Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kooks Desperate For My Attention! ("Bud" Shows *REAL* Stupidity!!)
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2012, 5:17:25 PM6/10/12
to
Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Another
Assertion By Ben..."
Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the title
implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
In article <c367bc1f-d300-46d7...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>
> Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the evidence.
> "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
>the other location... very few pointed to both.
Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
> That's merely historical fact.
Again, absolutely true.
> A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>explanation for.
Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an explanation
for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
He *KNOWS that my initial statement is true, and he RUNS AWAY from even *trying*
to explain it.
Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
So, with a little help from the kooks, again; a completely true statement.
> Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
>to account for the evidence."
Yep... So simple, that those who are familiar with the evidence will understand
with no further explanation.
> This raises two questions...
Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD WHO REFUSES
TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
"Bud" knows that the initial statement is historical fact.
"Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
"Bud" refuses to even *TRY* to offer an explanation from the LNT'er side.
"Bud" undoubtedly knows what a blazingly simple explanation I'm going to give...
yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other than the
frequently given outright denials)
> What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>evidence?
Do I actually *have* to say it?
Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
> And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
>separate locations for the origin of the shots?
WHAT A MORON!!!
And I guarantee that not a *SINGLE* person will point out the fallacy of this
question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just how
dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
The question *presupposes* that there's only one shooter. Therefore, the witness
cannot be "reliable".
Sorta like the eyewitnesses to an accident on Hwy 5 - "And if the witnesses are
reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* South?"
Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
Or that the answer is that there really *are* two separate locations for the
origins of the shots...
I must admit to getting a good laugh at the stupidity of these kooks...
P.S. Remember that the title implied I was lying... or at the least couldn't
support my statement? Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that isn't the
simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unable to
provide *HIS* explanation.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
Jun 10, 2012, 6:56:13 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 10, 5:17 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Another
> Assertion By Ben..."
>
> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the title
> implies it, without ever saying it.
Still can`t figure out that aajfk is moderated, can you stupid?
> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Another
> Assertion By Ben..."
>
> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the title
> implies it, without ever saying it.
> The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
dancing, just answering.
> In article <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Bud says...
>
>
>
> > Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>
> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the evidence.
<snicker> I`m sure the real number is much higher.
>
>
>
> > Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>
> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the evidence.
> > "How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
> >the other location... very few pointed to both.
>
> Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
>
> > That's merely historical fact.
>
> Again, absolutely true.
>
> > A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
> >explanation for.
>
> Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an explanation
> for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
to put the ideas you draw from the information on the table for
scrutiny. The reason for this is because your ideas are retarded. If I
held your ideas I would keep them close to my vest also.
> He *KNOWS that my initial statement is true, and he RUNS AWAY from even *trying*
> to explain it.
me. I don`t have to do anything, If you can`t back up what you say
STFU.
> Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
>
> So, with a little help from the kooks, again; a completely true statement.
>
> > Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
> >to account for the evidence."
>
> Yep... So simple, that those who are familiar with the evidence will understand
> with no further explanation.
lets see if Ben was man enough to try to answer them.
> > This raises two questions...
>
> Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD WHO REFUSES
> TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE
> EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
" Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's
*EASY*to account for the evidence."
You are trying to make it about me, but *I* didn`t make you make
those assertions. You chose to. And when called upon to support then,
you run like a cunt.
So far it looks like the revised number is going to be 13,797.
> "Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
> "Bud" refuses to even *TRY* to offer an explanation from the LNT'er side.
You said it was *EASY* Ben!
> "Bud" undoubtedly knows what a blazingly simple explanation I'm going to give...
> yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other than the
> frequently given outright denials)
question is just now.
> > What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
> >evidence?
>
> Do I actually *have* to say it?
>
> Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
>
> Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
get multiple shooting locations? How?
> > And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
> >separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>
> WHAT A MORON!!!
foot pole.
> And I guarantee that not a *SINGLE* person will point out the fallacy of this
> question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just how
> dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
>
> The question *presupposes* that there's only one shooter. Therefore, the witness
> cannot be "reliable".
*YOU* wrote...
"How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
the other location... very few pointed to both."
locations (all shots coming from a single place or direction), some of
the witnesses *MUST* be wrong. How can they all be right? I haven`t a
clue what fallacy you think you are seeing in this basic logic.
> Sorta like the eyewitnesses to an accident on Hwy 5 - "And if the witnesses are
> reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* South?"
