not your burden when you CAN'T.

Of course, my point went right over your stupid head...much like CE399, which never hit anybody.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:31:08 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:56:52 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:15:53 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:20:20 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Who were "all the experts" that stated CE399 was *the* bullet fired in Dealey Plaza that day?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Epithets and/or stonewalling to follow.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot, but I'll give it an answer, even though you've heard it before:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The definition of consilience has been explained to you but you don't follow it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see you've failed already. I asked you, WHO were "all the experts"? I didn't ask you what the evidence was, most of the shitty examples which you list have been debunked to death and back again. But hey, at least you tried.
>> >> >
>> >> >And it's Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. You're right back and asking something I already answered.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Chuckles... no doubt inspired by Anthony Marsh,
>> >> who often claims to have already done something he cannnot cite.
>> >>
>> >> And just like Anthony Marsh, you'll refuse to cite this previous
>> >> answer you never gave.
>> >
>> > I did answer it yesterday. It's right on this thread at an earlier
>> > post in response to Boris. Put your legendary detective skills on
>> > display and find it. Doubtless you won't like the answer, but so what?
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
>Ben can't find it.

Yep... that's true. Can't find what doesn't exist.

*YOU* can't find it either...

This explains why you can't quote or cite it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 10:47:04 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

It's amusing how often believers pull up statements made DECADES after
the event, and that contradicts their earlier statements & testimony.

They whine pitiously when they catch critics merely referencing
decades later statements that ***DON'T*** contradict earlier
statements... and can't seem to see themselves doing anything wrong.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >Ben can't find it.
>
>
> Yep... that's true. Can't find what doesn't exist.

Everyone knows where Chuck's answers can be found...in the National Archives, next to Allen Dulles's signed, sworn confession to his involvement in the assassination. It's sitting right there, but Chuck can't find it. No surprise, from these retards. The LNers should put their legendary hunger for history on display and find it. Doubtless they won't like the answer, but so what?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:07:51 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Not that it needs to be said, but Chuckles is a liar.

And amusingly, one that doesn't care whether or not he's proven to be
a liar... since he makes no effort at all to refute the charge.

[BT George]

On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:52:15 AM UTC-5, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 9:10:07 PM UTC-7, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the factory of lies, alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.
> >
> > One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome circle jerk).
> >
> > Let the truth go where it may....
>
> Ben is our best and brightest by far!

Go to the 1:55 mark of this:

https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA

...Meleva's words say it all!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Go to the 1:55 mark of this:
>
> https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA
>
> ...Meleva's words say it all!

Ah, shit! I thought a LN troll had FINALLY posted some evidence to look at. I blame myself for not knowing better.

[BT George]

Well Lurkers. Perhaps "Boris" should amuse himself by answering the questions Benny ducked (again) here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/gFyAEyPkQGs/KISHsKgeBwAJ

All he needs to do is follow that link and *in detail* and *point-by-point* show us all the answers he has that escaped Benny since us LN's are so full of it. :-) I especially look forward to his *credible* alternative scenario to the SBT. I'm sure it will prove as "enlightening" and "entertaining" as Ben's devastating responses. :-)

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I'm fine with the opinion of doctors. Your problem if you disagree with them, not mine. Smiley face back! :-)

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

These anonymous trolls keep popping up, refusing to engage in debate,
then run off again...

Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
the post. I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
"credible" alternative to the SBT.

Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:46:56 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Go to the 1:55 mark of this:
> >> > >
> >> > > https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA
> >> > >
> >> > > ...Meleva's words say it all!
> >> >
> >> > Ah, shit! I thought a LN troll had FINALLY posted some evidence to look at. I blame myself for not knowing better.
> >>
> >> Well Lurkers. Perhaps "Boris" should amuse himself by answering the questions Benny ducked (again) here:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/gFyAEyPkQGs/KISHsKgeBwAJ
> >>
> >> All he needs to do is follow that link and *in detail* and
> >> *point-by-point* show us all the answers he has that escaped Benny
> >> since us LN's are so full of it. :-) I especially look forward to his
> >> *credible* alternative scenario to the SBT. I'm sure it will prove as
> >> "enlightening" and "entertaining" as Ben's devastating responses. :-)
> >
> > I'm fine with the opinion of doctors. Your problem if you disagree
> > with them, not mine. Smiley face back! :-)
>
> These anonymous trolls keep popping up,

Says Ben to the anonymous Boris Badenov.

>refusing to engage in debate,
> then run off again...

Irony alert.

>
> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
> the post.

Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.

I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
> "credible" alternative to the SBT.

We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.

>
> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...

You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds, multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting configurations are limited only by your imagination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:57:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:46:56 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Go to the 1:55 mark of this:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA
>> >> > >
>> >> > > ...Meleva's words say it all!
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, shit! I thought a LN troll had FINALLY posted some evidence to look at. I blame myself for not knowing better.
>> >>
>> >> Well Lurkers. Perhaps "Boris" should amuse himself by answering the questions Benny ducked (again) here:
>> >>
>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/gFyAEyPkQGs/KISHsKgeBwAJ
>> >>
>> >> All he needs to do is follow that link and *in detail* and
>> >> *point-by-point* show us all the answers he has that escaped Benny
>> >> since us LN's are so full of it. :-) I especially look forward to his
>> >> *credible* alternative scenario to the SBT. I'm sure it will prove as
>> >> "enlightening" and "entertaining" as Ben's devastating responses. :-)
>> >
>> > I'm fine with the opinion of doctors. Your problem if you disagree
>> > with them, not mine. Smiley face back! :-)
>>
>> These anonymous trolls keep popping up,
>
>Says Ben to the anonymous Boris Badenov.

Yes... commiserating with him... are you too stupid to figure it out?

>>refusing to engage in debate,
>> then run off again...
>
>Irony alert.

And what is the "persuasive evidence" you claim to have listed?

Where is it?

>> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
>> the post.
>
> Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through
> his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.

I don't stop anyone from saying anything they want to say.

That's **NOT** censorship.

I merely do the **SAME** thing that everyone does... decide what is
worth their time to pay attention to.

Are you claiming not to do this, moron?

>> I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
>> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
>
>We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

>> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...
>
> You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds,
> multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple
> hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's
> corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting
> configurations are limited only by your imagination.

Tell us Chuckles, why did you lie and claim that I didn't offer a
credible alternative to the SBT?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 7:22:01 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:57:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:46:56 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Go to the 1:55 mark of this:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > ...Meleva's words say it all!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, shit! I thought a LN troll had FINALLY posted some evidence to look at. I blame myself for not knowing better.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well Lurkers. Perhaps "Boris" should amuse himself by answering the questions Benny ducked (again) here:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/gFyAEyPkQGs/KISHsKgeBwAJ
> >> >>
> >> >> All he needs to do is follow that link and *in detail* and
> >> >> *point-by-point* show us all the answers he has that escaped Benny
> >> >> since us LN's are so full of it. :-) I especially look forward to his
> >> >> *credible* alternative scenario to the SBT. I'm sure it will prove as
> >> >> "enlightening" and "entertaining" as Ben's devastating responses. :-)
> >> >
> >> > I'm fine with the opinion of doctors. Your problem if you disagree
> >> > with them, not mine. Smiley face back! :-)
> >>
> >> These anonymous trolls keep popping up,
> >
> >Says Ben to the anonymous Boris Badenov.
>
>
> Yes... commiserating with him... are you too stupid to figure it out?

Cute. Are you too tone deaf to notice your hypocrisy? I personally don't have a problem with anyone using a nom de plume, but your faux outrage is amusing.

>
>
>
> >>refusing to engage in debate,
> >> then run off again...
> >
> >Irony alert.
>
>
> And what is the "persuasive evidence" you claim to have listed?

I didn't.
>
> Where is it?

54 years of this, lurkers.

>
>
>
> >> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
> >> the post.
> >
> > Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through
> > his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.
>
>
> I don't stop anyone from saying anything they want to say.

Nah, you just block them, like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are doing with conservative viewpoints they disagree with.
>
> That's **NOT** censorship.

In this case, distinction without a difference fallacy.

>
> I merely do the **SAME** thing that everyone does... decide what is
> worth their time to pay attention to.

Fair enough, but isn't that what McAdams does? You seem to have a problem with it there, yet defend your practice of it here. And actually, McAdams only censors for language and personal attacks, not content. Even if the topic is just tangentially related to the JFK assassination, it gets on the board. There was recently a 911 Truther-related post at aaj. that he let proceed for, I want to say, 600 plus posts or so. His rules are in place to keep the poop-throwing we all engage in here away from his board.

>
> Are you claiming not to do this, moron?

I don't have a kill filter, no.

>
>
>
> >> I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
> >> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
> >
> >We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.
>
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.

No, we really find it funny.

>
>
> >> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...
> >
> > You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds,
> > multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple
> > hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's
> > corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting
> > configurations are limited only by your imagination.
>
> Tell us Chuckles, why did you lie and claim that I didn't offer a
> credible alternative to the SBT?

Why do you lie and claim you do?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:22:12 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

That's because I have no "outrage" at someone I know.

>> >>refusing to engage in debate,
>> >> then run off again...
>> >
>> >Irony alert.
>>
>>
>> And what is the "persuasive evidence" you claim to have listed?
>
>I didn't.

*********************************************

>> >> I see you've failed already. I asked you, WHO were "all the experts"? I didn't ask you what the evidence was, most of the shitty examples which you list have been debunked to death and back again. But hey, at least you tried.
>> >
>> >And it's Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. You're right back and asking something I already answered.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles... no doubt inspired by Anthony Marsh,
>> who often claims to have already done something he cannnot cite.
>>
>> And just like Anthony Marsh, you'll refuse to cite this previous
>> answer you never gave.
>
> I did answer it yesterday. It's right on this thread at an earlier

> post in response to Boris. Put your legendary detective skills on
> display and find it. Doubtless you won't like the answer, but so what?
*********************************************

You're lying again, Chuckles... rather blatantly, too.

>> Where is it?
>
>54 years of this, lurkers.

Yep... it's true that liars lie. And are capable of lying for long
periods of time.

>> >> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
>> >> the post.
>> >
>> > Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through
>> > his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.
>>
>> I don't stop anyone from saying anything they want to say.
>
> Nah, you just block them, like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are
> doing with conservative viewpoints they disagree with.

If you can't tell the difference between me and Facebook, then you're
even more stupid than you appear.


The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that you do *PRECISELY* the
same thing shows only how dishonest you are, nothing more...

>> That's **NOT** censorship.
>
>In this case, distinction without a difference fallacy.

You're a gutless liar. You can't POSSIBLY be stupid enough to confuse
my disinterest in listening to someone blather with a large media
platform not allowing certain speech.

YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT STUPID!!!

But we already know you're a liar.

I daresay you'll *never* cite anything for your claim that such is a
distinction without a difference.

>> I merely do the **SAME** thing that everyone does... decide what is
>> worth their time to pay attention to.
>
> Fair enough

Then you should have been smart enough to go back above and remove the
proof that you're a liar.

>, but isn't that what McAdams does? You seem to have a problem with
> it there, yet defend your practice of it here. And actually, McAdams
> only censors for language and personal attacks, not content. Even if
> the topic is just tangentially related to the JFK assassination, it
> gets on the board. There was recently a 911 Truther-related post at
> aaj. that he let proceed for, I want to say, 600 plus posts or so. His
> rules are in place to keep the poop-throwing we all engage in here
> away from his board.

YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID, CHUCKLES... YOU'RE PRETENDED
INABILITY TO TELL ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INABILITY TO POST YOUR
OPINION ON ANY PLATFORM WITH THE INABILITY OF SOMEONE TO FORCE THEM TO
LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY SHOWS THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY

** TOO STUPID !! **

Truly amusing to see your stupidity so brilliantly illustrated. This
post is definitely a keeper...

>> Are you claiming not to do this, moron?
>
>I don't have a kill filter, no.

Yes stupid, you do.

Sabrina was selected today to represent her country. Name the country,
and the event she'll compete in.

I know it... because *I* didn't filter this news out. You did. You're
a *STUPID* liar.


**EVERYONE** filters what they want to pay attention to, and what they
don't. You pretend that you're not like others, and in your lack of
honesty, that's certainly true.

>> >> I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
>> >> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
>> >
>> >We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
>No, we really find it funny.

If you think a lie is funny, feel free to laugh.

>> >> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...
>> >
>> > You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds,
>> > multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple
>> > hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's
>> > corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting
>> > configurations are limited only by your imagination.
>>
>> Tell us Chuckles, why did you lie and claim that I didn't offer a
>> credible alternative to the SBT?
>
>Why do you lie and claim you do?

Because of your COMPLETE INABILITY to show that my credible
alternative isn't credible, or an alternative.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Nah. The answer is in this thread, a few posts above this one.

>
>
>
> >> Where is it?
> >
> >54 years of this, lurkers.
>
>
> Yep... it's true that liars lie. And are capable of lying for long
> periods of time.

The irony is so thick right now.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
> >> >> the post.
> >> >
> >> > Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through
> >> > his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.
> >>
> >> I don't stop anyone from saying anything they want to say.
> >
> > Nah, you just block them, like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are
> > doing with conservative viewpoints they disagree with.
>
>
> If you can't tell the difference between me and Facebook, then you're
> even more stupid than you appear.

No analogy is perfect. I picked this one. Judging by your reaction, I hit a nerve.

>
>
> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that you do *PRECISELY* the
> same thing shows only how dishonest you are, nothing more...
>
>
>
> >> That's **NOT** censorship.
> >
> >In this case, distinction without a difference fallacy.
>
>
> You're a gutless liar. You can't POSSIBLY be stupid enough to confuse
> my disinterest in listening to someone blather with a large media
> platform not allowing certain speech.
>
> YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT STUPID!!!
>
> But we already know you're a liar.
>
> I daresay you'll *never* cite anything for your claim that such is a
> distinction without a difference.

See the analogy above.

>
>
> >> I merely do the **SAME** thing that everyone does... decide what is
> >> worth their time to pay attention to.
> >
> > Fair enough
>
>
> Then you should have been smart enough to go back above and remove the
> proof that you're a liar.

You just "censored" my post by snipping it. You can't help yourself. You didn't like what I wrote so you changed the meaning, which goes beyond just your "disinterest" in reading what I wrote and affects what others are reading. Censorship.

