Questions for Gil #1

[Chuck Schuyler]

Consilience.

Do you understand what consilience is?

In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.

Why is there so much consilience in the evidence that points towards Oswald as the assassin on 11/22/63, and why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions? All Team Oswald can agree on is that a vague conspiracy of some sort killed JFK. You guys can't agree if Oswald was the shooter, or how many shots were fired or whether JFK's body/coffin was hijacked for a secret autopsy, or whether the Zapruder film was altered, and on and on.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Consilience.
Do you understand what consilience is?
In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
Why is there so much consilience in the evidence that points towards Oswald as the assassin on 11/22/63, and why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions? All Team Oswald can agree on is that a vague conspiracy of some sort killed JFK. You guys can't agree if Oswald was the shooter, or how many shots were fired or whether JFK's body/coffin was hijacked for a secret autopsy, or whether the Zapruder film was altered, and on and on.

This is why neither Giltardo nor any other CT will ever look at the evidence as a whole. It's much easier to cast doubt on iit by
looking at it in isolation. The Tippit murder is a perfect example. Gil knows the shells in evidence were fired by the gun in
Oswald's possession when arrested. The only way to argue for Oswald's innocence is to suggest the cops fired his gun after
his arrest and substituted the shells for the ones that were found at the scene. While that is theoretically possible, how does
that explain the witnesses who IDed Oswald as the shooter or the suspect seen fleeing with gun in hand. How does that
explain the jacket the suspect threw under a car that was identified as belonging to Oswald. How does it explain that the
bullets taken from Tippit's body had the same ballistic characteristics as test bullets fired from Oswald's gun and were of the
same two brands of bullets that Oswald had in his possession when arrested. Giltardo will attack all these other pieces of
evidence in isolation as well, because he knows if one looks at them as a whole, the only possible explanation is that Oswald
murdered Tippit. It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.

Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.

Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?

Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/

I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.

The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.

The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.

The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.

Idiots.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Wade never prosecuted Oswald so your argument is moot. The Warren Commission was charged with analyzing the evidence
and reaching the conclusions based on that evidence. The DPD was only in charge of the investigation for less than a day
before LBJ demanded they turn the evidence and investigation over to the FBI. Are we supposed to believe in the hours
immediately following the assassination, the entire DPD conspired to frame Oswald for a presidential assassination and a
cop killing while at the same time allowing the murderer of their fellow officer to walk? One thing you can be sure of, the DPD
would want to nail the right guy for killing Tippit.

[David]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Wade never prosecuted Oswald so your argument is moot. The Warren Commission was charged with analyzing the evidence
and reaching the conclusions based on that evidence.

nor did the Warren Commission, nor the Fed, nor Dallas, nor Jack Frost... Hopefully your stipend is a pittance, fucking, laughable moron... Bud the Dudster certainly isn't getting the support he deserves... Appears senility is running rampant in lone nutter circles, Trump is infectious...

[JE Corbett]

Post by David

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Wade never prosecuted Oswald so your argument is moot. The Warren Commission was charged with analyzing the evidence
and reaching the conclusions based on that evidence.

nor did the Warren Commission, nor the Fed, nor Dallas, nor Jack Frost... Hopefully your stipend is a pittance, fucking, laughable moron... Bud the Dudster certainly isn't getting the support he deserves... Appears senility is running rampant in lone nutter circles, Trump is infectious...

Healy, ain't you dead yet?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:58:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by David

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Wade never prosecuted Oswald so your argument is moot. The Warren Commission was charged with analyzing the evidence
and reaching the conclusions based on that evidence.

nor did the Warren Commission, nor the Fed, nor Dallas, nor Jack Frost... Hopefully your stipend is a pittance, fucking, laughable moron... Bud the Dudster certainly isn't getting the support he deserves... Appears senility is running rampant in lone nutter circles, Trump is infectious...

Logical fallacy delete...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:35:13 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Wade never prosecuted Oswald so your argument is moot.

Wade never needed to "prosecute" Oswald in order for these things ...
CITED ABOVE... to happen.

You lose.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Your response is a red herring and a strawman argument.

Do you understand the concept of consilience in both science and history? I provided a definition. Possible answers from you can range from "yes" or "no" or perhaps something else.

Do you care to respond without trotting out your well-worn logical fallacies?

What about consilience in the evidence not connected to the Dallas Police department?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?

Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?

Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

But you don't accept any of that evidence.
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?

Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

But you don't accept any of that evidence.
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

Got any explanation for why Lee Bowers saw a flash of light but no gunman?