TRAFFIC IS GOING NORTH, AND THE OTHER HAVE SAYING *ALL* THE TRAFFIC IS
GOING SOUTH!
Some can`t be right, dunce.
> Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
>
> Or that the answer is that there really *are* two separate locations for the
> origins of the shots...
pointed to "one or the other". "One or the other" does not equal
"both", stupid.
> I must admit to getting a good laugh at the stupidity of these kooks...
idiot.
> P.S. Remember that the title implied I was lying...
case.
> or at the least couldn't
> support my statement?
and erected a strawman for the other.
> Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that isn't the
> simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unable to
> provide *HIS* explanation.
when they indicated that all the shots came from one place. The echoes
confused some where that one place was.
Jason Burke
Jun 10, 2012, 7:00:47 PM6/10/12
to
aeffects
Jun 10, 2012, 9:19:42 PM6/10/12
to
Shell (aka Tim Brennan has a flexible schedule, amongst other things,
including his anus). Hop to buddy-boyo.
Jason Burke
Jun 10, 2012, 9:23:51 PM6/10/12
to
Yet you think there's a conspiracy.
When I was growing up, they put retards like you in institutions. The
good old days.
aeffects
Jun 10, 2012, 9:24:44 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 10, 2:17 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Another
> Assertion By Ben..."
>
> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the title
> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>
> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>
> In article <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Another
> Assertion By Ben..."
>
> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the title
> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>
> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>
off now they'd flood this board with 300 posts, declare victory, drive
home to fresno, marry their cousins, then move into 20'ers... ahhhhh
the good troll life. Right Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)?
Ben Holmes
Jun 10, 2012, 9:35:05 PM6/10/12
to
In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 10, 2:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Ano=
>ther
>> Assertion By Ben..."
>>
>> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the t=
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>>
>> Again, absolutely true.
>>
>> > =A0A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>> >explanation for.
>>
>> Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an expla=
>.
>>
>> > =A0Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
>rstand
>> with no further explanation.
>>
>> > =A0This raises two questions...
>>
>> Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD WHO =
>REFUSES
>> TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR T=
>give...
>> yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other than =
>this
>> question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just ho=
>es are
>> reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* Sout=
>n't
>> support my statement? Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that is=
>n't the
>> simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unable =
forum, they'll never have a clue that the censored forum censors the truth.
Nor realize just how often the kooks make ridiculously *stupid* statements...
for without true competition, they never really learn the facts of this case...
or how easily their assertions can be refuted.
Such as this example, where the kook couldn't figure out how to explain the
earwitness testimony.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 10, 2:17=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "Ano=
>ther
>> Assertion By Ben..."
>>
>> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but the t=
>itle
>> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
>> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>>
>> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>>
>> In article <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.=
>> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bud"
>> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>>
>> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>>
>com>,
>> Bud says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>>
>> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the evidence.
>>
>> > =A0"How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to one or
>> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the evidence.
>>
>> >the other location... very few pointed to both.
>>
>> Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
>>
>> > =A0That's merely historical fact.
>>
>> Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
>>
>>
>> Again, absolutely true.
>>
>> > =A0A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>> >explanation for.
>>
>> Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an expla=
>nation
>> for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
>>
>> He *KNOWS that my initial statement is true, and he RUNS AWAY from even *=
>> for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
>>
>trying*
>> to explain it.
>>
>> Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
>>
>> So, with a little help from the kooks, again; a completely true statement=
>> to explain it.
>>
>> Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
>>
>.
>>
>> > =A0Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *EASY*
>> >to account for the evidence."
>>
>> Yep... So simple, that those who are familiar with the evidence will unde=
>>
>rstand
>> with no further explanation.
>>
>> > =A0This raises two questions...
>>
>> Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD WHO =
>REFUSES
>> TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR T=
>HE
>> EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>>
>> "Bud" knows that the initial statement is historical fact.
>>
>> "Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
>>
>> "Bud" refuses to even *TRY* to offer an explanation from the LNT'er side.
>>
>> "Bud" undoubtedly knows what a blazingly simple explanation I'm going to =
>> EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>>
>> "Bud" knows that the initial statement is historical fact.
>>
>> "Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
>>
>> "Bud" refuses to even *TRY* to offer an explanation from the LNT'er side.
>>
>give...
>> yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other than =
>the
>> frequently given outright denials)
>>
>> >What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>> >evidence?