>
>
>
> >, but isn't that what McAdams does? You seem to have a problem with
> > it there, yet defend your practice of it here. And actually, McAdams
> > only censors for language and personal attacks, not content. Even if
> > the topic is just tangentially related to the JFK assassination, it
> > gets on the board. There was recently a 911 Truther-related post at
> > aaj. that he let proceed for, I want to say, 600 plus posts or so. His
> > rules are in place to keep the poop-throwing we all engage in here
> > away from his board.
>
>
> YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID, CHUCKLES... YOU'RE PRETENDED
> INABILITY TO TELL ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INABILITY TO POST YOUR
> OPINION ON ANY PLATFORM WITH THE INABILITY OF SOMEONE TO FORCE THEM TO
> LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY SHOWS THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY

Bantam Ben types in all CAPS as if to further accentuate his righteous indignation.

>
> ** TOO STUPID !! **
>
> Truly amusing to see your stupidity so brilliantly illustrated. This
> post is definitely a keeper...

Please.

>
>
>
> >> Are you claiming not to do this, moron?
> >
> >I don't have a kill filter, no.
>
>
>
> Yes stupid, you do.
>
> Sabrina was selected today to represent her country. Name the country,
> and the event she'll compete in.

Not sure, but do you plan on molesting her?

>
> I know it... because *I* didn't filter this news out. You did. You're
> a *STUPID* liar.
>
>
> **EVERYONE** filters what they want to pay attention to, and what they
> don't. You pretend that you're not like others, and in your lack of
> honesty, that's certainly true.

And that includes snipping posts and changing the meanings of posts that others have written that you disagree with?

>
>
> >> >> I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
> >> >> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
> >> >
> >> >We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.
> >
> >No, we really find it funny.
>
>
> If you think a lie is funny, feel free to laugh.

You're a laughingstock, Bantam Benny.

>
>
>
> >> >> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...
> >> >
> >> > You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds,
> >> > multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple
> >> > hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's
> >> > corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting
> >> > configurations are limited only by your imagination.
> >>
> >> Tell us Chuckles, why did you lie and claim that I didn't offer a
> >> credible alternative to the SBT?
> >
> >Why do you lie and claim you do?
>
>
> Because of your COMPLETE INABILITY to show that my credible
> alternative isn't credible, or an alternative.

And how would I disprove--to you--your cops firing bullets from the "South Knoll" through the windshield? It's like convincing Bob Harris that there wasn't a shot at Z 285. Impossible. This is your religion. I'd have an easier time convincing a Muslim to convert to Judaism.
>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

The frustration is mounting lurkers. Ben has rented the room in a hotel overlooking the outdoor concert. The manifesto has been crayoned. Ben leaves a little note that fateful morning on Boris's nightstand, "Buy some shoes for Healy." He heads to the garage and grabs his rifle from its blanket, concerned not a whit about the microscopic tufts of fibers caught in its buttstock.

[BT George]

Yep Lurkers. Just the kind of "substantive" response I was expecting. :-)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 06:56:19 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You claim *NOT* to have listed the "persuasive evidence," now you
claim the answer is in this thread.

Which one is the lie, Chuckles?

>> >> Where is it?
>> >
>> >54 years of this, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Yep... it's true that liars lie. And are capable of lying for long
>> periods of time.
>
>The irony is so thick right now.

Says the moron who claims to have both provided the "persuasive
evidence" and to not have...

This is, of course, a **STUPID** lie, one so clear and blazingly
obvious that anyone can see it.

>> >> >> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
>> >> >> the post.
>> >> >
>> >> > Says the guy who chides the "censored" forum, yet "censors" through
>> >> > his killfile at an uncensored discussion board.
>> >>
>> >> I don't stop anyone from saying anything they want to say.
>> >
>> > Nah, you just block them, like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube are
>> > doing with conservative viewpoints they disagree with.
>>
>> If you can't tell the difference between me and Facebook, then you're
>> even more stupid than you appear.
>
>No analogy is perfect. I picked this one. Judging by your reaction, I hit a nerve.

The analogy proves that you're *STUPID*.

The only one affected by me disregarding what someone says is *me*.
That's simply not true for any media such as Facebook, Twitter or
Youtube.

There's simply no analogy possible, because there's simply no
comparison possible.

"Distinction without a difference!!" - what an AMAZINGLY stupid lie!

>> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that you do *PRECISELY* the
>> same thing shows only how dishonest you are, nothing more...

Amusingly, you *PROVED* that you "censor" what you read.

Yet you still can't acknowledge this simple truth.

>> >> That's **NOT** censorship.
>> >
>> >In this case, distinction without a difference fallacy.
>>
>>
>> You're a gutless liar. You can't POSSIBLY be stupid enough to confuse
>> my disinterest in listening to someone blather with a large media
>> platform not allowing certain speech.
>>
>> YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THAT STUPID!!!
>>
>> But we already know you're a liar.
>>
>> I daresay you'll *never* cite anything for your claim that such is a
>> distinction without a difference.
>
>See the analogy above.

Don't understand what a "cite" is, I see. Yet another example of your
extremely poor education.

>> >> I merely do the **SAME** thing that everyone does... decide what is
>> >> worth their time to pay attention to.
>> >
>> > Fair enough
>>
>>
>> Then you should have been smart enough to go back above and remove the
>> proof that you're a liar.
>
> You just "censored" my post by snipping it. You can't help yourself.
> You didn't like what I wrote so you changed the meaning, which goes
> beyond just your "disinterest" in reading what I wrote and affects
> what others are reading. Censorship.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

You'll **NEVER** quote the material I allegedly "snipped."

You're a liar, and a **STUPID** liar at that...

>> >, but isn't that what McAdams does? You seem to have a problem with
>> > it there, yet defend your practice of it here. And actually, McAdams
>> > only censors for language and personal attacks, not content. Even if
>> > the topic is just tangentially related to the JFK assassination, it
>> > gets on the board. There was recently a 911 Truther-related post at
>> > aaj. that he let proceed for, I want to say, 600 plus posts or so. His
>> > rules are in place to keep the poop-throwing we all engage in here
>> > away from his board.
>>
>>
>> YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE THIS STUPID, CHUCKLES... YOU'RE PRETENDED
>> INABILITY TO TELL ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INABILITY TO POST YOUR
>> OPINION ON ANY PLATFORM WITH THE INABILITY OF SOMEONE TO FORCE THEM TO
>> LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY SHOWS THAT YOU'RE SIMPLY
>
>Bantam Ben types in all CAPS as if to further accentuate his righteous indignation.

I'm generally wrong when I think that believers can't be even more
dishonest and more stupid... than I originally think they are.

>> ** TOO STUPID !! **
>>
>> Truly amusing to see your stupidity so brilliantly illustrated. This
>> post is definitely a keeper...
>
>Please.
>>
>>
>> >> Are you claiming not to do this, moron?
>> >
>> >I don't have a kill filter, no.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes stupid, you do.
>>
>> Sabrina was selected today to represent her country. Name the country,
>> and the event she'll compete in.
>
>Not sure, but do you plan on molesting her?

YOU CENSORED THIS INFORMATION! Thus proving yourself a liar.

>> I know it... because *I* didn't filter this news out. You did. You're
>> a *STUPID* liar.
>>
>>
>> **EVERYONE** filters what they want to pay attention to, and what they
>> don't. You pretend that you're not like others, and in your lack of
>> honesty, that's certainly true.
>
> And that includes snipping posts and changing the meanings of posts
> that others have written that you disagree with?

You're lying again, Chuckles.




>> >> >> I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
>> >> >> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
>> >> >
>> >> >We find it funny you can't think of a credible alternative to the SBT.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>> >
>> >No, we really find it funny.
>>
>>
>> If you think a lie is funny, feel free to laugh.
>
>You're a laughingstock, Bantam Benny.

Ad hominem simply shows that you have no facts, no citations, and no
logical argument.

>> >> >> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...
>> >> >
>> >> > You have no problem with multiple shooters, multiple Oswalds,
>> >> > multiple coordinated hit teams in Chicago, Dallas and Miami, multiple
>> >> > hearses containing multiple caskets represented as carrying JFK's
>> >> > corpse, etc. The number of JFK assassination conspirators and shooting
>> >> > configurations are limited only by your imagination.
>> >>
>> >> Tell us Chuckles, why did you lie and claim that I didn't offer a
>> >> credible alternative to the SBT?
>> >
>> >Why do you lie and claim you do?
>>
>> Because of your COMPLETE INABILITY to show that my credible
>> alternative isn't credible, or an alternative.
>
> And how would I disprove--to you--your cops firing bullets from the
> "South Knoll" through the windshield? It's like convincing Bob Harris
> that there wasn't a shot at Z 285. Impossible. This is your religion.
> I'd have an easier time convincing a Muslim to convert to Judaism.

Evidence and logical argument.

Once again, missing from your statement.

You're a *GUTLESS* liar, aren't you Chuckles?

>> Run coward... RUN!!!
>
> The frustration is mounting lurkers. Ben has rented the room in a
> hotel overlooking the outdoor concert. The manifesto has been
> crayoned. Ben leaves a little note that fateful morning on Boris's
> nightstand, "Buy some shoes for Healy." He heads to the garage and
> grabs his rifle from its blanket, concerned not a whit about the
> microscopic tufts of fibers caught in its buttstock.

This is another example of the sort of imagination and storytelling
that one needs to be a believer.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The irony couldn't be thicker lurkers.

Ben...On the trail of the Assassins!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 07:31:19 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Chuckles... "snipped" everything I stated, and replies with ad
hominem.

And believes me as powerful as Facebook, Twitter & Youtube!

[BT George]

Yeah and using the CT manual all the way. Where is the hard evidence and most solid logic? Good. ...Now turn your back to it and march any other direction you wish!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Bantam Benny is the most powerful man in the world!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The irony is so thick right now.

Said the idiot who says "Dunning-Kruger" every six minutes, and fails to see the irony in it.

> >
> >
> > If you can't tell the difference between me and Facebook, then you're
> > even more stupid than you appear.
>
> No analogy is perfect. I picked this one. Judging by your reaction, I hit a nerve.

Chuck doesn't know how stupid he is, a lack of knowledge he proves by doubling down and calling attention back to it (ie., "see the analogy above")

>
> See the analogy above.

>
> You just "censored" my post by snipping it.

Your post isn't censored, because it's still visible in the thread, and anyone can scroll up and see it. A better example of censorship would be the nine witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield who were forbidden to testify to the Warren Commission. Or the "top-secret" government documents pertaining to the assassination which STILL have not been released, and which contain lines and lines of black bars.

Now you won't respond to anything I've just said, except your blanketed go-to "got a case, Troofer?" non-sequitur response...implying that if I produced a good enough case, you'd *actually* change your mind!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

And AGAIN, Chuckles "snipped" everything I said and laced up his
running shoes.

[BT George]

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:03:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:53:58 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:46:56 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 5:25:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Go to the 1:55 mark of this:
> >> > >
> >> > > https://youtu.be/4mMrCXPCZAA
> >> > >
> >> > > ...Meleva's words say it all!
> >> >
> >> > Ah, shit! I thought a LN troll had FINALLY posted some evidence to look at. I blame myself for not knowing better.
> >>
> >> Well Lurkers. Perhaps "Boris" should amuse himself by answering the questions Benny ducked (again) here:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/gFyAEyPkQGs/KISHsKgeBwAJ
> >>
> >> All he needs to do is follow that link and *in detail* and
> >> *point-by-point* show us all the answers he has that escaped Benny
> >> since us LN's are so full of it. :-) I especially look forward to his
> >> *credible* alternative scenario to the SBT. I'm sure it will prove as
> >> "enlightening" and "entertaining" as Ben's devastating responses. :-)
> >
> > I'm fine with the opinion of doctors. Your problem if you disagree
> > with them, not mine. Smiley face back! :-)
>
> These anonymous trolls keep popping up, refusing to engage in debate,
> then run off again...
>

Nothing anonymous about me Lurkers. Ben knows who I am, and he knows that he Killfiled me because I promised legal action if he continued to call me a child molester or ever changed my wording again to make it look like I was saying something favorable about the dispicable thing his mind seems to always dwell upon.

Far from refusing to engage in debate, it's Ben that cannot debate unless he is allowed to make false and dispicable allegations about his oppenent when he has nothing else to offer.

> Unfortunately, when you respond to a killfiled troll, I end up seeing
> the post. I find it truly funny that he can't seem to think of a
> "credible" alternative to the SBT.
>

Holmes is too easily amused Lurkers, since he laughs at what is only to be expected when the facts are examined *honestly*. What is far funnier is that he actually claims to *believe* he has a *credible* alternative to the SBT, yet he (repeatedly) fails to spell that out in any detail. Wonder why? :-)

> Multiple shooters seems to be a solution our troll can't think of...

Indeed. Lacking *any* credible evidence of another shooter past Benny's boy Oswald, multiple shooters really is a solution I can't think of!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 10:39:51 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > The irony is so thick right now.
>
> Said the idiot who says "Dunning-Kruger" every six minutes, and fails to see the irony in it.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > If you can't tell the difference between me and Facebook, then you're
> > > even more stupid than you appear.
> >
> > No analogy is perfect. I picked this one. Judging by your reaction, I hit a nerve.
>
>
> Chuck doesn't know how stupid he is, a lack of knowledge he proves by doubling down and calling attention back to it (ie., "see the analogy above")
>
> >
> > See the analogy above.
>
>
> >
> > You just "censored" my post by snipping it.
>
> Your post isn't censored, because it's still visible in the thread, and anyone can scroll up and see it.

Hence using quotation marks around the word censored.

>A better example of censorship would be the nine witnesses who saw a hole in >the windshield who were forbidden to testify to the Warren Commission.

The case not presented is the case Boris thinks should've been presented. They had a better witness, Frazier, who actually examined the limo shortly after the assassination. Guess what? No hole. Oh...wait...your groomer Ben says Hoover ordered Frazier to lie about it. Of course, Ben can't produce the cite. Argumentum ad The Dog Ate My Homeworkium.

>Or the "top-secret" government documents pertaining to the assassination which >STILL have not been released, and which contain lines and lines of black bars.

I'm sure your imagination is running wild at the possibilities.

>
> Now you won't respond to anything I've just said, except your blanketed go-to "got a case, Troofer?" non-sequitur response...

Boris the Truther will produce a case as soon as Ben is tall.

>implying that if I produced a good enough case, you'd *actually* change your >mind!

As if you post here to change anyone's mind.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> The case not presented is the case Boris thinks should've been presented.

If the case was not presented, then how can you make the claim that two investigations reached a conclusion about the windshield, stupid? You are quite clearly a blatant and confused liar, aren't you?

>
> They had a better witness, Frazier, who actually examined the limo shortly after the assassination. Guess what? No hole.

Tell us why Stavis Ellis described a hole that you could "put a pencil through." What's the matter, Chuck? Don't trust the police anymore? You've recently cited the expertise of police officers to support your point. Now you'll say he's mistaken.