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

Now tell us Dr. Perry's qualifications for determining entrance wounds from exit wounds.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

So you and this putz you are citing think eyewitness recollections are more reliable than a film record of what happened.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

I accept that the limo slowed down because Greer didn't know where the shots were coming from and thought he might be
driving into an ambush.

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

The consilience is one sided. It all points to Oswald as an assassin and cop killer. Only an idiot would believe otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 11:57:54 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

I accept that the limo slowed down...

In which frames of the extant Z-film did this happen?

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

The consilience...

Is a joke. As shown above.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

You need to read the definition of consilience again.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

The YouTube clip doesn't provide any consilience from "unrelated" sources.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No. There is consilience for shots from above and behind. (Ballistics, a recovered weapon, earwitnesses to shots above on the fifth floor of the TSBD, eyewitnesses of a shooter/rifle being seen on an upper floor of the TSBD, an autopsy report, etc.)

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil. Looking for consilience. Read the definition again.

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

Frustrating day for you already.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Once again you lie. Do you ever tell the truth ?
59 witness said the limo either slowed down or stopped on Elm St.

Limo slowdown corroborated by Z-frames 257-331, which show that the limo slowed so much that the motorcycle on the far side almost came up alongside the rear wheel.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/limo-slowdown-Z257-331.mp4

Limo slowdown corroborated by the Nix film.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/nix-limo-slowdown.mp4

You people are such fucking liars.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Once again you lie. Do you ever tell the truth ?
59 witness said the limo either slowed down or stopped on Elm St.

So it slowed down "almost to a stop," or did Greer tap the brakes momentarily before speeding off?

Isn't "slowing down" rather subjective, and isn't "stopped" more absolute?

Your slowed down or stopped witnesses can't both be right, correct? Who is right? Did the limo "slow down" (subjective) or stop?

You can't have it both ways.

Still, no consilience. Read the definition again.

Post by Gil Jesus
Limo slowdown corroborated by Z-frames 257-331, which show that the limo slowed so much that the motorcycle on the far side almost came up alongside the rear wheel.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/limo-slowdown-Z257-331.mp4
Limo slowdown corroborated by the Nix film.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/nix-limo-slowdown.mp4

Was the Nix film altered too?

Post by Gil Jesus
You people are such fucking liars.

You're really coming off poorly here. It's okay to say you don't have any consilience in your claims, Gil.

Because you don't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:01:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Once again you lie. Do you ever tell the truth ?
59 witness said the limo either slowed down or stopped on Elm St.

So it slowed ...

Tut tut tut... you've just been proven a liar.

Post by Gil Jesus
Limo slowdown corroborated by Z-frames 257-331, which show that the limo slowed so much that the motorcycle on the far side almost came up alongside the rear wheel.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/limo-slowdown-Z257-331.mp4
Limo slowdown corroborated by the Nix film.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/nix-limo-slowdown.mp4
You people are such fucking liars.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Once again you lie. Do you ever tell the truth ?
59 witness said the limo either slowed down or stopped on Elm St.
Limo slowdown corroborated by Z-frames 257-331, which show that the limo slowed so much that the motorcycle on the far side almost came up alongside the rear wheel.

How did you determine that it wasn`t the motorcycle that sped up?

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/limo-slowdown-Z257-331.mp4
Limo slowdown corroborated by the Nix film.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/nix-limo-slowdown.mp4
You people are such fucking liars.

What does it matter whether the limo slowed or stopped?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 15:24:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[David]

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

You need to read the definition of consilience again.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

The YouTube clip doesn't provide any consilience from "unrelated" sources.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No. There is consilience for shots from above and behind. (Ballistics, a recovered weapon, earwitnesses to shots above on the fifth floor of the TSBD, eyewitnesses of a shooter/rifle being seen on an upper floor of the TSBD, an autopsy report, etc.)

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil. Looking for consilience. Read the definition again.

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

Frustrating day for you already.

not as bad as .john's I'll tell ya... I spoke with a contact in Purgatory, they can't get .johnny outa that special trench-coat and fedora he fancies so much, ya don't think it was muzzle blasts from BB guns he used stalking static sandbags in upper Wisconsin way-back-when do ya ?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by David

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

You need to read the definition of consilience again.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

The YouTube clip doesn't provide any consilience from "unrelated" sources.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No. There is consilience for shots from above and behind. (Ballistics, a recovered weapon, earwitnesses to shots above on the fifth floor of the TSBD, eyewitnesses of a shooter/rifle being seen on an upper floor of the TSBD, an autopsy report, etc.)