>>
>> Do I actually *have* to say it?
>>
>> Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
>>
>> Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
>>
>> >And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
>> >separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>>
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> And I guarantee that not a *SINGLE* person will point out the fallacy of =
>> frequently given outright denials)
>>
>> >What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>> >evidence?
>>
>> Do I actually *have* to say it?
>>
>> Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
>>
>> Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
>>
>> >And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
>> >separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>>
>> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>this
>> question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just ho=
>w
>> dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
>>
>> The question *presupposes* that there's only one shooter. Therefore, the =
>> dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
>>
>witness
>> cannot be "reliable".
>>
>> Sorta like the eyewitnesses to an accident on Hwy 5 - "And if the witness=
>> cannot be "reliable".
>>
>es are
>> reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* Sout=
>h?"
>>
>> Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
>>
>> Or that the answer is that there really *are* two separate locations for =
>>
>> Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
>>
>the
>> origins of the shots...
>>
>> I must admit to getting a good laugh at the stupidity of these kooks...
>>
>> P.S. Remember that the title implied I was lying... or at the least could=
>> origins of the shots...
>>
>> I must admit to getting a good laugh at the stupidity of these kooks...
>>
>n't
>> support my statement? Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that is=
>n't the
>> simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unable =
>to
>> provide *HIS* explanation.
>
>the lone nut trolls on this board are in total disarray.... cut them
>off now they'd flood this board with 300 posts, declare victory, drive
>home to fresno, marry their cousins, then move into 20'ers... ahhhhh
>the good troll life. Right Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)?
And what's truly amusing is that until lurkers have spent time in more than one
>> provide *HIS* explanation.
>
>the lone nut trolls on this board are in total disarray.... cut them
>off now they'd flood this board with 300 posts, declare victory, drive
>home to fresno, marry their cousins, then move into 20'ers... ahhhhh
>the good troll life. Right Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)?
forum, they'll never have a clue that the censored forum censors the truth.
Nor realize just how often the kooks make ridiculously *stupid* statements...
for without true competition, they never really learn the facts of this case...
or how easily their assertions can be refuted.
Such as this example, where the kook couldn't figure out how to explain the
earwitness testimony.
Bud
Jun 11, 2012, 6:41:40 AM6/11/12
to
On Jun 10, 9:35 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
I couldn`t figure out a way to get you to support what you wrote.
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
timstter
Jun 11, 2012, 3:33:38 PM6/11/12
to
On Jun 11, 11:35 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
It's pretty low you having to piggyback on a pathetic post like that
one from Healy, Holmes.
What <snicker> lofty point are you labouring to make?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
one from Healy, Holmes.
What <snicker> lofty point are you labouring to make?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
aeffects
Jun 12, 2012, 9:48:40 AM6/12/12
to
On Jun 10, 6:35 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
lone nut kooks hear what they want to hear... they do love following
you around here though, can't get enough of you it seems.... what
seems clear as a bell, the WCR can't nor will it hold up... a kook
mess, that's unsupportable! The lone nuts can whine, protest to high,
the WCR is k-a-p-u-t!
> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
you around here though, can't get enough of you it seems.... what
seems clear as a bell, the WCR can't nor will it hold up... a kook
mess, that's unsupportable! The lone nuts can whine, protest to high,
the WCR is k-a-p-u-t!
aeffects
Jun 12, 2012, 9:51:57 AM6/12/12
to
It's clear shithead, you're not capable for weekend duty.... to green
and besides you're a
f-e-r-e-n-i-g-e-r, fuck Fat's, you're from fresno... what the hell do
YOU know? Have YOU even read the WCR? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>
aeffects
Jun 12, 2012, 9:53:33 AM6/12/12
to
read the WCR, useless troll?
Ben Holmes
Jun 12, 2012, 6:36:04 PM6/12/12
to
In article <191811aa-f64e-40dc...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 10, 6:35=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Jun 10, 2:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "=
>Ano=3D
>> >ther
>> >> Assertion By Ben..."
>>
>> >> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but th=
>e t=3D
>> >itle
>> >> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bu=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>>
>> >> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the eviden=
>ce.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0"How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to on=
>>
>> >> Again, absolutely true.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>> >> >explanation for.
>>
>> >> Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an ex=
>pla=3D
>n *=3D
>ent=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *E=
>nde=3D
>>
>> >> Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD W=
>HO =3D
>> >REFUSES
>> >> TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FO=
>R T=3D
>de.