Better yet, tell us why one witness is better than nine.

Better still, did Frazier ever specify that there WASN'T a hole in the windshield?

I know you won't answer anything, because you're a pussy. Rest assured, though, that I have a citation handy in case you dare open your mouth. Doubly embarrassing if I use it, because it's YOUR citation.

>
> >Or the "top-secret" government documents pertaining to the assassination which >STILL have not been released, and which contain lines and lines of black bars.
>
> I'm sure your imagination is running wild at the possibilities.

Not me, *I* haven't censored them. The government did. I wonder what's going through their imagination? Nothing nefarious, I'm sure you believe.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Silenced, were you Chuck? Not surprised. One too many sentences with question marks at the end...must have overloaded your feeble brain. Or you have no spine, to defend the very sources you also dismiss. Those who stand for nothing fall for everything.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Sorry Boris, I work. Sometimes I can't respond to all of your whining.


For starters, Oswald Alone is the only case on the table for consideration, Truther. Put up a case or shut up. (Crickets to follow.) Let's compare what you've cobbled together (still waiting!) with the WCR findings. I'm not certain I said two investigations "reached a conclusion about the windshield," (I may have) but I have noted the WC heard testimony from Frazier about his examination of the limousine which included his description of the windshield. No hole (except a very small hole on the outer layer of glass).

I don't know why this Stavis Ellis fellow said a pencil could fit through the so-called hole. You've read Frazier's testimony; the WC found it believable.

So you lose.

Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one? Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.

So there 'ya go, Truther. Have fun with my answers, which I'm sure satisfy you not at all. More questions from the guy who won't answer questions. It never stops. It's one big Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. Spark a bowl, text your buddies, and get on the PS4 for a game of 'Fortnight.' After a hard day of "work" solving the JFK murder, you deserve some down time.

And remember Boris: Those who stand for nothing, fall for everything. Take a stand. Who killed JFK?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Sorry Boris, I work. Sometimes I can't respond to all of your whining.

Tell Taco Bell you want the night off.

>
>
> For starters, Oswald Alone is the only case on the table for consideration, Truther. Put up a case or shut up. (Crickets to follow.)

You must be an idiot to think that if you keep saying "put up a case," that it somehow refutes the evidence in existence. Just how desperate are you? Someone with REAL evidence would leap to rip my evidence to pieces.

>
> I'm not certain I said two investigations "reached a conclusion about the windshield," (I may have) but I have noted the WC heard testimony from Frazier about his examination of the limousine which included his description of the windshield. No hole (except a very small hole on the outer layer of glass).

Why don't you quote him for once, so that I can show you the error of your ways. Must I do everything for you?

>
> I don't know why this Stavis Ellis fellow said a pencil could fit through the so-called hole.

I know why.

>
> You've read Frazier's testimony; the WC found it believable.

Who cares what they found believable? They would have believed Bigfoot if it could have grunted out the words "Oswald did it." Their job was to pin the case on Oswald, not investigate the assassination.

And who knows, maybe they would have found him less believable if they had called any one of the NINE witnesses to testify. But of course, when all you hear is one side of the story, like they did, all you're going to believe is one side of the story.

>
> Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?

Absolutely.

>
> Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.

But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?

>
> So there 'ya go, Truther. Have fun with my answers, which I'm sure satisfy you not at all.

Does lack of evidence ever satisfy me? Nah. Let's try something which I'm sure won't satisfy you...11 photos of the windshield, which you can zoom in close on....

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

and another one, for a bonus...

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg

And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?

https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM

You realize this is not even the "conspiracy" part you're denying. Maybe you should just *listen* to George Whitaker, is what I'm saying.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 9:42:12 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Boris, I work. Sometimes I can't respond to all of your whining.
>
> Tell Taco Bell you want the night off.

Boris with the nice snark.

>
> >
> >
> > For starters, Oswald Alone is the only case on the table for consideration, Truther. Put up a case or shut up. (Crickets to follow.)
>
> You must be an idiot to think that if you keep saying "put up a case," that it somehow refutes the evidence in existence.

Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.

>Just how desperate are you? Someone with REAL evidence would leap to rip my evidence to pieces.

Dunning-Kruger effect all the way lurkers. Boris is smarter and more honest than the Warren Commission. Boris is able to draw more valid conclusions from the evidence than the WC attorneys and staffers. Boris can do all of this AND smoke weed while playing 'JFK Reloaded.' It's all about Boris. "Prove this freaky looking sh!t is wrong to my satisfaction."

>
>
> >
> > I'm not certain I said two investigations "reached a conclusion about the windshield," (I may have) but I have noted the WC heard testimony from Frazier about his examination of the limousine which included his description of the windshield. No hole (except a very small hole on the outer layer of glass).
>
> Why don't you quote him for once, so that I can show you the error of your ways. Must I do everything for you?

Look, Boris, I just re-read what he said in front of the WC in 64, I recently re-read what he said at the Shaw trial, and recently viewed an interview from a few years ago (I provided the link) where the then 94 year old Robert Frazier emotionally said he still stands by his work, stands by the work of his colleagues, doesn't believe any proof of a conspiracy has been made, etc. Of course, your groomer Ben thinks Hoover ordered Frazier to lie in his testimony.

Instead of asking me provide the quote of Frazier, why don't you ask Ben to provide the quote for Hoover telling Frazier to lie about the hole in the windshield?

>
> >
> > I don't know why this Stavis Ellis fellow said a pencil could fit through the so-called hole.
>
> I know why.

Wait...are you going to claim PENCILS were fired through the windshield? Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?

>
> >
> > You've read Frazier's testimony; the WC found it believable.
>
> Who cares what they found believable?

Non-kooks.

>They would have believed Bigfoot if it could have grunted out the words "Oswald did it."

Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.

>Their job was to pin the case on Oswald, not investigate the assassination.

There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded. Oswald was arrested shortly after killing Tippit (another case that has you scratching your scalp) by the police. He was charged with murdering JDT and JFK, and this pre-dates the WC.

>
> And who knows, maybe they would have found him less believable if they had called any one of the NINE >witnesses to testify. But of course, when all you hear is one side of the story, like they did, all you're >going to believe is one side of the story.

Boris, it's not about you, pal. Bless your little heart thinking your opinions matter, but they don't. Sorry to break the news, snowflake. No one needs to hear both sides of the story that direct energy weapons melted the steel in the WTCs (Jim Fetzer). No one needs to hear both sides of the story that JFK's body was kidnapped (Lifton, Fetzer and others). For some of the slightly more sane JFK conspiracy theories, a cursory examination is enough to dispatch them to the garbage. Except here, of course, where you and Ben Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot back to the same old, same old, over and over.

>
>
> >
> > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
>
> Absolutely.

Really? It's a poll? All witnesses are equally credible, and the side with the most witnesses wins? There is Retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded. More proof why guys like you and Ben should be kept as far away as possible from investigating anything.

>
> >
> > Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.
>
> But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?

Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked. Your groomer Ben claims Frazier was told to lie to the WC by Hoover. (No cite from Ben, of course.) What happened? Why not have Frazier lie about some microscopic fibers to strengthen the case that CE399 pierced JFK and tumbled through JBC?

>
>
> >
> > So there 'ya go, Truther. Have fun with my answers, which I'm sure satisfy you not at all.
>
> Does lack of evidence ever satisfy me? Nah. Let's try something which I'm sure won't satisfy you...11 photos of the windshield, which you can zoom in close on....
>
> https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

No bullet hole.

>
> and another one, for a bonus...
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg

No bullet hole.

>
> And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?
>
> https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM

"Explain this freaky looking sh!t to me." Three strikes, you're out.

>
> You realize this is not even the "conspiracy" part you're denying. Maybe you should just *listen* to George Whitaker, is what I'm saying.

Sorry Truther. No bullet hole in the windshield. Just a crack, explained by Frazier. Lead smears on the inside, the bullet fragment, most likely from the head shot, then jarred the inner glass layer and it transferred energy to the outer later, and it cracked. The fact that you even believe DPD cops would hide on the "South Knoll" and fire a bullet through the windshield from the front through SS agents, and JBC and his wife, to strike JFK in the throat and pin it on a shooter 6 stories up firing from behind, shows a odd lack of maturity on your part. Conspiracism is a disease, and you have it bad.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 18:38:10 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>For starters, Oswald Alone is the only case on the table for consideration

The HSCA would be gravely disappointed in you, Chuckles.

[BT George]

The HSCA should be dissapointed in themselves for accepting the flawed and rushed Dictabelt "Evidence" Lurkers. Had they not done that, most of their other work was quite good, since it showed that LHO *alone* landed any shots on JFK, killing him, and that he was also Office JD Tippit's murderer.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.

You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore. But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.

And of course, Chuck will never enlighten us on the "null hypothesis" of a flat earth, which was historically accepted for over 2,000 years.

>
> Dunning-Kruger effect all the way lurkers. Boris is smarter and more honest than the Warren Commission.

"Smarter" is a dishonest strawman statement from a dishonest troll who is too stupid to fight back. "Honest" is without a doubt.

>
> Boris is able to draw more valid conclusions from the evidence than the WC attorneys and staffers.

The WC drew *only* and *exactly* the conclusions they were looking for, and nothing else. They did not even investigate the possibility that Oswald had help...even a single friend who helped him. They started with a conclusion, and worked their investigation around that. Which makes it a prosecution, not an investigation. And the prosecution will always "find" what they're looking for.

I also seem to recall some moron sarcastically telling me that the investigation NOT done was better evidence than the investigation done. Now the same moron is telling me the WC arrived at the conclusion they were LOOKING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, and arrived at it by way of INVESTIGATIONS THAT WEREN'T DONE.

You can't make this up.

>
> Look, Boris, I can't cite for anything. I just don't have the knowledge, and the evidence is not on my side. Can't I just tell you I cited it, then ridicule you when you are mysteriously unable to find these citations that don't exist?

Okay, Chuck. But remember, we'll always have Hitchens until you actually QUOTE something.

>
> Wait...are you going to claim PENCILS were fired through the windshield?

In case anyone was privately asking themselves, "Just how stupid IS this guy Chuck?"

>
> Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?

FINALLY the troll begins to touch upon the evidence (although gently)! Rhetorical quiz time for you: what would cause a "lead smear"?

>
> Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.

Another strawman. Dumb Fuck Chuck doesn't even TRY to pretend to be honest any longer.

>
>
> >Their job was to pin the case on Oswald, not investigate the assassination.
>
> There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

There is coward, and Extra-Strength CHUCK coward.

>
> Oswald was arrested shortly after killing Tippit (another case that has you scratching your scalp) by the police. He was charged with murdering JDT and JFK, and this pre-dates the WC.

And once arrested, how often was he given the benefit of the doubt by authorities? Oh, that's right...he was guilty IMMEDIATELY. And not just guilty...but solely guilty. And of course, if there's ever any doubt that his fate was decided before any investigation began, we have Katzenbach's gently worded memo.

> >
> > And who knows, maybe they would have found him less believable if they had called any one of the NINE >witnesses to testify. But of course, when all you hear is one side of the story, like they did, all you're >going to believe is one side of the story.
>
> Boris, it's not about you, pal. Bless your little heart thinking your opinions matter, but they don't. Sorry to break the news, snowflake. No one needs to hear both sides of the story

The above is all you need to know about Chuck, and what anyone who talks to Dumb Fuck Chuck is dealing with.

> >
> >
> > >
> > > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Really? It's a poll?

Chuck doesn't like my answer, you see.

>
> All witnesses are equally credible,

Yes, when they all corroborate each other to the letter.

>
> and the side with the most witnesses wins?

See above.

>
> There is Retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.

Ad-hominem fallacy.

> >
> > >
> > > Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.
> >
> > But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?
>
> Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked.

And just as equally proves that you pick and choose what to believe. You stand behind Frazier as an expert, but you DON'T BELIEVE HIM. It's amazing! I'm quite comfortable with his testimony. Let's even, for the sake of argument, say there was no hole in the windshield. What would cause a lead smear, for instance?

> >
> > Does lack of evidence ever satisfy me? Nah. Let's try something which I'm sure won't satisfy you...11 photos of the windshield, which you can zoom in close on....
> >
> > https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
>
> No bullet hole.
> >
> > and another one, for a bonus...
> >
> > http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg
>
> No bullet hole.
> >
> > And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?
> >
> > https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM
>
> "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to me." Three strikes, you're out.

No, stupid. Spelling "shit" with an exclamation point and running away like a pussy isn't a strike on MY part. Try to keep up. The windshield in evidence is differently damaged than the extant windshield. This also makes George Whitaker less and less of a "mistaken liar" every day.

And you more of one.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:14:32 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
>
> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore.

If there was evidence that exonerated Oswald I would have heard about it by now.

> But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.
>
> And of course, Chuck will never enlighten us on the "null hypothesis" of a flat earth, which was historically accepted for over 2,000 years.

Boris gets nothing right...

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

> >
> > Dunning-Kruger effect all the way lurkers. Boris is smarter and more honest than the Warren Commission.
>
> "Smarter" is a dishonest strawman statement from a dishonest troll who is too stupid to fight back. "Honest" is without a doubt.

Why not add "handsomer" and "more accomplished", since you are already lying.

>
> >
> > Boris is able to draw more valid conclusions from the evidence than the WC attorneys and staffers.
>
> The WC drew *only* and *exactly* the conclusions they were looking for, and nothing else.

Then why are conspiracy retards always cherry picking information collected by the WC is support of their retarded ideas?

>They did not even investigate the possibility that Oswald had help...even a single friend who helped him.

Show that he even had a single friend.

> They started with a conclusion, and worked their investigation around that.

That is the conspiracy retard myth. The fact is that the evidence ran towards Oswald`s guilt because Oswald was guilty.

Any of the witnesses could have said anything at any time during questioning and it would have appeared on record. Plus people were picking Oswald out of line-ups in connection with the murder of a police officer before the WC was formed. Police were finding photos of him holding the murder weapon before the WC was formed.

> Which makes it a prosecution, not an investigation. And the prosecution will always "find" what they're looking for.

Then why can`t you retards put a better case on the table for consideration. Put you defense case, with all the fantastic things your ideas require so we can get a good laugh and discard your alternative history once and for all?

> I also seem to recall some moron sarcastically telling me that the investigation NOT done was better evidence than the investigation done. Now the same moron is telling me the WC arrived at the conclusion they were LOOKING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, and arrived at it by way of INVESTIGATIONS THAT WEREN'T DONE.

The investigation that concluded Oswald`s guilt was conducted before the Wc was formed, stupid. The DPD conducted it.