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil. Looking for consilience. Read the definition again.

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

Frustrating day for you already.

not as bad as .john's I'll tell ya... I spoke with a contact in Purgatory, they can't get .johnny outa that special trench-coat and fedora he fancies so much, ya don't think it was muzzle blasts from BB guns he used stalking static sandbags in upper Wisconsin way-back-when do ya ?

((!!**HICCUP**!!))

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 21:36:13 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by David

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

You need to read the definition of consilience again.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

The YouTube clip doesn't provide any consilience from "unrelated" sources.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No. There is consilience for shots from above and behind. (Ballistics, a recovered weapon, earwitnesses to shots above on the fifth floor of the TSBD, eyewitnesses of a shooter/rifle being seen on an upper floor of the TSBD, an autopsy report, etc.)

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil. Looking for consilience. Read the definition again.

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

Frustrating day for you already.

not as bad as .john's I'll tell ya... I spoke with a contact in Purgatory, they can't get .johnny outa that special trench-coat and fedora he fancies so much, ya don't think it was muzzle blasts from BB guns he used stalking static sandbags in upper Wisconsin way-back-when do ya ?

Stupidity deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:05:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No.

Lying about it won't convince anyone...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Seen CLEARLY in the Nix film. Corroborated by DOZENS of eyewitnesses.

You lose!

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil.

He just gave examples that you're running from...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:05:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No.

Lying about it won't convince anyone...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

No. Not shown on the Zapruder film.

Seen CLEARLY in the Nix film. Corroborated by DOZENS of eyewitnesses.
You lose!

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.

Consilience, Gil.

He just gave examples that you're running from...

Nobody believes that, not even you.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:17:12 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

You don’t understand what consilience is. Eyewitness testimony is not consilience.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No, because there was no shot from the front. The autopsy doctors determined the shot came from behind. The Zapruder film shows the same damage to the top-right side of JFK’s head as the autopsy photos.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

The z-film shows the limo slowing down between landmarks, but it’s difficult to measure the speed when all you have is a green background.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

More evidence you don’t understand consilience. It’s not a physical object that you can put in an orifice.

[David]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

You don’t understand what consilience is. Eyewitness testimony is not consilience.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No, because there was no shot from the front. The autopsy doctors determined the shot came from behind. The Zapruder film shows the same damage to the top-right side of JFK’s head as the autopsy photos.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

The z-film shows the limo slowing down between landmarks, but it’s difficult to measure the speed when all you have is a green background.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

More evidence you don’t understand consilience. It’s not a physical object that you can put in an orifice.

good gawd...nutters can't seem to get away from filling a hole, ANY hole with something -- why should the JFK assassination be any different... May Incel, Kyle Rittenhouse will lend you a hand when he is finally convinced to run for Congress rep'ing the great state of Minnesota..... burp!

[JE Corbett]

Post by David

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions?

There was plenty of, "evidence from independent, unrelated sources" that 'converged' on strong conclusions.
Was there consilience with regard to the smoke on the knoll ?
http://youtu.be/RquU3HdrRw8

You don’t understand what consilience is. Eyewitness testimony is not consilience.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to a shot from the front ?
http://youtu.be/p_NHCCuTk3U

No, because there was no shot from the front. The autopsy doctors determined the shot came from behind. The Zapruder film shows the same damage to the top-right side of JFK’s head as the autopsy photos.

Post by Gil Jesus
Was there consilience with regard to the limo slowing almost to a stop once the shooting started ?
https://www.fff.org/2023/08/14/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-2/

The z-film shows the limo slowing down between landmarks, but it’s difficult to measure the speed when all you have is a green background.

Post by Gil Jesus
But you don't accept any of that evidence.
So take your one-sided "consilience" and shove it up your ass.
sideways

More evidence you don’t understand consilience. It’s not a physical object that you can put in an orifice.

good gawd...nutters can't seem to get away from filling a hole, ANY hole with something -- why should the JFK assassination be any different... May Incel, Kyle Rittenhouse will lend you a hand when he is finally convinced to run for Congress rep'ing the great state of Minnesota..... burp!

Rittenhouse won't be old enough to run for Congress until 2028. You'll be long gone by then.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 19:31:42 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Rittenhouse ...

Is a braver man than you'll ever be.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 18:13:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 06:36:54 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
It is not possible that all these arrows would be pointing in the same wrong direction.