>>
>> >> "Bud" undoubtedly knows what a blazingly simple explanation I'm going =
>to =3D
>> >give...
>> >> yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other th=
>an =3D
>of =3D
>> >this
>> >> question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just=
> ho=3D
>he =3D
>ess=3D
>> >es are
>> >> reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* S=
>out=3D
>or =3D
>.
>>
>> >> P.S. Remember that the title implied I was lying... or at the least co=
>uld=3D
>> >n't
>> >> support my statement? Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that=
> is=3D
>> >n't the
>> >> simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unab=
>le =3D
>an one
>> forum, they'll never have a clue that the censored forum censors the trut=
>h.
>>
>> Nor realize just how often the kooks make ridiculously *stupid* statement=
>s...
>> for without true competition, they never really learn the facts of this c=
evidence I bring to the table, their faith is meaningless.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 10, 6:35=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <a53fe1d9-47d4-439c-b8d0-4d7533bb3...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>> >On Jun 10, 2:17=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> Found in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, with the title: "=
>Ano=3D
>> >ther
>> >> Assertion By Ben..."
>>
>> >> Of course, "Bud" can't flat out state that he thinks I'm lying, but th=
>e t=3D
>> >itle
>> >> implies it, without ever saying it. The *best* one can say is that "Bu=
>d"
>> >> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>>
>> >> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>>
>> >> In article <c367bc1f-d300-46d7-ba09-2baabc39f...@v9g2000yqm.googlegrou=
>> >> believes I can't cite for what I've stated.
>>
>> >> Let's keep that in mind as we dissect this:
>>
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Bud says...
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Number 13,796 that he will run from supporting...
>>
>> >> Hyperbole... and ad hominem attempting to replace debate on the eviden=
>ce.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0"How silly! The over-riding majority of witnesses pointed to on=
>e or
>> >> >the other location... very few pointed to both.
>>
>> >> Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0That's merely historical fact.
>> >> >the other location... very few pointed to both.
>>
>> >> Absolutely true. An historical fact that "Bud" was unable to refute.
>>
>>
>> >> Again, absolutely true.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0A fact that you can't give a credible and non-conspiratorial
>> >> >explanation for.
>>
>> >> Quite self-evidently true - "Bud" refused to even *try* to offer an ex=
>pla=3D
>> >nation
>> >> for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
>>
>> >> He *KNOWS that my initial statement is true, and he RUNS AWAY from eve=
>> >> for what he clearly knows is historical fact.
>>
>n *=3D
>> >trying*
>> >> to explain it.
>>
>> >> Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
>>
>> >> So, with a little help from the kooks, again; a completely true statem=
>> >> to explain it.
>>
>> >> Let alone in credible and non-conspiratorial terms...
>>
>ent=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Knowing, as I do, that the evidence shows a conspiracy, it's *E=
>ASY*
>> >> >to account for the evidence."
>>
>> >> Yep... So simple, that those who are familiar with the evidence will u=
>> >> >to account for the evidence."
>>
>nde=3D
>> >rstand
>> >> with no further explanation.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0This raises two questions...
>> >> with no further explanation.
>>
>>
>> >> Actually, it raises only one... WHY IS "BUD" A YELLOW-BELLIED COWARD W=
>HO =3D
>> >REFUSES
>> >> TO EVEN *TRY* TO OFFER CREDIBLE AND NON-CONSPIRATORIAL EXPLANATIONS FO=
>R T=3D
>> >HE
>> >> EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>>
>> >> "Bud" knows that the initial statement is historical fact.
>>
>> >> "Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
>>
>> >> "Bud" refuses to even *TRY* to offer an explanation from the LNT'er si=
>> >> EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
>>
>> >> "Bud" knows that the initial statement is historical fact.
>>
>> >> "Bud" knows that it can easily be explained in conspiratorial terms.
>>
>de.
>>
>> >> "Bud" undoubtedly knows what a blazingly simple explanation I'm going =
>to =3D
>> >give...
>> >> yet *NO-ONE* knows what *his* explanation could possibly be. (Other th=
>an =3D
>> >the
>> >> frequently given outright denials)
>>
>> >> >What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>> >> >evidence?
>>
>> >> Do I actually *have* to say it?