> You can't make this up.
>
> >
> > Look, Boris, I can't cite for anything. I just don't have the knowledge, and the evidence is not on my side. Can't I just tell you I cited it, then ridicule you when you are mysteriously unable to find these citations that don't exist?
>
> Okay, Chuck. But remember, we'll always have Hitchens until you actually QUOTE something.
>
> >
> > Wait...are you going to claim PENCILS were fired through the windshield?
>
> In case anyone was privately asking themselves, "Just how stupid IS this guy Chuck?"
>
> >
> > Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?
>
> FINALLY the troll begins to touch upon the evidence (although gently)! Rhetorical quiz time for you: what would cause a "lead smear"?
>
> >
> > Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.
>
> Another strawman. Dumb Fuck Chuck doesn't even TRY to pretend to be honest any longer.
>
> >
> >
> > >Their job was to pin the case on Oswald, not investigate the assassination.
> >
> > There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.
>
> There is coward, and Extra-Strength CHUCK coward.
>
> >
> > Oswald was arrested shortly after killing Tippit (another case that has you scratching your scalp) by the police. He was charged with murdering JDT and JFK, and this pre-dates the WC.
>
> And once arrested, how often was he given the benefit of the doubt by authorities?

Before or after he tried to kill them while being arrested?

> Oh, that's right...he was guilty IMMEDIATELY.

Probably not guilty of murder until his third shot.

> And not just guilty...but solely guilty.

Go forth and find his poor shooting co-conspirator on the knoll. I don`t think he exists, but if he does he is likely safe from discovery from you stumps.

> And of course, if there's ever any doubt that his fate was decided before any investigation began, we have Katzenbach's gently worded memo.

Yes, give all the facts to the public.

>
> > >
> > > And who knows, maybe they would have found him less believable if they had called any one of the NINE >witnesses to testify. But of course, when all you hear is one side of the story, like they did, all you're >going to believe is one side of the story.
> >
> > Boris, it's not about you, pal. Bless your little heart thinking your opinions matter, but they don't. Sorry to break the news, snowflake. No one needs to hear both sides of the story
>
> The above is all you need to know about Chuck, and what anyone who talks to Dumb Fuck Chuck is dealing with.

We can`t cajole you guys into telling your side of the story.

> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
> > >
> > > Absolutely.
> >
> > Really? It's a poll?
>
> Chuck doesn't like my answer, you see.

You didn`t like his.

> >
> > All witnesses are equally credible,
>
> Yes, when they all corroborate each other to the letter.

Context matters also. Conspiracy retards apply the "this is all I need to know" method of weighing evidence.

> >
> > and the side with the most witnesses wins?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > There is Retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.
>
> Ad-hominem fallacy.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.
> > >
> > > But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?
> >
> > Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked.
>
> And just as equally proves that you pick and choose what to believe.

You assign meaning that isn`t there. Frazier didn`t examine the bullet in the state that it was found. You pretend that what he said has a meaning that it does not.

> You stand behind Frazier as an expert, but you DON'T BELIEVE HIM.

In what way is he not believed?

> It's amazing! I'm quite comfortable with his testimony. Let's even, for the sake of argument, say there was no hole in the windshield. What would cause a lead smear, for instance?

The small piece of lead from the bullet that caused the crack. Likely another cause the dent in the chrome topping. All evidence of a rear shooter, all evidence to be disregarded by retards playing silly games.

> > >
> > > Does lack of evidence ever satisfy me? Nah. Let's try something which I'm sure won't satisfy you...11 photos of the windshield, which you can zoom in close on....
> > >
> > > https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
> >
> > No bullet hole.
> > >
> > > and another one, for a bonus...
> > >
> > > http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg
> >
> > No bullet hole.
> > >
> > > And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM
> >
> > "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to me." Three strikes, you're out.
>
> No, stupid. Spelling "shit" with an exclamation point and running away like a pussy isn't a strike on MY part. Try to keep up. The windshield in evidence is differently damaged than the extant windshield. This also makes George Whitaker less and less of a "mistaken liar" every day.

What is the earliest time you have that Whitaker said there was a hole? How many years after his observing the windshield?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
>
> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore. But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.

It's called weighing evidence Boris. In the real physical world free of evidence fairies switching bodies and bullets, altering the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, Oswald is guilty. The questions surrounding this always centered on whether someone backed him or helped him, not whether the cops were firing bullets through the front of the limo windshield.

>
> And of course, Chuck will never enlighten us on the "null hypothesis" of a flat earth, which was historically accepted for over 2,000 years.

You are a stump. If you have a solution better than Oswald Alone, you will be able to overturn the current historical narrative, like 15th century astronomers did supplanting a flat earth theory with a round earth theory.

>
> >
> > Dunning-Kruger effect all the way lurkers. Boris is smarter and more honest than the Warren Commission.
>
> "Smarter" is a dishonest strawman statement from a dishonest troll who is too stupid to fight back. "Honest" is without a doubt.

Tough to fight back when you haven't put something up to fight back against, Truther. Who killed JFK? Watch Boris curl into a fetal position and wait for help from his groomer Ben.

>
>
> >
> > Boris is able to draw more valid conclusions from the evidence than the WC attorneys and staffers.
>
> The WC drew *only* and *exactly* the conclusions they were looking for, and nothing else. They did not even investigate the possibility that Oswald had help...even a single friend who helped him. They started with a conclusion, and worked their investigation around that. Which makes it a prosecution, not an investigation. And the prosecution will always "find" what they're looking for.

It was painfully evident Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. The only questions were whether he had help or backing. No one could find anything even remotely conclusive.

>
> I also seem to recall some moron sarcastically telling me that the investigation NOT done was better evidence than the investigation done. Now the same moron is telling me the WC arrived at the conclusion they were LOOKING FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE, and arrived at it by way of INVESTIGATIONS THAT WEREN'T DONE.

I've mocked you by saying "Boris thinks the investigation not done is the investigation that should've been done." I've never said the WC arrived at their conclusions by way of investigations that weren't done.

>
> You can't make this up.

You certainly can't make this up.

>
>
> Okay, Chuck. But remember, we'll always have Hitchens until you actually QUOTE something.

You don't get how this works. You're challenging. Put something up for consideration or Hitchens's Razor applies to you.

>
> >
> > Wait...are you going to claim PENCILS were fired through the windshield?
>
> In case anyone was privately asking themselves, "Just how stupid IS this guy Chuck?"

Are pencils fired through the windshield (alert for Boris: I wasn't seriously suggesting this) much more goofy than ice bullets to freeze JFK in place or poison darts from an umbrella? How much goofier are pencils through the windshield than invisible body snatchers stealing JFK's corpse from AF1 or from under the noses of his Irish Mafia and military escort?

>
> >
> > Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?
>
> FINALLY the troll begins to touch upon the evidence (although gently)! Rhetorical quiz time for you: what would cause a "lead smear"?

>
> >
> > Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.
>
> Another strawman. Dumb Fuck Chuck doesn't even TRY to pretend to be honest any longer.

Translation: Boris is secretly ashamed he believes JFK's body was swiped, but he can't help himself. Conspiracism is a disease, and Boris has it.

>
> >
> >
> > >Their job was to pin the case on Oswald, not investigate the assassination.
> >
> > There is retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.
>
> There is coward, and Extra-Strength CHUCK coward.

Says the coward too ashamed to type his scenario, although he has hours to bang out thousands of posts asking someone to explain freaky looking sh!t to him.

"Why is CE399 pristine?"

"Explain the Katzenbach memo!"

"Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"

"The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"

>
> >
> > Oswald was arrested shortly after killing Tippit (another case that has you scratching your scalp) by the police. He was charged with murdering JDT and JFK, and this pre-dates the WC.
>
> And once arrested, how often was he given the benefit of the doubt by authorities? Oh, that's right...he was guilty IMMEDIATELY. And not just guilty...but solely guilty. And of course, if there's ever any doubt that his fate was decided before any investigation began, we have Katzenbach's gently worded memo.

Ah, the Katzenbach memo. The gift that keeps on giving to the kooks. Perhaps Boris the Truther can explain why LBJ needed a memo on the importance of satisfying the public that all the facts were out there, when you kooks think LBJ was behind the assassination. Did LBJ already forget he and his pal Hoover orchestrated JFK's murder? "Gee, J. Edgar, glad this memo came across my desk...I'd already forgotten about ordering the murder that womanizer!"

Run along Boris.

>
>
> > >
> > > And who knows, maybe they would have found him less believable if they had called any one of the NINE >witnesses to testify. But of course, when all you hear is one side of the story, like they did, all you're >going to believe is one side of the story.
> >
> > Boris, it's not about you, pal. Bless your little heart thinking your opinions matter, but they don't. Sorry to break the news, snowflake. No one needs to hear both sides of the story
>
> The above is all you need to know about Chuck, and what anyone who talks to Dumb Fuck Chuck is dealing with.

It is all about Boris. He takes it personal. That's why Boris won't put a case up for consideration. His feelings will be hurt when his flimsy high school level term paper full of begged questions and speculations and vague shot sequences, etc. is ripped to shreds. It's a game. Shatter their theory, and you shatter their dreams, shatter their hobby. Truthers can accuse all sorts of innocent people of murder but stomp their feet when someone throws a little ad hominem their way. Spark a bowl and go play Fortnight, snowflake. Relax.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
> > >
> > > Absolutely.
> >
> > Really? It's a poll?
>
> Chuck doesn't like my answer, you see.

I don't like or dislike your answer, but it's a stupid answer. It is what it is.

>
> >
> > All witnesses are equally credible,
>
> Yes, when they all corroborate each other to the letter.

Like how the flat-Earthers used to corroborate each other?

>
> >
> > and the side with the most witnesses wins?
>
> See above.

Boris thinks the quantity of witnesses usurps the quality of witnesses.

>
> >
> > There is Retarded, and there is Extra-Strength BORIS retarded.
>
> Ad-hominem fallacy.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Frazier seemed pretty credible to the WC.
> > >
> > > But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?
> >
> > Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked.
>
> And just as equally proves that you pick and choose what to believe.

it's called WEIGHING evidence, Truther. The WC was good at it, you suck at it.

>You stand behind Frazier as an expert, but you DON'T BELIEVE HIM. It's >amazing! I'm quite comfortable with his testimony. Let's even, for the sake of >argument, say there was no hole in the windshield. What would cause a lead smear, for instance?

A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.

>
> > >
> > > Does lack of evidence ever satisfy me? Nah. Let's try something which I'm sure won't satisfy you...11 photos of the windshield, which you can zoom in close on....
> > >
> > > https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
> >
> > No bullet hole.
> > >
> > > and another one, for a bonus...
> > >
> > > http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg
> >
> > No bullet hole.
> > >
> > > And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?
> > >
> > > https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM
> >
> > "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to me." Three strikes, you're out.
>
> No, stupid. Spelling "shit" with an exclamation point and running away like a pussy isn't a strike on MY part. Try to keep up. The windshield in evidence is differently damaged than the extant windshield.

Says a Truther. No one cares what you think.

That's not what was concluded. Try to keep up, Truther.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
>>
>> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore. But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.
>
> It's called weighing evidence Boris. In the real physical world free
> of evidence fairies switching bodies and bullets, altering the
> Zapruder film and autopsy photos, Oswald is guilty. The questions
> surrounding this always centered on whether someone backed him or
> helped him, not whether the cops were firing bullets through the front
> of the limo windshield.

This, in a nutshell, shows your problem.

You've *DECIDED* that the solution can only be Oswald.

You've simply evaded all other possibilities... even to the extent of
refusing to debate them.

For example, you've adamantly refused to state what time the coffin
entered Bethesda - KNOWING that this is evidence for something you
don't want to examine or explain.

You're simply a coward.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 9:45:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
> >>
> >> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore. But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.
> >
> > It's called weighing evidence Boris. In the real physical world free
> > of evidence fairies switching bodies and bullets, altering the
> > Zapruder film and autopsy photos, Oswald is guilty. The questions
> > surrounding this always centered on whether someone backed him or
> > helped him, not whether the cops were firing bullets through the front
> > of the limo windshield.
>
> This, in a nutshell, shows your problem.
>
> You've *DECIDED* that the solution can only be Oswald.

You've decided that the solution can only NOT be Oswald.

>
> You've simply evaded all other possibilities... even to the extent of
> refusing to debate them.

You're not interested in a debate. You're interested in recruiting someone to answer your begged questions.

>
> For example, you've adamantly refused to state what time the coffin
> entered Bethesda - KNOWING that this is evidence for something you
> don't want to examine or explain.

Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. "Explain this freaky sh!t about about the coffins at Bethesda to my satisfaction." It never ends.

>
> You're simply a coward.

Yawn.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> It's called weighing evidence Boris.

Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t". You don't weigh evidence, you ignore it. Whereas I can read the testimony of someone like Harold Norman and concede yes, there was definitely a shooter on the sixth floor, you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your faith...even when it comes from a source you pretend to agree with.

[Chuck's stupid bullshit snipped]

>
> You are a stump. If you have a solution better than Oswald Alone, you will be able to overturn the current historical narrative, like 15th century astronomers did supplanting a flat earth theory with a round earth theory.

So I guess when Oliver Stone's film helped pass the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, that was a CTer accomplishing nothing in the way of posing a serious challenge to the historical narrative. By the way, when you keep using the phrase "historical narrative" in lieu of addressing evidence, you sound like even more of a fucking moron than you could possibly be.

> >
> > "Smarter" is a dishonest strawman statement from a dishonest troll who is too stupid to fight back. "Honest" is without a doubt.
>

> Tough to fight back when the evidence is not on my side.

Chuck finally owns up to something.

>
> It was painfully evident Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. The only questions were whether he had help or backing. No one could find anything even remotely conclusive.

No one looked. It's that simple. And you'll never cite a shred of evidence showing where the WC considered any "confederates", even for a minute. Even hypothetically.

>
> I've mocked you by saying "Boris thinks the investigation not done is the investigation that should've been done." I've never said the WC arrived at their conclusions by way of investigations that weren't done.

Dumb Fuck Chuck has twisted himself into a pretzel again. Lies'll do that to ya.

> >
> >
> > Okay, Chuck. But remember, we'll always have Hitchens until you actually QUOTE something.
>
> You don't get how this works. You're challenging. Put something up for consideration or Hitchens's Razor applies to you.

My apologies, Teflon asshole.

>
> Are pencils fired through the windshield (alert for Boris: I wasn't seriously suggesting this) much more goofy than ice bullets to freeze JFK in place or poison darts from an umbrella? How much goofier are pencils through the windshield than invisible body snatchers stealing JFK's corpse from AF1 or from under the noses of his Irish Mafia and military escort?

