Discussion:
Everything Is Perfect!
(too old to reply)
Ben Holmes
2024-01-23 22:08:55 UTC
Permalink
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)

Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.

But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.

Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!

The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.

The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.

The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.

The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.

The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)

Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.

Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.

They simply run away.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!
Gil Jesus
2024-01-24 11:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
In a normal criminal investigation, you don't:

Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.

Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.

Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Altering witness statements on reports.
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.

And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.

No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
Then covered up that fact.

"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.

They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
They either lied or were all mistaken.
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Bud
2024-01-24 11:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Gil Jesus
2024-01-24 12:05:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 6:57:39 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual worthless comments and questions >

It's all here your ass-holiness:

www.gil-jesus.com

Don't ask me to prove things that are already on line.
It's not my fault you're too chickenshit to look at it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 15:22:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:05:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual worthless comments and questions >
www.gil-jesus.com
Don't ask me to prove things that are already on line.
It's not my fault you're too chickenshit to look at it.
If he doesn't see it, he doesn't have to expend the effort to deny it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 15:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me. In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
Bud
2024-01-24 21:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.

I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.

You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
And lest we forget, this forces Chickenshit to prove his cowardice:

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.
Bud
2024-01-24 22:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC...
Are you willing to stipulate that I am the one do decide when an issue has been addressed or challenge met?

If it is my assessment is that you are delusional it wouldn`t make sense for me to entrust these things to you.
Post by Ben Holmes
or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
You and Gil are declared enemies of reasoning and critical thinking. Any time anyone in this forum has attempted to apply reason to information, you`ve opposed it.

I pointed out the problems with your "problems" more times than I can count. They don`t show on your radar. I attribute this to you being delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
Your delusions have no bearing on reality, including, but not limited to what you deem to be true.
Post by Ben Holmes
You lose...
Self appointed scorekeeper. Self appoint umpire.

Delusional crackpot.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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.
All my instructions over the years and you still try these begged arguments.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 23:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.

I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.

You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
And lest we forget, this forces Chickenshit to prove his cowardice:

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.
Bud
2024-01-25 00:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true...
But you`re delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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
2024-01-25 15:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.

I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.

You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
And lest we forget, this forces Chickenshit to prove his cowardice:

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.
BT George
2024-01-25 16:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud! FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Post by Ben Holmes
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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.
Gil Jesus
2024-01-25 18:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?

The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos

This is your standard for honesty ?
ROFLMAO

The BUD who LIES ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE "GUNSACK" ?
Bud claims the "gunsack" was 41 inches.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/rT_ERTztAgAJ

That Bud ?

The Bud who, when faced with the results of the rifle tests, Bud replied, "If you don't like the testing, ignore the results, stupid".
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pytkVff8uXQ/m/B6P3xXfCAAAJ

That Bud ?

The paranoid-schizo who made ther following "predictions" during the corona virus outbreak:

"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT NATIONAL GUARDSMEN WILL BE DEPLOYED TO RETAIL STORES TO PREVENT LOOTING :
"There won`t be goods for honest people and the store will close because there is no money to be made. I suppose at some point they will deploy the National Guard to the stores."

BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY PEOPLE'S UTILITY BILLS.
"They have stopped shutting off people who don`t pay their utility bills, so people will stop paying, so when this is over the government will have to step in and pay this backlog."

"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT HOSPITALS WILL FILL UP WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS
"Hospital beds will fill up with people in this country illegally."

"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS ON CHINA
"China will withhold antibiotics."

"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THERE WILL BE A BREAKDOWN OF LAW AND ORDER
"Once the law stops being enforced the lawlessness is not far behind."

It's all here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/KIFD_yUlBQAJ

"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THE VIRUS WILL DESTROY MANKIND
"It seems possible to me that we could ping pong this virus back and forth among the populace until there are few, if any left."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/XQrzTkj3AgAJ

"BUD" ON LIFTING THE QUARANTINE
"If they do decide to lift the quarantine, it will be into a world much more dangerous than it is right now."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/zXJm3XceAwAJ

None of "BUD's" predictions came true.
This is the village idiot and Warren Commission supporter who cries, "believe me, I know the truth".