And of course, the Dallas DA and police would NEVER frame an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit, right ?
I mean, it's even insane to think that.
Tell that to James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car.
Can you say, "prosecutorial misconduct" ?
Tell that to the other 18 defendants who were convicted under Wade for crimes they didn't commit and whose convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Tell that to the family of Tommy Lee Walker. In 1954, Wade persuaded a jury to send Walker to the electric chair just three months after his arrest.
But a new look at the case reveals one of the greatest injustices in Dallas history.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
I'm sure there were plenty of "consiliences" in those cases as well.
The authenticity of the evidence relies solely on the credibility of those handling it.
These defendants were framed for crimes they did not commit by your Dallas Police and your Dallas DA.
The same corrupt bastards that drank for free at Jack Ruby's bar.
http://youtu.be/ZtyLFcZvG4k
The same corrupt bastards who refused to take a report from Nancy Perrin Rich when Jack Ruby assaulted her. ( 14 H 343 )
These are your honest cops and DA.
Idiots.

Your response is a red herring and a strawman argument.

Citing the evidence that supports what you say can never be a logical
fallacy.

You're simply a coward that can't handle the truth.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 04:25:48 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
This is why neither Giltardo nor any other CT will ever look at the evidence as a whole.

I've deleted the rest of this logical fallacy.

[Bud]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Consilience.
Do you understand what consilience is?

No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
In history, it is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience#:~:text=In%20science%20and%20history%2C%20consilience,%22converge%22%20on%20strong%20conclusions.
Why is there so much consilience in the evidence that points towards Oswald as the assassin on 11/22/63, and why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources that converge on strong conclusions? All Team Oswald can agree on is that a vague conspiracy of some sort killed JFK. You guys can't agree if Oswald was the shooter, or how many shots were fired or whether JFK's body/coffin was hijacked for a secret autopsy, or whether the Zapruder film was altered, and on and on.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest
in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Oh look the Village Idiot has another opinion.
That MUST be the truth if he says it.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest
in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Oh look the Village Idiot has another opinion.
That MUST be the truth if he says it.

These processes have been developed as tools by thinking people as a means of arriving at the truth. They aren`t for everybody, particularly not idiots like yourself.

[BT George]

Post by Bud

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest
in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Oh look the Village Idiot has another opinion.
That MUST be the truth if he says it.

These processes have been developed as tools by thinking people as a means of arriving at the truth. They aren`t for everybody, particularly not idiots like yourself.

Especially when truth is the *last* thing you are looking for!

[David]

Post by BT George

Post by Bud

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest
in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Oh look the Village Idiot has another opinion.
That MUST be the truth if he says it.

These processes have been developed as tools by thinking people as a means of arriving at the truth. They aren`t for everybody, particularly not idiots like yourself.

Especially when truth is the *last* thing you are looking for!

Natasha escapes the horde one last time...

[David]

Post by Bud

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
No, Gil has no understanding, nor any interest in "consilience". It is like "parsimony", these are tools used in reasoning in order to get to the truth of matters. It is of no use to Gil (or Ben), as they have no real interest
in getting to the truth, only to play silly games with the deaths of these men.

Oh look the Village Idiot has another opinion.
That MUST be the truth if he says it.

These processes have been developed as tools by thinking people as a means of arriving at the truth. They aren`t for everybody, particularly not idiots like yourself.

thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

[Gil Jesus]

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.
They're only here to comment and insult because they have nothing else to do in their pitiful, boring, and pathetic lives.

The only thing they've accomplished is proving to the world what assholes they are, a record that will endure long after they leave this life.
Their children and grandchildren will look up their names on the internet and will see what haters, liars and deceivers they were.
Their children and grandchildren will see that they were closed-minded cowards who ran from the evidence and couldn't support their position.

Their parents will rollover in their graves and their decendants will live with the guilt and shame of their foolishness.
And THAT will be their legacy.

A legacy that supported the state-sponsored murder of a President of the United States and the government's coverup of its involvement.
Yes, Virginia, you CAN get away with murder as long as you can control the evidence.

Their very presence here is proof that they don't believe the case was closed 60 years ago, because if they believed that it was, they wouldn't waste their time here.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.
They're only here to comment and insult because they have nothing else to do in their pitiful, boring, and pathetic lives.

Says the guy who is obsessed with trying to exonerate an obviously guilty man.

Post by Gil Jesus
The only thing they've accomplished is proving to the world what assholes they are, a record that will endure long after they leave this life.

List all of your accomplishments regarding this case.