Enough strawmen here for a nine-handed poker game.

> >
> > >
> > > Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?
> >
> > FINALLY the troll begins to touch upon the evidence (although gently)! Rhetorical quiz time for you: what would cause a "lead smear"?

A question Dumb Fuck CHuck conveniently "forgets" to answer...even though he's the one who brought up the lead smear.

Shall we try again, asshole?

>
> >
> > >
> > > Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.
> >
> > Another strawman. Dumb Fuck Chuck doesn't even TRY to pretend to be honest any longer.
>
> Translation: Boris is secretly ashamed he believes JFK's body was swiped, but he can't help himself. Conspiracism is a disease, and Boris has it.

The translation is you're a shameless liar. And still unashamed of lying.

>
> "Why is CE399 pristine?"
>
> "Explain the Katzenbach memo!"
>
> "Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"
>
> "The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"

Ooh, these are a good start! All the better, because you wouldn't answer a single one of these questions to save your fucking kids' lives.

>
> Ah, the Katzenbach memo. The gift that keeps on giving to the kooks. Perhaps Boris the Truther can explain why LBJ needed a memo on the importance of satisfying the public that all the facts were out there, when you kooks think LBJ was behind the assassination.

Same reason any president needs a briefing. They are briefed every day. So by your logic, presidents never know anything.

[more of Chuck's stupid shit snipped]

> > > > >
> > > > > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely.
> > >
> > > Really? It's a poll?
> >
> > Chuck doesn't like my answer, you see.
>
> I don't like or dislike your answer, but it's a stupid answer. It is what it is.

why?

(That's a QUESTION now...so careful how you DON'T answer it)

> >
> > >
> > > All witnesses are equally credible,
> >
> > Yes, when they all corroborate each other to the letter.
>
> Like how the flat-Earthers used to corroborate each other?

What a stupid comparison, comparing the speculation of flat-earthers with nine people looking at tangible evidence right in front of their face.

And look who comes around insulting the centuries-old historically accepted null hypothesis of a flat earth. Chuck is a kook!

>
> Boris thinks the quantity of witnesses usurps the quality of witnesses.

Corroboration wins.

Like all the Parkland doctors who witnessed a large BOH wound. That's quantity AND quality. Even DVP admitted he can't explain that one.

Fucked by your own logic again, oh Stupid One.

> > > >
> > > > But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?
> > >
> > > Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked.
> >
> > And just as equally proves that you pick and choose what to believe.
>
> it's called WEIGHING evidence, Truther. The WC was good at it, you suck at it.

Agreed, they were great at it. They weighed the evidence that proved multiple gunmen, then dumped it faster than every pretty woman that's ever talked to you.

>
> You stand behind Frazier as an expert, but you DON'T BELIEVE HIM. It's >amazing! I'm quite comfortable with his testimony. Let's even, for the sake of >argument, say there was no hole in the windshield. What would cause a lead smear, for instance?

>
> A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.

And since the windshield in the National Archives is damaged on the OUTSIDE, that's problem number one for you.

Problem number two is your own flawed logic, that we could not possibly expect a bullet to hit the windshield whilst missing all the occupants in the front seat and "jump" seats?

Problem number three is Frazier's own admission of what would happen if any lead projectile (ie., a "bullet") had struck any part of the glass:

Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.

> > > > https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
> > >
> > > No bullet hole.
> > > >
> > > > and another one, for a bonus...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg
> > >
> > > No bullet hole.
> > > >
> > > > And noting all the long spreading spiderweb cracks, does this look like the same windshield?
> > > >
> > > > https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM
> > >
> > > "Explain this freaky looking sh!t to me." Three strikes, you're out.
> >
> > No, stupid. Spelling "shit" with an exclamation point and running away like a pussy isn't a strike on MY part. Try to keep up. The windshield in evidence is differently damaged than the extant windshield.

Lo and behold...Chuck doesn't say a fucking WORD about this!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 20:35:55 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 9:45:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 1:14:32 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
>> >>
>> >> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore. But ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Silly dullard.
>> >
>> > It's called weighing evidence Boris. In the real physical world free
>> > of evidence fairies switching bodies and bullets, altering the
>> > Zapruder film and autopsy photos, Oswald is guilty. The questions
>> > surrounding this always centered on whether someone backed him or
>> > helped him, not whether the cops were firing bullets through the front
>> > of the limo windshield.
>>
>> This, in a nutshell, shows your problem.
>>
>> You've *DECIDED* that the solution can only be Oswald.
>
>You've decided that the solution can only NOT be Oswald.

Au contraire... it wouldn't bother me in the least if Oswald were
provably guilty. It would **STILL** be a conspiracy.

You've decided that the "solution" arrived at BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE WAS
CONSIDERED is the right solution, and evidence be damned.

That explains why you HATE to agree with both the WC & HSCA who agreed
with each other that Marina was a liar, constantly lying about what
she knew and saw...

>> You've simply evaded all other possibilities... even to the extent of
>> refusing to debate them.
>
> You're not interested in a debate. You're interested in recruiting
> someone to answer your begged questions.

You're lying again, Chuckles. I can win **ANY** debate - because I'm
using the evidence.

You'll lose if you ever try, because you're using speculation.

The "begged questions" you're so terrified of answering? Merely a way
of forcing you to acknowledge the known evidence.

Such as the time that the coffin entered Bethesda, and who carried it
in... the answer to that question **PROVES** multiple entries of the
"Presidential" coffin... this is something I can explain easily, and
you are absolutely *LOST* for an explanation...

So you lace up your ballerina slippers, and start running away.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME.

>> For example, you've adamantly refused to state what time the coffin
>> entered Bethesda - KNOWING that this is evidence for something you
>> don't want to examine or explain.
>
> Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. "Explain this freaky sh!t about about the
> coffins at Bethesda to my satisfaction." It never ends.

It can't be a "reset" if it's never been answered.

It keeps coming up *BECAUSE* no believer has ever answered it.

>> You're simply a coward.
>
>Yawn.

The proven coward yawns.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:24:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > It's called weighing evidence Boris.
>
> Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t".

Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

>You don't weigh evidence, you ignore it.

One discards the weaker evidence in favor of the stronger evidence. That's how crimes are solved, and this was a crime.

>Whereas I can read the testimony of someone like Harold Norman and concede yes, there was definitely >a shooter on the sixth floor,

And who was this shooter? Watch Boris curl into the fetal position muttering "Dumb F&ck Chuck."

>you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your faith...even when it comes from a source you >pretend to agree with.
>

The major investigations heard all of the evidence Boris, including contradictory evidence. Oswald Alone still stands.

>
>
> >
> > You are a stump. If you have a solution better than Oswald Alone, you will be able to overturn the current historical narrative, like 15th century astronomers did supplanting a flat earth theory with a round earth theory.
>
> So I guess when Oliver Stone's film helped pass the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, that was a CTer accomplishing nothing in the way of posing a serious challenge to the historical narrative.

No, the movie release and publicity and call to review the records did accomplish something, to his credit, probably the last significant chapter in this entire investigatory process. Nothing earth-shattering was learned regarding Oswald or any help he may have received. Certainly your loony theories about an altered film and a snatched corpse remains hidden to history. It's still Oswald Alone with the kooks stuck in neutral.

>By the way, when you keep using the phrase "historical narrative" in lieu of addressing evidence, you >sound like even more of a fucking moron than you could possibly be.

I have no obligation to play the role of your begged-question answering palooka. Put your case up for consideration. You think the entire case consists of lies and planted evidence and forged documents and swapped bullets, etc. so TELL US what you think happened since the ENTIRE case the WC presented is suspect in your mind.

>
> >
> > It was painfully evident Oswald killed JFK and Tippit. The only questions were whether he had help or backing. No one could find anything even remotely conclusive.
>
> No one looked. It's that simple. And you'll never cite a shred of evidence showing where the WC considered any "confederates", even for a minute. Even hypothetically.

It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. I just cited Burt Griffin, and now you ignore it and make the claim again that no one looked.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe that accounts for the lead smear Frazier said he found on the inside of the windshield?
> > >
> > > FINALLY the troll begins to touch upon the evidence (although gently)! Rhetorical quiz time for you: what would cause a "lead smear"?
>
> A question Dumb Fuck CHuck conveniently "forgets" to answer...even though he's the one who brought up the lead smear.
>

It has been answered. The lead smear on the inside of the windshield was probably the results of the shattered bullet from the 313 head shot, fired by Oswald, striking the inside glass, cracking it.

What do you think caused it?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Irony alert from the guy who thinks invisible body snatchers hijacked JFK's corpse.
> > >
> > > Another strawman. Dumb Fuck Chuck doesn't even TRY to pretend to be honest any longer.
> >
> > Translation: Boris is secretly ashamed he believes JFK's body was swiped, but he can't help himself. Conspiracism is a disease, and Boris has it.
>
> The translation is you're a shameless liar. And still unashamed of lying.

You've been groomed well. Throw in child molester too.

>
> >
> > "Why is CE399 pristine?"
> >
> > "Explain the Katzenbach memo!"
> >
> > "Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"
> >
> > "The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"
>
> Ooh, these are a good start! All the better, because you wouldn't answer a single one of these questions to save your fucking kids' lives.

As if these questions haven't been answered thousands and thousands of times in books, documentaries, discussion forums, websites, etc.

Where does that bring us back to? Well, start with presenting a case that better explains the anomalies you find in the evidence better than the explanations offered by the WC, HSCA, etc. Present a POSITIVE case for what you believe instead of your non-stop poo flinging from your monkey cage.

>
>
> >
> > Ah, the Katzenbach memo. The gift that keeps on giving to the kooks. Perhaps Boris the Truther can explain why LBJ needed a memo on the importance of satisfying the public that all the facts were out there, when you kooks think LBJ was behind the assassination.
>
>
> Same reason any president needs a briefing. They are briefed every day.

So LBJ needed a briefing telling him the public needed to be satisfied the facts were out there when he was the one who ordered JFK to be bumped off. Hmm. Your answer is lame.

>So by your logic, presidents never know anything.

So by your logic, LBJ needed a memo telling him the public needed to be satisfied the facts were out there even though LBJ ordered the hit on his former boss.

>

>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is one witness better than nine? Well, let's turn it around. Are nine witnesses necessarily better than one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely.
> > > >
> > > > Really? It's a poll?
> > >
> > > Chuck doesn't like my answer, you see.
> >
> > I don't like or dislike your answer, but it's a stupid answer. It is what it is.
>
> why?
>

Because witnesses are not equal in value, Grasshopper. A witness who corroborates evidence obtained in other ways is more valuable than a witness whose observations are contradicted by evidence obtained in other ways. It's called consilience. Nine witnesses (if you're correct) report some sort of hole in the windshield. Unless you're suggesting the windshield was swapped out before Frazier examined it 12-14 hours after the assassination, then we need to go with Frazier's detailed "witness" of the same windshield, corroborated by his notes, photos, observation of a lead smear on thin side surface, etc. (Consilience.)

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > All witnesses are equally credible,
> > >
> > > Yes, when they all corroborate each other to the letter.
> >
> > Like how the flat-Earthers used to corroborate each other?
>
> What a stupid comparison, comparing the speculation of flat-earthers with nine people looking at tangible evidence right in front of their face.

See my consilience answer above.

>
> And look who comes around insulting the centuries-old historically accepted null hypothesis of a flat earth. Chuck is a kook!

Mr. Strawman Boris again.

>
> >
> > Boris thinks the quantity of witnesses usurps the quality of witnesses.
>
> Corroboration wins.

Consilience wins.

>
> Like all the Parkland doctors who witnessed a large BOH wound. That's quantity AND quality. Even DVP admitted he can't explain that one.

I doubt DVP is stumped by this.

>

>
> > > > >
> > > > > But not to you. Remember when I quoted Frazier as saying any bullet which transited two clothed men would have clothing fibers on it, and that CE399 did not? That was Frazier, the Credible One, taking a big steaming shit on your CE399. And where were you to defend it?
> > > >
> > > > Frazier said nothing that helps you, Truther, and it's more proof that he was honestly answering the questions he was asked.
> > >
> > > And just as equally proves that you pick and choose what to believe.
> >
> > it's called WEIGHING evidence, Truther. The WC was good at it, you suck at it.
>
> Agreed, they were great at it.
>
> >

> > You stand behind Frazier as an expert, but you DON'T BELIEVE HIM. It's >amazing! I'm quite comfortable with his testimony. Let's even, for the sake of >argument, say there was no hole in the windshield. What would cause a lead smear, for instance?
>
> >
> > A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.
>
> And since the windshield in the National Archives is damaged on the OUTSIDE, that's problem number one for you.
>
> Problem number two is your own flawed logic, that we could not possibly expect a bullet to hit the windshield whilst missing all the occupants in the front seat and "jump" seats?
>
> Problem number three is Frazier's own admission of what would happen if any lead projectile (ie., a "bullet") had struck any part of the glass:
>
> Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.

There goes your theory of a bullet through the windshield.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:10:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:24:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > It's called weighing evidence Boris.
>>
>> Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t".
>
>Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

You won't DARE even try to cite where you listed the "persuasive
evidence" the Warren Commission referred to.

Because it's **NEVER** been answered by **ANY** believer.

Ditto with a long line of other questions... such as:

The time the coffin entered Bethesda.

The largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
bullet fragments.

How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.

Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.

Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
classified it.

Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
who were documented in the first two days.

What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.

Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.

I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
nor will you cite where they *were* answered.

But you can't post a question that critics cannot answer.

Watch! I've predicted it!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 9:23:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:10:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:24:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's called weighing evidence Boris.
> >>
> >> Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t".
> >
> >Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.
>
> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>
> You won't DARE even try to cite where you listed the "persuasive
> evidence" the Warren Commission referred to.

Answered endlessly. Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

>
> Because it's **NEVER** been answered by **ANY** believer.

Of course it's been answered.

>
> Ditto with a long line of other questions... such as:
>
> The time the coffin entered Bethesda.

You and I have discussed it at this forum, right here. I don't if an exact time that would satisfy you is able to be established.

>
> The largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

Discussed many many times right here. I just typed "6.5mm virtually round object" in the acj. search box above and found all sorts of references with many answers. Do not pretend you haven't heard answers such as Custer saying Ebersole declared it was an artifact. If you say you haven't heard this answer before from multiple sources, you truly are a liar.

Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already heard the answer(s).

> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
> bullet fragments.
>
> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.
>
> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.
>
> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
> classified it.
>
> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
> who were documented in the first two days.
>
> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.
>
> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.
>
> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.

I can go on forever, too, but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple going about their day tending to their families or running their business or studying in school, etc. don't see.

> But you can't post a question that critics cannot answer.