>>
>> >> Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
>>
>> >> Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
>>
>> >> >And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
>> >> >separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>>
>> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>> >> And I guarantee that not a *SINGLE* person will point out the fallacy =
>> >> frequently given outright denials)
>>
>> >> >What is Ben`s conspiratorial explanation that accounts for the
>> >> >evidence?
>>
>> >> Do I actually *have* to say it?
>>
>> >> Okay... 'Multiple Shooters'.
>>
>> >> Wow!! I'll bet that was a real eye-opener for the kooks!
>>
>> >> >And if the witnesses are reliable why are they indicating two
>> >> >separate locations for the origin of the shots?
>>
>> >> WHAT A MORON!!!
>>
>of =3D
>> >this
>> >> question in the censored forum. This fact alone should illustrate just=
> ho=3D
>> >w
>> >> dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
>>
>> >> The question *presupposes* that there's only one shooter. Therefore, t=
>> >> dishonest the kooks are that inhabit the censored forum.
>>
>he =3D
>> >witness
>> >> cannot be "reliable".
>>
>> >> Sorta like the eyewitnesses to an accident on Hwy 5 - "And if the witn=
>> >> cannot be "reliable".
>>
>ess=3D
>> >es are
>> >> reliable why are they indicating auto traffic going both North *AND* S=
>out=3D
>> >h?"
>>
>> >> Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
>>
>> >> Or that the answer is that there really *are* two separate locations f=
>>
>> >> Maybe because traffic *does* go both directions???
>>
>or =3D
>> >the
>> >> origins of the shots...
>>
>> >> I must admit to getting a good laugh at the stupidity of these kooks..=
>> >> origins of the shots...
>>
>.
>>
>> >> P.S. Remember that the title implied I was lying... or at the least co=
>uld=3D
>> >n't
>> >> support my statement? Yet the kook can't show *ANYTHING* I stated that=
> is=3D
>> >n't the
>> >> simple truth. And just as embarrassing for the kooks, was totally unab=
>le =3D
>> >to
>> >> provide *HIS* explanation.
>>
>> >the lone nut trolls on this board are in total disarray.... cut them
>> >off now they'd flood this board with 300 posts, declare victory, drive
>> >home to fresno, marry their cousins, then move into 20'ers... ahhhhh
>> >the good troll life. Right Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)?
>>
>> And what's truly amusing is that until lurkers have spent time in more th=
>> >> provide *HIS* explanation.
>>
>> >the lone nut trolls on this board are in total disarray.... cut them
>> >off now they'd flood this board with 300 posts, declare victory, drive
>> >home to fresno, marry their cousins, then move into 20'ers... ahhhhh
>> >the good troll life. Right Tim Brennan (aka Tim Shell)?
>>
>an one
>> forum, they'll never have a clue that the censored forum censors the trut=
>h.
>>
>> Nor realize just how often the kooks make ridiculously *stupid* statement=
>s...
>> for without true competition, they never really learn the facts of this c=
>ase...
>> or how easily their assertions can be refuted.
>>
>> Such as this example, where the kook couldn't figure out how to explain t=
>> or how easily their assertions can be refuted.
>>
>he
>> earwitness testimony.
>
>lone nut kooks hear what they want to hear... they do love following
>you around here though, can't get enough of you it seems.... what
>seems clear as a bell, the WCR can't nor will it hold up... a kook
>mess, that's unsupportable! The lone nuts can whine, protest to high,
>the WCR is k-a-p-u-t!
They love following me because they realize that if they can't refute what
>> earwitness testimony.
>
>lone nut kooks hear what they want to hear... they do love following
>you around here though, can't get enough of you it seems.... what
>seems clear as a bell, the WCR can't nor will it hold up... a kook
>mess, that's unsupportable! The lone nuts can whine, protest to high,
>the WCR is k-a-p-u-t!
evidence I bring to the table, their faith is meaningless.
Bud
Jun 12, 2012, 7:50:24 PM6/12/12
to
On Jun 12, 6:36 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <191811aa-f64e-40dc-8200-74b01fb07...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I love exposing you for the coward you are. Everyone were treated to
watching you run from your assertions once more.
Ben has seen my rebuttal both here and on the moderated board. The
reason he doesn`t respond is because he has been caught lying once
more.
> In article <191811aa-f64e-40dc-8200-74b01fb07...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
watching you run from your assertions once more.
Ben has seen my rebuttal both here and on the moderated board. The
reason he doesn`t respond is because he has been caught lying once
more.
0 new messages