Post by Gil Jesus
Their children and grandchildren will look up their names on the internet and will see what haters, liars and deceivers they were.

I'm quite sure they will have better things to do.

Post by Gil Jesus
Their children and grandchildren will see that they were closed-minded cowards who ran from the evidence and couldn't support their position.

I'm quite sure they will have accepted that Oswald was the assassin just as most Americans do today, even if they don't
think he acted alone.

Post by Gil Jesus
Their parents will rollover in their graves and their decendants will live with the guilt and shame of their foolishness.
And THAT will be their legacy.

Damn, you're delusional.

Post by Gil Jesus
A legacy that supported the state-sponsored murder of a President of the United States and the government's coverup of its involvement.

You and the rest of the army of sniper hunters have never produced a scrap of evidence JFK's assassination was state
sponsored. Just lots of hot air.

Post by Gil Jesus
Yes, Virginia, you CAN get away with murder as long as you can control the evidence.
Their very presence here is proof that they don't believe the case was closed 60 years ago, because if they believed that it was, they wouldn't waste their time here.

Our presence here reflects our amusement at assclowns who continue to try to rewrite history with no success.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 03:34:59 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.
They're only here to comment and insult because they have nothing else to do in their pitiful, boring, and pathetic lives.

Says the guy ....

Telling the truth you're forced to run from...

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.
They're only here to comment and insult because they have nothing else to do in their pitiful, boring, and pathetic lives.
The only thing they've accomplished is proving to the world what assholes they are, a record that will endure long after they leave this life.
Their children and grandchildren will look up their names on the internet and will see what haters, liars and deceivers they were.
Their children and grandchildren will see that they were closed-minded cowards who ran from the evidence and couldn't support their position.
Their parents will rollover in their graves and their decendants will live with the guilt and shame of their foolishness.
And THAT will be their legacy.
A legacy that supported the state-sponsored murder of a President of the United States and the government's coverup of its involvement.
Yes, Virginia, you CAN get away with murder as long as you can control the evidence.
Their very presence here is proof that they don't believe the case was closed 60 years ago, because if they believed that it was, they wouldn't waste their time here.

This response proves what I`ve said before, these people have their own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:18:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.

Ironic.

Post by Gil Jesus
They're only here to comment and insult because they have nothing else to do in their pitiful, boring, and pathetic lives.

Plus, it's fun.

Post by Gil Jesus
The only thing they've accomplished is proving to the world what assholes they are, a record that will endure long after they leave this life.
Their children and grandchildren will look up their names on the internet and will see what haters, liars and deceivers they were.
Their children and grandchildren will see that they were closed-minded cowards who ran from the evidence and couldn't support their position.

Or see old posts Boomer incels like yourself--spouseless and childless-- who spent their entire companionless adulthoods deluding themselves that they were doing something important.

Post by Gil Jesus
Their parents will rollover in their graves and their decendants will live with the guilt and shame of their foolishness.
And THAT will be their legacy.

I find this place to be lighthearted and fun.

Post by Gil Jesus
A legacy that supported the state-sponsored murder of a President of the United States and the government's coverup of its involvement.
Yes, Virginia, you CAN get away with murder as long as you can control the evidence.

Begging the Question, incel.

Post by Gil Jesus
Their very presence here is proof that they don't believe the case was closed 60 years ago, because if they believed that it was, they wouldn't waste their time here.

Ripping apart your JFK conspiracy collector cards and grinding them into the carpet under the weight of my boots might be a cruel hobby, but it is a hobby, and like all hobbies, it could be considered by others to be a waste of time. So be it. You delude yourself into thinking your work is important. It's not. You are a hobbyist, too. I just recognize this as a diversion, and you--trapped by the disease of conspiracism--believe you are doing something important. I find that funny, and it gives me great amusement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 17:05:45 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David
thus speaketh Queen Judyth... 60 years and nutter-fucks STILL can't close the WCR deal...

These people are trolls with NO credibility.

Chuckle's lies deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:57:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:24:33 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 19:10:31 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Consilience.
Do you understand what consilience is?

Of course. It's a very popular talking point for believers in this
forum.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
In history...

I reject your "historical" arguments.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Why is there so much consilience in the evidence that points towards
Oswald as the assassin on 11/22/63,

That's what happens in a frame up.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
and why doesn't "Team Oswald" have independent, unrelated sources
that converge on strong conclusions?

We do. You just reject the evidence.


Logical fallacies deleted.

Notice, folks, that while Chuckles can't answer questions, *HIS*
questions are quickly answered.