1.) Taking into consideration the documented height of the windshield strike mark you presume to be a frontal bullet shot that passed through the windshield and struck JFK in the throat, please provide the research that documents the correct angles and placement a south knoll shooter would've needed to be at to A.) strike the windshield as measured, and B.) hit JFK in the throat. I expect to see the work of surveyors, photogrammetry experts, etc. which is exactly the type of experts the WC and HSCA employed for various reenactments and research. For example, what is the relative height of the throat wound to the bullet strike the windshield.

>
> Watch! I've predicted it!

I posted one, I'll skip the rest. They've all been answered for decades, but not to your satisfaction.

I don't expect you to answer mine.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:51:31 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 9:23:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:10:52 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:24:07 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's called weighing evidence Boris.
>> >>
>> >> Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t".
>> >
>> >Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>>
>> You won't DARE even try to cite where you listed the "persuasive
>> evidence" the Warren Commission referred to.
>
>Answered endlessly. Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.

You're a liar, Chuckles. It's *NEVER* been answered. There is **NO**
list of eyewitnesses whom the Warren Commission questioned about the
SBT that you, or any other believer has ever posted.

And the PROOF that you're lying is that you refuse to document any
such answer.


So you're a PROVEN liar.

>> Because it's **NEVER** been answered by **ANY** believer.
>
>Of course it's been answered.

Yet you can't seem to document that "answer"... why is that, coward?

>> Ditto with a long line of other questions... such as:
>>
>> The time the coffin entered Bethesda.
>
> You and I have discussed it at this forum, right here. I don't if an
> exact time that would satisfy you is able to be established.

No such "discussion" has ever taken place... nor will you be able to
cite such a "discussion."

The question has been ASKED many times, you've run every single time.


So you're simply lying again, Chuckles.

>> The largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.
>
> Discussed many many times right here. I just typed "6.5mm virtually
> round object" in the acj. search box above and found all sorts of
> references with many answers. Do not pretend you haven't heard answers
> such as Custer saying Ebersole declared it was an artifact. If you say
> you haven't heard this answer before from multiple sources, you truly
> are a liar.

ROTFLMAO!!!

All you have is HEARSAY???!!

Why did McAdams run from that question?

Even Pud ran... **YOU** certainly can't document where you've
addressed this.



But... now that you're on record as stating that the 6.5mm virtually
round object *IS* the largest foreign object seen in the film, you
need to explain why Dr. Humes claimed in sworn testimony that the
largest fragment seen was the "7x2mm" fragment.

You'll run, of course...

Just as all other believers have run.

> Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you
> keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already
> heard the answer(s).

It's not the answer. The experts on the HSCA panel declared it to be a
bullet fragment.

Even the very *idea* that a "artifact" just happened to be in the
appropriate location, and to be the size it needed to be, is so
incredible as to be *COMPLETELY* unbelievable.

Yet you believe it!!!

AMAZING!

So tell us why the HSCA concluded the obvious, and you didn't?


(Don't worry, I expect you to run again...)

>> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
>> bullet fragments.

Dead silence.

>> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.

Dead silence.

>> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.

Dead silence.

>> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
>> classified it.

Dead silence.

>> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
>> who were documented in the first two days.

Dead silence.

>> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.

Dead silence.

>> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.

Dead silence.

>> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
>> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
>> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.
>
>I can go on forever, too,

Yet you refused to do so... why the cowardice, coward?

> but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called
> conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that
> sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret
> conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players
> all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each
> other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is
> uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple
> going about their day tending to their families or running their
> business or studying in school, etc. don't see.

Ad hominem merely shows that you can't explain the evidence.

>> But you can't post a question that critics cannot answer.
>
> 1.) Taking into consideration the documented height of the
> windshield strike mark you presume to be a frontal bullet shot that
> passed through the windshield and struck JFK in the throat, please
> provide the research that documents the correct angles and placement a
> south knoll shooter would've needed to be at to A.) strike the
> windshield as measured, and B.) hit JFK in the throat. I expect to see
> the work of surveyors, photogrammetry experts, etc. which is exactly
> the type of experts the WC and HSCA employed for various reenactments
> and research. For example, what is the relative height of the throat
> wound to the bullet strike the windshield.

Once again, you ask a question that you yourself can't answer. And the
Warren Commission *COMPLETELY FAILED* to get the measurements needed
to answer this question to your satisfaction. Since the Warren
Commission *FAILED* to get even the most basic measurements needed to
answer this question - you can't answer it, and it would involve more
resources than I care to take on to answer it myself.

An analogy to your question would be the following:

Taking into consideration that uke is a Sandan, what's the appropriate
defense to a Migi Uchimata.

There's a precise and accurate answer to this question... and you'll
refuse to answer it. Because it would take just as long a time period,
and cost just as much to get the correct answer as it would for me to
hire surveyers & "photogrammetry experts" to find the answer to your
question.


Note the difference in questions... I'm asking questions where there
*ARE* known answers.

You're simply too much a coward to answer 'em.

>> Watch! I've predicted it!

Quite successfully, as usual.

> I posted one, I'll skip the rest. They've all been answered for
> decades, but not to your satisfaction.

They've NEVER been answered, and the PROOF that you're lying is your
inability to cite any such answers.

>I don't expect you to answer mine.

I'll answer yours just as quickly as you'll answer mine.

But the sad fact is - you can't ask questions that critics are
incapable of answering when it comes to the evidence in this case.

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 9:10:07 PM UTC-7, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the factory of lies, alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.
>
> One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome circle jerk).
>
> Let the truth go where it may....

Sorry Brock-Dr. McClelland was there and absolutely certain JFK was shot from the front-same with Dr. Crenshaw-same with X-Ray Tech Custer. Same with James Jenkins-Roy Kellerman etc.

[Bud]

A reasonable explanation that requires nothing fantastic appears in evidence, lurkers. Let Ben put his complex and fantastic idea next to it and see if lurkers can spot which idea is retarded.

> Why did McAdams run from that question?
>
> Even Pud ran...

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

There is really nothing I need to do is point out that Ban can`t take this issue anywhere. I can repeat this a hundred times, or never mention it again and the situation will stay the same, Ben will still be unable to take the issue anywhere.

> **YOU** certainly can't document where you've
> addressed this.
>
>
>
> But... now that you're on record as stating that the 6.5mm virtually
> round object *IS* the largest foreign object seen in the film, you
> need to explain why Dr. Humes claimed in sworn testimony that the
> largest fragment seen was the "7x2mm" fragment.

Because he was told by Ebersole to disregard the artifact, lurkers.

> You'll run, of course...
>
> Just as all other believers have run.
>
>
> > Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you
> > keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already
> > heard the answer(s).
>
>
> It's not the answer. The experts on the HSCA panel declared it to be a
> bullet fragment.

So let Ben explain it as a bullet fragment, lurkers. Not happening.

> Even the very *idea* that a "artifact" just happened to be in the
> appropriate location, and to be the size it needed to be, is so
> incredible as to be *COMPLETELY* unbelievable.

Ben discards this as too fantastic, let him outline his idea, lurkers. He won`t, of course, as it will be readily seen as many times more fantastic than the idea he rejects as too fantastic.

> Yet you believe it!!!
>
> AMAZING!
>
> So tell us why the HSCA concluded the obvious, and you didn't?
>
>
> (Don't worry, I expect you to run again...)
>
>
> >> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
> >> bullet fragments.
>
>
> Dead silence.

Ben has whipped out his pack of retard trading cards, lurkers. "Explain these things to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit", he cries.

>
> >> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.
>
>
> Dead silence.

Begging the question, lurkers.

And Ben can`t quote Oswald saying he saw those two people pass the lunchroom, it is purely the product of retard figuring.

>
> >> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.
>
>
> Dead silence.

Loaded question, begging the question.

>
>
> >> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
> >> classified it.
>
>
> Dead silence.

Loaded question, begging the question.

>
> >> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
> >> who were documented in the first two days.
>
>
> Dead silence.

They didn`t point to it and state that is where the shots were fired from, lurkers. They gave their impression of where the sound originated from.

>
> >> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.
>
>
> Dead silence.
>
>
>
> >> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.
>
>
> Dead silence.

Loaded question, lurkers.

>
> >> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
> >> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
> >> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.
> >
> >I can go on forever, too,
>
>
> Yet you refused to do so... why the cowardice, coward?
>
>
>
>
> > but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called
> > conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that
> > sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret
> > conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players
> > all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each
> > other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is
> > uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple
> > going about their day tending to their families or running their
> > business or studying in school, etc. don't see.
>
>
> Ad hominem merely shows that you can't explain the evidence.

The evidence isn`t the problem, lurkers. Retards looking at the evidence is where the problems lie.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

Right, I forgot...and all those posts can be found with Allen Dulles's authenticated signed confession that he covered up the JFK assassination. Strange how we both claim these things exist, but neither of us can find them anywhere.

>
>
> >You don't weigh evidence, you ignore it.
>
> One discards the weaker evidence in favor of the stronger evidence. That's how crimes are solved, and this was a crime.

So...you ignore the evidence.

>
> >Whereas I can read the testimony of someone like Harold Norman and concede yes, there was definitely >a shooter on the sixth floor,
>
> And who was this shooter? Watch Boris curl into the fetal position muttering "Dumb F&ck Chuck."

I'd be happy to say it was Oswald if he'd not been seen around the lunchroom, and if the NAA cheek test passed muster. I'd even be willing to overlook the bald spot and 6-foot frame of the shooter that witnesses claimed to have seen.

>
>
> >you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your faith...even when it comes from a source you >pretend to agree with.
> >
> The major investigations heard all of the evidence Boris, including contradictory evidence. Oswald Alone still stands.

Ah yes, all the evidence except that from the investigation not done (by your own foolish admission). Can you cite some of the contradictory evidence they heard, or...? Ah, forget it. Not from you.

>
> Put your case up for consideration.

What would you do once this was done? You just said you have no obligation to play the role of answering questions. So you don't really *want* to hear a case. You just want to complain that one has not been posted to your satisfaction. It's your "out" to avoid the evidence.

> >
> > No one looked. It's that simple. And you'll never cite a shred of evidence showing where the WC considered any "confederates", even for a minute. Even hypothetically.
>
>
> It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. I just cited Burt Griffin, and now you ignore it and make the claim again that no one looked.

What Burt Griffin said and what they did are not mutually exclusive. The proof of that is there is not a single instance in the whole report where a "confederate" was considered even hypothetically.

> >
> > The translation is you're a shameless liar. And still unashamed of lying.
>
> You've been groomed well. Throw in child molester too.

I have no evidence of that. Yet. I'll stick to "liar" for now. It's an irrefutable fact.

> >
> > >
> > > "Why is CE399 pristine?"
> > >
> > > "Explain the Katzenbach memo!"
> > >
> > > "Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"
> > >
> > > "The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"
> >
> > Ooh, these are a good start! All the better, because you wouldn't answer a single one of these questions to save your fucking kids' lives.
>
> As if these questions haven't been answered thousands and thousands of times in books, documentaries, discussion forums, websites, etc.

Chuck pretends these "answers" have never been challenged with much stronger evidence.

> >
> Because witnesses are not equal in value, Grasshopper. A witness who corroborates evidence obtained in other ways is more valuable than a witness whose observations are contradicted by evidence obtained in other ways. It's called consilience. Nine witnesses (if you're correct) report some sort of hole in the windshield. Unless you're suggesting the windshield was swapped out before Frazier examined it 12-14 hours after the assassination, then we need to go with Frazier's detailed "witness" of the same windshield, corroborated by his notes, photos, observation of a lead smear on thin side surface, etc. (Consilience.)

Oh, I've twice done that. It silenced you good and proper. And I'll do it again at the end of this post.

> >
> > >
> > > Boris thinks the quantity of witnesses usurps the quality of witnesses.
> >
> > Corroboration wins.
>
> Consilience wins.
> >
> > Like all the Parkland doctors who witnessed a large BOH wound. That's quantity AND quality. Even DVP admitted he can't explain that one.
>
> I doubt DVP is stumped by this.

You doubt wrong:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/K5QspYrwBgAJ

Using your own "quality over quantity" logic (or in this case, quality AND quantity), no LNer can explain the large BOH wound witnessed by everyone. DVP can't. And you can't either.

> > >
> > > A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.
> >
> > And since the windshield in the National Archives is damaged on the OUTSIDE, that's problem number one for you.
> >
> > Problem number two is your own flawed logic, that we could not possibly expect a bullet to hit the windshield whilst missing all the occupants in the front seat and "jump" seats?
> >
> > Problem number three is Frazier's own admission of what would happen if any lead projectile (ie., a "bullet") had struck any part of the glass:
> >
> > Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.
>
> There goes your theory of a bullet through the windshield.

Really, imbecile? Then why does CE351 look EXACTLY the way Frazier describes a struck windshield would have looked....

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg

And this windshield looks NOTHING like it...

https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:42:41 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.
>
> Right, I forgot...and all those posts can be found with Allen Dulles's authenticated signed confession that he covered up the JFK assassination. Strange how we both claim these things exist, but neither of us can find them anywhere.

Did you even check? Let me guess...you're not interested in checking. You just want to endlessly recruit people to answer your begged questions.

>
> >
> >
> > >You don't weigh evidence, you ignore it.
> >
> > One discards the weaker evidence in favor of the stronger evidence. That's how crimes are solved, and this was a crime.
>
> So...you ignore the evidence.

Read for comprehension Truther.

>
> >
> > >Whereas I can read the testimony of someone like Harold Norman and concede yes, there was definitely >a shooter on the sixth floor,
> >
> > And who was this shooter? Watch Boris curl into the fetal position muttering "Dumb F&ck Chuck."
>
>
> I'd be happy to say it was Oswald

Liar.

>if he'd not been seen around the lunchroom,

He was seen on the 6th floor firing a weapon, Truther.

>and if the NAA cheek test passed muster. I'd even be willing >to overlook the bald spot and 6-foot frame of the shooter that witnesses claimed to have seen.

Liar. Ben has groomed you well.

>
>
> >
> >
> > >you can't accept any evidence that contradicts your faith...even when it comes from a source you >pretend to agree with.
> > >
> > The major investigations heard all of the evidence Boris, including contradictory evidence. Oswald Alone still stands.
>
> Ah yes, all the evidence except that from the investigation not done (by your own foolish admission).

Boris thinks the investigation not done should be the investigation that was done. All of Boris's witnesses weren't called. Darn that Warren Commission!

>Can you cite some of the contradictory evidence they heard, or...? Ah, forget it. Not from you.

You cite contradictory evidence all the time. How could you not have a case this massive with hundreds of witnesses and not have contradictory witnesses and evidence that can be interpreted differently? That's why you weigh it and sort if for consistency and look for points of consilience. Your method is to take the strands that please your preconceived narrative and weave it into a fantastic shroud. You 911 Truthers do it, too. One witness says the airliner that struck the Pentagon was "like a missile" and that sets your tinfoil hat beanies spinning off into all sorts of fantastic areas about a military missile striking the Pentagon. (Explain this freaky looking sh!t about no airplane debris on the Pentagon lawn!) Witnesses say there were sounds like explosions or bombs going off in the WTCs and that turns into unknown demo companies planting explosives for Bush and Cheney and Silverstein or insurance settlements and war profits.

>
>
> >
> > Put your case up for consideration.
>
> What would you do once this was done?

I'd fall over in shock.

>You just said you have no obligation to play the role of answering questions. So you don't really *want* to >hear a case. You just want to complain that one has not been posted to your satisfaction. It's your "out" >to avoid the evidence.

Your constant Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot is actually your "out" to avoid the inescapable conclusion that you have no case. It's more comfortable for you to make constant demands that others pay attention to you and your questions than to actually produce something. It's all about Boris.

And why do you give a damn about what I think? Are you so fearful of criticism that you'll remain silent forever? Are you--deep down--ashamed of your theory? It can't be any wackier than Ben thinking the DPD killed JFK under orders delivered by someone named Guy Persnell via LBJ and Hoover, can it? Let your little light shine, Truther.

>
> > >
> > > No one looked. It's that simple. And you'll never cite a shred of evidence showing where the WC considered any "confederates", even for a minute. Even hypothetically.
> >
> >
> > It's a Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot. I just cited Burt Griffin, and now you ignore it and make the claim again that no one looked.
>
> What Burt Griffin said and what they did are not mutually exclusive. The proof of that is there is not a single instance in the whole report where a "confederate" was considered even hypothetically.

You've never even read the WCR. Of course they looked vigorously, and even said this:

"Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission."

>
> > >
> > > The translation is you're a shameless liar. And still unashamed of lying.
> >
> > You've been groomed well. Throw in child molester too.
>
> I have no evidence of that. Yet. I'll stick to "liar" for now. It's an irrefutable fact.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Why is CE399 pristine?"
> > > >
> > > > "Explain the Katzenbach memo!"
> > > >
> > > > "Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"
> > > >
> > > > "The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"
> > >
> > > Ooh, these are a good start! All the better, because you wouldn't answer a single one of these questions to save your fucking kids' lives.

Go somewhere with it, Boris.

> >
> > As if these questions haven't been answered thousands and thousands of times in books, documentaries, discussion forums, websites, etc.
>
> Chuck pretends these "answers" have never been challenged with much stronger evidence.

Dunning-Kruger effect. Boris pretends he has stronger evidence. Boris knows more than the experts. It's a sickness, lurkers.

>
> > >
> > Because witnesses are not equal in value, Grasshopper. A witness who corroborates evidence obtained in other ways is more valuable than a witness whose observations are contradicted by evidence obtained in other ways. It's called consilience. Nine witnesses (if you're correct) report some sort of hole in the windshield. Unless you're suggesting the windshield was swapped out before Frazier examined it 12-14 hours after the assassination, then we need to go with Frazier's detailed "witness" of the same windshield, corroborated by his notes, photos, observation of a lead smear on thin side surface, etc. (Consilience.)
>
> Oh, I've twice done that. It silenced you good and proper. And I'll do it again at the end of this post.

Boris is winning his game. He's undefeated in his mind yet shakes his tiny fists powerlessly over the unfairness that history records Oswald as the killer of JFK and JDT. Sucks to be Boris.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Boris thinks the quantity of witnesses usurps the quality of witnesses.
> > >
> > > Corroboration wins.
> >
> > Consilience wins.
> > >
> > > Like all the Parkland doctors who witnessed a large BOH wound. That's quantity AND quality.

The Parkland doctors on the 1988 NOVA program who said the autopsy photos didn't differ from what they remembered? Those doctors?

>Even DVP admitted he can't explain that one.
> >
> > I doubt DVP is stumped by this.
>
> You doubt wrong:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/K5QspYrwBgAJ

Nah. I'm reading it as he doesn't understand why the DOCTORS thought such a thing. There are reasonable explanations and fantastic ones. Guess which ones you're hitching your wagon to.

>
> Using your own "quality over quantity" logic (or in this case, quality AND quantity), no LNer can explain the large BOH wound witnessed by everyone. DVP can't. And you can't either.

Fortunately, the autopsy report--two shots struck the president from above and behind--is definitive.

Checkmate.

>
> > > >
> > > > A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.
> > >
> > > And since the windshield in the National Archives is damaged on the OUTSIDE, that's problem number one for you.
> > >
> > > Problem number two is your own flawed logic, that we could not possibly expect a bullet to hit the windshield whilst missing all the occupants in the front seat and "jump" seats?

You really are a stump. One bullet DID hit an occupant other than JFK, idiot: JBC. The cracked windshield with the lead smear on the INSIDE surface of it is almost by default a bullet fragment from the head shot at 313.

What do you think it was? (Boris assumes the fetal position, Ben gently places a blanket over him and pats his tinfoil hat beanie.)

> > >
> > > Problem number three is Frazier's own admission of what would happen if any lead projectile (ie., a "bullet") had struck any part of the glass:
> > >
> > > Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.
> >
> > There goes your theory of a bullet through the windshield.
>
> Really, imbecile? Then why does CE351 look EXACTLY the way Frazier describes a struck windshield would have looked....

...as if struck by a FRAGMENT. He says if a bullet had struck it at near full velocity it would've gone all the way through and continued until it struck something else.

>
> https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg
>
> And this windshield looks NOTHING like it...
>
> https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM

Looks like a cracked windshield, not one with a full bullet hole through it.

Run along, Truther.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

No stupid, it's **NOT** a "reasonable" explanation.

If it were, the experts on the HSCA panel would have corroborated
that.

>> Why did McAdams run from that question?
>>
>> Even Pud ran...
>

> I love to lie, lurkers.

>
> There is really nothing I need to do is point out that Ban can`t
> take this issue anywhere. I can repeat this a hundred times, or never
> mention it again and the situation will stay the same, Ben will still
> be unable to take the issue anywhere.

And yet, I take this issue the same place every time I raise it... I
take it to the place where believers start lying and running away.

Why can't you explain why Dr. Humes never mentioned this object to the
Warren Commission?

>> **YOU** certainly can't document where you've
>> addressed this.
>>
>>
>>
>> But... now that you're on record as stating that the 6.5mm virtually
>> round object *IS* the largest foreign object seen in the film, you
>> need to explain why Dr. Humes claimed in sworn testimony that the
>> largest fragment seen was the "7x2mm" fragment.
>
> Because he was told by Ebersole to disregard the artifact, lurkers.

Nope. Simply not believable.

Artifacts don't normally come in the same size and shape of a bullet
caliber involved in the case.

Why don't you commission a statistics study to determine how likely it
is that a random splotch artifact will match the size and location of
a bullet entry?

>> You'll run, of course...
>>
>> Just as all other believers have run.
>>
>>
>> > Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you
>> > keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already
>> > heard the answer(s).
>>
>>
>> It's not the answer. The experts on the HSCA panel declared it to be a
>> bullet fragment.
>
> So let Ben explain it as a bullet fragment, lurkers. Not happening.

Let Pud explain why no-one saw it on the night of the autopsy.

But he won't.

>> Even the very *idea* that a "artifact" just happened to be in the
>> appropriate location, and to be the size it needed to be, is so
>> incredible as to be *COMPLETELY* unbelievable.
>
> Ben discards this as too fantastic,

And Pud believes it, despite it's impossibility... because to think
otherwise would let the waft of conspiracy to enter the tent.

> let him outline his idea, lurkers. He won`t, of course, as it will
> be readily seen as many times more fantastic than the idea he
> rejects as too fantastic.

Actually, I've already explain the who, and the why of this object.

Pud's just lying again...


Watch as Pud ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly state that I've **NOT**
previously outlined this idea... (He knows I have the cite ready to go
to spank him for such a lie)

>> Yet you believe it!!!
>>
>> AMAZING!
>>
>> So tell us why the HSCA concluded the obvious, and you didn't?
>>
>>
>> (Don't worry, I expect you to run again...)
>>
>>
>> >> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
>> >> bullet fragments.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> Ben has whipped out his pack of retard trading cards, lurkers.
> "Explain these things to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid
> shit", he cries.

Nah... doesn't have to be explained to *my* satisfaction... I'd be
laughing if you only had the courage to offer **ANY** explanation...

>> >> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> Begging the question, lurkers.

Watch as Pud ABSOLUTELY refuses to state that he doesn't know this to
be a fact.



> And Ben can`t quote Oswald...


And Pud can't quote Dr. Humes saying that the 6.5mm virtually round
object was only an "artifact."

>> >> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> Loaded question, begging the question.

Au contraire... I've demonstrated this to be a fact a number of
times...

Go ahead, coward... DENY THAT FACT!

>> >> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
>> >> classified it.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> Loaded question, begging the question.

You're lying again, Pud.

>> >> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
>> >> who were documented in the first two days.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> They didn`t point to it and state that is where the shots were
> fired from, lurkers. They gave their impression of where the sound
> originated from.

Good! Then you admit that you have **NO** witnesses to a TSBD shooter.

>> >> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.
>>
>>
>> Dead silence.
>
> Loaded question, lurkers.

Pud's lying again... this has long been established.

>> >> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
>> >> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
>> >> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.
>> >
>> >I can go on forever, too,
>>
>>
>> Yet you refused to do so... why the cowardice, coward?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called
>> > conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that
>> > sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret
>> > conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players
>> > all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each
>> > other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is
>> > uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple
>> > going about their day tending to their families or running their
>> > business or studying in school, etc. don't see.
>>
>>
>> Ad hominem merely shows that you can't explain the evidence.
>
> The evidence isn`t the problem, lurkers.

No, *EXPLAINING* the evidence is...


> I'm a retard looking at the evidence...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:42:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 17:01:46 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 6:08:03 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> I dunno, Ben. You're just as good a researcher as Boris or Healy.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, they're much better than me. I'm just good enough to render you
>> >> > a slobbering mess of epithets and non sequitur anecdotes, which only
>> >> > morons like you pass off as "debate."
>> >> >
>> >> > Or...Oswald must have been the lone assassin, because Dumb Fuck
>> >> > Chuck can quote the movie "Psycho." (For any lurkers paying attention,
>> >> > it's literally all Chuck can quote...he certainly can't quote "allll
>> >> > the experts")
>> >>
>> >> Chuckles can't even list the witnesses that the Warren Commission used
>> >> to constitute "persuasive evidence."
>> >>
>> >> He can't... he knows it's a lie.
>> >
>> > It's all a big lie. Everyone hated JFK, everyone wanted big Vietnam
>> > War profits that JFK was going nip in the bud, everyone wanted to help
>> > LBJ avoid a corruption charge, everyone wanted to see Hoover stay past
>> > the mandatory retirement year, everyone wanted to see Jack Thompson
>> > succeed in killing his rival, JD Tippit, etc.
>> >
>> > And even though only "seven or eight people" planned or carried it
>> > out, thousands HAD to cover it up because they had motives like
>> > retaining their government pensions, or perhaps sincere feelings that
>> > WW3 was imminent if the truth was revealed, so they thought they were
>> > doing the patriotic thing.
>> >
>> > Okay, now that we have all of that out of the way as well as
>> > stipulating that all of the main media outlets were cowardly, and
>> > staff attorneys on the WC, right up to Earl Warren himself, were
>> > corrupt and frozen with fear regarding a possible nuclear exchange
>> > with the Soviets, tell us, Ben...
>> >
>> >WHAT HAPPENED?
>>
>> Multiple assassins.
>
> The all we need to say is "one assassin", lurkers.


Then the next time you dare to lie and claim I've not provided a
scenario just as detailed and with just as many citations as a
believer has posted, you'll be telling a PROVABLE lie, right?



>> There's no need to say anything more, because *YOU* refuse to say
>> anything more.
>
> Then we can agree to disagree, lurkers.


This doesn't give you license to lie...


>> When you're ready to grow up,
>> and emulate Conan's
>> example, let me know.
>
> So according to Ben Conan already has, lurkers. What is the problem?

You're too dishonest to admit that Conan provided his scenario.

Why is that, coward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 2:14:32 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Boris inadvertently sticks his foot in his mouth. Again. The evidence in existence proves Oswald guilty. It's historically accepted, the null hypothesis, the conclusion you're challenging.
>>
>> You're getting worse at this in your old age. Or lazier. Only the evidence which you choose to accept proves any guilt on Oswald. Anything which exonerates him as the lone assassin, you ignore.
>
> If there was evidence that exonerated Oswald I would have heard
> about it by now.

You have.

You simply haven't explained it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 03:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 12:10:07 AM UTC-4, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ben's posting snippets of threads, or entire threads from the factory of lies,
>

> Mark Lane`s Rush to Judgment.


Another empty claim.

Pud can't seem to cite a "lie" from Mark Lane - and indeed, has been
caught BLATANTLY lying about a book he claims to have never read.

Of course, when you claim that something you've never even bothered to
read is a "lie" - that fact by itself shows what it's worth.

>> alt.assassination.jfk is a great service to lurkers.
>>
>> One needs to know the extent of disinformation coming from that loon nut club (1964 WCR supporters, aka, LHO did it all by his lonesome circle jerk).
>>
>> Let the truth go where it may....
>

> It will never cross your mind.

An unsupported assertion by a proven liar doesn't mean very much...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Right, I forgot...and all those posts can be found with Allen Dulles's authenticated signed confession that he covered up the JFK assassination. Strange how we both claim these things exist, but neither of us can find them anywhere.
>
> Did you even check? Let me guess...you're not interested in checking. You just want to endlessly recruit people to answer your begged questions.

More work for me to do!! And a red herring quest at that. You'd have posted the links by now. They don't exist. We both know that.

> >
> > So...you ignore the evidence.
>
> Read for comprehension Truther.

So....you STILL ignore the evidence.

> >
> >
> > I'd be happy to say it was Oswald
>
> Liar.

How dare you call me a lone nutter?!?

And it just proves you don't pay attention. I've always said he was guilty. Why else would he run the the movie theater?

He's just not *solely* guilty. It's rather obvious.

>
> >if he'd not been seen around the lunchroom,
>
> He was seen on the 6th floor firing a weapon, Truther.

Someone taller and heavier than him with a bald spot was seen. But that's okay, witnesses can be mistaken.

Science can't, though. And science says he did not fire a rifle. Science beats witnesses.

>
> >and if the NAA cheek test passed muster. I'd even be willing >to overlook the bald spot and 6-foot frame of the shooter that witnesses claimed to have seen.
>
> Liar. Ben has groomed you well.

Technically you're calling Guinn a liar. And science. Science is a liar too. Bad, bad science!

>
> Boris thinks the investigation not done should be the investigation that was done. All of Boris's witnesses weren't called. Darn that Warren Commission!

The WC could not call everyone who walked the earth to testify. Though if they excluded everyone from a group with testimony contrary to their "Oswald alone" theory, that's a calculated act. And even if it weren't calculated, it proves they could not possibly have "weighed the evidence" on an issue they did not even know about.

>
>
> >Can you cite some of the contradictory evidence they heard, or...? Ah, forget it. Not from you.
>
> You cite contradictory evidence all the time. How could you not have a case this massive with hundreds of witnesses and not have contradictory witnesses and evidence that can be interpreted differently?

Then name some, and shut the fuck up about 9/11 for five minutes...kook!

>
> Your constant Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot is actually your "out"

Something you invented is no one's "out" but your own.

>
> And why do you give a damn about what I think?

I don't, but you keep interrupting the critical conversations with how smart you think you are.

>
> You've never even read the WCR. Of course they looked vigorously, and even said this:
>
> "Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission."

It would be beyond the reach of any team of investigators that simply ignored important witnesses who all corroborate each other. My mistake...they must have tried really, really hard. LOL!!

> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Why is CE399 pristine?"
> > > > >
> > > > > "Explain the Katzenbach memo!"
> > > > >
> > > > > "Oswald couldn't have fired that fast!"
> > > > >
> > > > > "The package he carried into work wasn't long enough for the rifle!"
> > > >
> > > > Ooh, these are a good start! All the better, because you wouldn't answer a single one of these questions to save your fucking kids' lives.
>
> Go somewhere with it, Boris.
> > >
> > > As if these questions haven't been answered thousands and thousands of times in books, documentaries, discussion forums, websites, etc.
> >
> > Chuck pretends these "answers" have never been challenged with much stronger evidence.
>
> Dunning-Kruger effect. Boris pretends he has stronger evidence. Boris knows more than the experts. It's a sickness, lurkers.

Nonsense. Experts unanimously state the MC bolt action takes a minimum of 2.3 seconds to recycle. The first two shots were only 1.6 seconds apart. And then you have this...

https://books.google.ca/books?id=y3iXAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=jfk+earwitnesses+shots+fired+rapid+succession&source=bl&ots=JWoiZkqVPz&sig=oXMXJImLwR188GR6_i2vs5wOOvs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjjY7ZudncAhUNUKwKHWtMCFEQ6AEwDHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=jfk%20earwitnesses%20shots%20fired%20rapid%20succession&f=false

And once again, you claim *I'm* the one scared of the experts...yet I'm citing them to prove YOU wrong, and *you're* running away. Any "lurker" can see what's happening here.

>
> Boris is winning

Chucky is whining

> > > >
> > > > Like all the Parkland doctors who witnessed a large BOH wound. That's quantity AND quality.
>
> The Parkland doctors on the 1988 NOVA program who said the autopsy photos didn't differ from what they remembered? Those doctors?

No, not the doctors 25 years after the fact...the doctors who described what they saw THAT DAY. You know, these guys...

https://goo.gl/images/oHPjzX

>
> >Even DVP admitted he can't explain that one.
> > >
> > > I doubt DVP is stumped by this.
> >
> > You doubt wrong:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/Ktc77ezqc-8/K5QspYrwBgAJ
>
> Nah. I'm reading it as he doesn't understand why the DOCTORS thought such a thing. There are reasonable explanations and fantastic ones. Guess which ones you're hitching your wagon to.

I don't care what that moron thinks. I'm linking to that post just to prove you wrong again. It's a "head scratcher", as LN Grand Poobah puts it. So naturally you're light years away from an answer yourself.

> >
> > Using your own "quality over quantity" logic (or in this case, quality AND quantity), no LNer can explain the large BOH wound witnessed by everyone. DVP can't. And you can't either.
>
> Fortunately, the autopsy report--two shots struck the president from above and behind--is definitive.
>
> Checkmate.

Notice what Chuck did here. First he brought up his "quality over quantity" nonsense. I used it against him to prove a large BOH wound. Now he looks around madly for somewhere to run. Finds the autopsy report! Runs there!! But, oh....

"there is a large irregular defect of chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absense of scalp and bone."

Finds out he can't run there after all. He's got to run somewhere else. But where, Chuck? Where?!

Checkmate.

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > A bullet fragment originally fired from BEHIND, idiot. It was on the INSIDE of the windshield.
> > > >
> > > > And since the windshield in the National Archives is damaged on the OUTSIDE, that's problem number one for you.

Chuck has nothing to say here.

> > > >
> > > > Problem number two is your own flawed logic, that we could not possibly expect a bullet to hit the windshield whilst missing all the occupants in the front seat and "jump" seats?
>
> You really are a stump. One bullet DID hit an occupant other than JFK, idiot: JBC. The cracked windshield with the lead smear on the INSIDE surface of it is almost by default a bullet fragment from the head shot at 313.

Is 313 when Connally was hit? This is news to me. I'd always thought the bullet that DIDN'T hit the windshield was the one that struck one of the limo occupants.

> > > >
> > > > Problem number three is Frazier's own admission of what would happen if any lead projectile (ie., a "bullet") had struck any part of the glass:
> > > >
> > > > Mr. FRAZIER - It would have shattered the front windshield. It would have caused a very large, relatively large hole, approximately three-eighths to an inch in diameter with radiating cracks extending outward into the glass for several inches, even to the side of the glass.
> > >
> > > There goes your theory of a bullet through the windshield.
> >
> > Really, imbecile? Then why does CE351 look EXACTLY the way Frazier describes a struck windshield would have looked....
>
> ...as if struck by a FRAGMENT. He says if a bullet had struck it at near full velocity it would've gone all the way through and continued until it struck something else.

And yet CE351 looks exactly as he described regardless.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/CE351.jpg

And this windshield doesn't.

https://goo.gl/images/1T2nCM

And you'll still try to argue the two are the same.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 10:53:12 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Right, I forgot...and all those posts can be found with Allen Dulles's authenticated signed confession that he covered up the JFK assassination. Strange how we both claim these things exist, but neither of us can find them anywhere.
> >
> > Did you even check? Let me guess...you're not interested in checking. You just want to endlessly recruit people to answer your begged questions.
>
> More work for me to do!! And a red herring quest at that. You'd have posted the links by now. They don't exist. We both know that.
>
> > >
> > > So...you ignore the evidence.
> >
> > Read for comprehension Truther.
>
> So....you STILL ignore the evidence.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd be happy to say it was Oswald
> >
> > Liar.
>
> How dare you call me a lone nutter?!?
>
> And it just proves you don't pay attention. I've always said he was guilty. Why else would he run the the movie theater?
>
> He's just not *solely* guilty. It's rather obvious.

OMG! (Sound of me falling out of my chair, getting back up. Coffee spilling.)Some common sense. Oswald is guilty. Forgive me for snipping the rest of this, let's get right to work:

Let me strike while the iron is hot, Boris is ready for his big reveal.

1.) What is Oswald guilty of? What did he do?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I wasn't present at the planning, you fucking gimp. So are you just going to ignore the rest of the post then? Cowardly shit stain.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

And the iron cools down.

But Boris thinks Oswald was guilty.

What was he guilty of, Boris? Everything else pales in comparison.

Ben? You paying attention?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Chuck ran from everything, lurkers.

The evidence. The weapons experts. The parkland doctors. The autopsy. The witnesses. The windshield. All in one post. Literally everything.

[Bud]

Notice Ben ran from the challenge of producing his counter-explanation, lurkers? He did this because his ideas are retarded and he is ashamed of them.

> If it were, the experts on the HSCA panel would have corroborated
> that.
>
>
> >> Why did McAdams run from that question?
> >>
> >> Even Pud ran...
> >
> > I love to lie, lurkers.
> >
> > There is really nothing I need to do is point out that Ban can`t
> > take this issue anywhere. I can repeat this a hundred times, or never
> > mention it again and the situation will stay the same, Ben will still
> > be unable to take the issue anywhere.
>
>
> And yet, I take this issue the same place every time I raise it...

Nowhere, lurkers.

> I
> take it to the place where believers start lying and running away.

Ben can claim this issue has taken him to the top of the highest mountain if he wishes, he is just that delusional, lurkers.

But from where I sit, it is nowhere.

> Why can't you explain why Dr. Humes never mentioned this object to the
> Warren Commission?
>
>
> >> **YOU** certainly can't document where you've
> >> addressed this.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But... now that you're on record as stating that the 6.5mm virtually
> >> round object *IS* the largest foreign object seen in the film, you
> >> need to explain why Dr. Humes claimed in sworn testimony that the
> >> largest fragment seen was the "7x2mm" fragment.
> >
> > Because he was told by Ebersole to disregard the artifact, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope. Simply not believable.

What Ben means is it isn`t fantastic enough, lurkers. He craves something a hundred times more complex, fantastic and unbelievable. But he won`t put these ideas out there.

> Artifacts don't normally come in the same size and shape of a bullet
> caliber involved in the case.

Empty claim, lurkers.

> Why don't you commission a statistics study to determine how likely it
> is that a random splotch artifact will match the size and location of
> a bullet entry?

My ideas wins because it is on the table for consideration, lurkers. Ben`s idea is not. He doesn`t produce it because than I can challenge him to produce historical examples of what he suggests occurring.

> >> You'll run, of course...
> >>
> >> Just as all other believers have run.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you
> >> > keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already
> >> > heard the answer(s).
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not the answer. The experts on the HSCA panel declared it to be a
> >> bullet fragment.
> >
> > So let Ben explain it as a bullet fragment, lurkers. Not happening.
>
>
> Let Pud explain why no-one saw it on the night of the autopsy.
>
> But he won't.

Always the shifting of the burden. Ben produces nothing, but attacks any idea presented. How can ideas *not* presented be superior?

The fact is that *I* don`t have to take a position on this issue because *I* have no ideas that use it in support of them. Ben does, but refuses to put the idea and the support for the idea out there. The reason for this is because is an intellectual coward.

> >> Even the very *idea* that a "artifact" just happened to be in the
> >> appropriate location, and to be the size it needed to be, is so
> >> incredible as to be *COMPLETELY* unbelievable.
> >
> > Ben discards this as too fantastic,
>
>
> And Pud believes it,

What else is there, lurkers?

> despite it's impossibility... because to think
> otherwise would let the waft of conspiracy to enter the tent.

Who likes the smell of shit, lurkers?

>
>
>
> > let him outline his idea, lurkers. He won`t, of course, as it will
> > be readily seen as many times more fantastic than the idea he
> > rejects as too fantastic.
>
>
> Actually, I've already explain the who, and the why of this object.

He threw some shit and up and made the empty claim that it stuck, lurkers.

> Pud's just lying again...
>
>
> Watch as Pud ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly state that I've **NOT**
> previously outlined this idea...

Watch Ben lie, and claim I didn`t totally discredit and destroy the weak nonsense he presented, lurkers.

> (He knows I have the cite ready to go
> to spank him for such a lie)
>
>
> >> Yet you believe it!!!
> >>
> >> AMAZING!
> >>
> >> So tell us why the HSCA concluded the obvious, and you didn't?
> >>
> >>
> >> (Don't worry, I expect you to run again...)
> >>
> >>
> >> >> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
> >> >> bullet fragments.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > Ben has whipped out his pack of retard trading cards, lurkers.
> > "Explain these things to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid
> > shit", he cries.
>
>
> Nah... doesn't have to be explained to *my* satisfaction... I'd be
> laughing if you only had the courage to offer **ANY** explanation...

These things *can`t* be a significant part of explaining this event, lurkers. If they were, Ben would have included them in the case that he will *never* make explaining this event.

>
>
> >> >> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > Begging the question, lurkers.
>
>
> Watch as Pud ABSOLUTELY refuses to state that he doesn't know this to
> be a fact.

Ben can`t tell retard figuring from facts, lurkers. I have no such problem.

>
>
> > And Ben can`t quote Oswald...
>
>
> And Pud can't quote Dr. Humes saying that the 6.5mm virtually round
> object was only an "artifact."

It was the position attributed to Ebersole, who`s task it was to give technical assistance to Hume`s regarding the x-rays. If Ebersole told him to disregard it there is no reason for Humes to give it another thought.

> >> >> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > Loaded question, begging the question.
>
>
> Au contraire... I've demonstrated this to be a fact a number of
> times...

Circular argument, lurkers.

> Go ahead, coward... DENY THAT FACT!
>
>
>
> >> >> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
> >> >> classified it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > Loaded question, begging the question.
>
>
> You're lying again, Pud.

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
> >> >> who were documented in the first two days.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > They didn`t point to it and state that is where the shots were
> > fired from, lurkers. They gave their impression of where the sound
> > originated from.
>
>
> Good!

Ben says "Good!" but I fear it is unlikely that he will ever look at the information these witnesses supplied correctly.

> Then you admit that you have **NO** witnesses to a TSBD shooter.

And as usual he pivots and shoots off in another direction, completely ignoring the point I made, lurkers.

> >> >> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dead silence.
> >
> > Loaded question, lurkers.
>
>
> Pud's lying again... this has long been established.

Empty claim, lurkers.

>
>
> >> >> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
> >> >> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
> >> >> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.
> >> >
> >> >I can go on forever, too,
> >>
> >>
> >> Yet you refused to do so... why the cowardice, coward?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called
> >> > conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that
> >> > sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret
> >> > conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players
> >> > all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each
> >> > other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is
> >> > uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple
> >> > going about their day tending to their families or running their
> >> > business or studying in school, etc. don't see.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ad hominem merely shows that you can't explain the evidence.
> >
> > The evidence isn`t the problem, lurkers.
>
>
> No, *EXPLAINING* the evidence is...

To retards, lurkers? To what effect?

They don`t understand the evidence, they can`t weigh it properly but insist we have some duty to explain it to them.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 1:11:23 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Chuck ran from everything, lurkers.
>
> The evidence. The weapons experts. The parkland doctors. The autopsy. The witnesses. The windshield. All in one post. Literally everything.

Not so fast, Truther.

Let's let you expand on your Oswald was guilty admission and see how it fits together with all the other things that have you stumped.

What was Oswald guilty of? Not paying for a ticket to see War is Hell, or was he guilty of something significant regarding the assassination? Did he kill Tippit? Did he fire a bullet or bullets at JFK?