You mean THAT Bud ?
ROFLMAO
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Like someone cares ? Who do you think cares ? Bud ?
You think that he's swayed by your unnatural man-love for him ?
ROFLMAO
He doesn't even want contact with you after Feb. 22nd.
Bud
2024-01-25 18:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more. It doesn`t show on your radar because you are delusional. Who am I to argue with a delusional person over what they have decided to believe.
Post by Gil Jesus
This is your standard for honesty ?
ROFLMAO
The BUD who LIES ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE "GUNSACK" ?
Bud claims the "gunsack" was 41 inches.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/rT_ERTztAgAJ
That Bud ?
The Bud who, when faced with the results of the rifle tests, Bud replied, "If you don't like the testing, ignore the results, stupid".
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pytkVff8uXQ/m/B6P3xXfCAAAJ
That Bud ?
"There won`t be goods for honest people and the store will close because there is no money to be made. I suppose at some point they will deploy the National Guard to the stores."
BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY PEOPLE'S UTILITY BILLS.
"They have stopped shutting off people who don`t pay their utility bills, so people will stop paying, so when this is over the government will have to step in and pay this backlog."
"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT HOSPITALS WILL FILL UP WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS
"Hospital beds will fill up with people in this country illegally."
"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS ON CHINA
"China will withhold antibiotics."
"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THERE WILL BE A BREAKDOWN OF LAW AND ORDER
"Once the law stops being enforced the lawlessness is not far behind."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/KIFD_yUlBQAJ
"BUD's" PREDICTION DURING CORONAVIRUS THAT THE VIRUS WILL DESTROY MANKIND
"It seems possible to me that we could ping pong this virus back and forth among the populace until there are few, if any left."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/XQrzTkj3AgAJ
"BUD" ON LIFTING THE QUARANTINE
"If they do decide to lift the quarantine, it will be into a world much more dangerous than it is right now."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/zXJm3XceAwAJ
A normal person would be ashamed that you have constantly and consistantly run from every point I made, but you seem proud of it.
Post by Gil Jesus
None of "BUD's" predictions came true.
You haven`t shown that and you never will.
Post by Gil Jesus
This is the village idiot and Warren Commission supporter who cries, "believe me, I know the truth".
You mean THAT Bud ?
ROFLMAO
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Like someone cares ? Who do you think cares ? Bud ?
You think that he's swayed by your unnatural man-love for him ?
Did you spit out Ben`s dick before you said that?
Post by Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO
He doesn't even want contact with you after Feb. 22nd.
I`m not an assassination hobbyist. The thing that kept me mildly interested goes away on Feb 22nd. So do I.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-25 18:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
Here's your opportunity to prove it:

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.
Bud
2024-01-25 21:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
Post by Ben Holmes
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
2024-01-25 21:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.

You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."

Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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.
Bud
2024-01-25 21:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.
You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."
I was trying to figure out who I need to prove these things to.

Certainly not you, you`re delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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
2024-01-25 22:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.
You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."
I was trying to figure out who I need to prove these things to.
The same people you were originally trying to convince with your lies.
Post by Bud
Certainly not you, you`re delusional.
Run coward.... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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.
Bud
2024-01-26 01:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.
You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."
I was trying to figure out who I need to prove these things to.
The same people you were originally trying to convince with your lies.
You`re delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Certainly not you, you`re delusional.
Run coward.... RUN!!!
You`re delusional.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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
2024-01-29 15:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.
You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."
I was trying to figure out who I need to prove these things to.
The same people you were originally trying to convince with your lies.
Post by Bud
Certainly not you, you`re delusional.
Run coward.... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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.
Bud
2024-01-29 20:33:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
This is your standard for honesty ? Bud ? Are you on drugs ?
The "Bud" who posts no evidence ?
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I`ve done all that and more.
To who?
And, like he's done for the last few months, Chickenshit runs.
You weren't concerned when you first posted. Now that you're being
shown to be a coward & a liar, suddenly it concerns you "who."
I was trying to figure out who I need to prove these things to.
The same people you were originally trying to convince with your lies.
Nobody, then.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Certainly not you, you`re delusional.
Run coward.... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!!!
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
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
2024-01-29 20:38:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:33:36 -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.
Bud
2024-01-25 18:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.

We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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
2024-01-25 18:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
True for the majority of Americans. You can't "keep'em honest."
There's a reason for that.
Post by Bud
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional
Here, prove you aren't:

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.
BT George
2024-01-25 19:26:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Same here, but it's a shade less fun for me when I bear the weight of delusions alone. I am not going to answer Gill's diatribe against me as what you posted to him is pretty much how I feel about his noise. He's too far gone to realize how silly he looks to any sane and logical outsider once they read what he is saying vs. anything we say in return. ...Not that that could possibly describe very many folks who will ever see these Usenet posts in the modern world.
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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.
BT George
2024-01-25 19:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Same here, but it's a shade less fun for me when I bear the weight of delusions alone. I am not going to answer Gill's diatribe against me as what you posted to him is pretty much how I feel about his noise. He's too far gone to realize how silly he looks to any sane and logical outsider once they read what he is saying vs. anything we say in return. ...Not that that could possibly describe very many folks who will ever see these Usenet posts in the modern world.
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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.
BTW, the whole topic of how we participate only for our amusement reminds me of a time I particularly angered my old nemesis Bob Harris. As you know, he was always the very sole of a troll, only interested in advancing his claims, getting attention, and hoping to claim a hollow victory when you got tired of his nonsense. But I really got his goat one time when I told him that he existed for *my* amusement and I could predict he would continue to "perform" for me!
Bud
2024-01-25 21:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Same here, but it's a shade less fun for me when I bear the weight of delusions alone. I am not going to answer Gill's diatribe against me as what you posted to him is pretty much how I feel about his noise. He's too far gone to realize how silly he looks to any sane and logical outsider once they read what he is saying vs. anything we say in return. ...Not that that could possibly describe very many folks who will ever see these Usenet posts in the modern world.
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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.
BTW, the whole topic of how we participate only for our amusement reminds me of a time I particularly angered my old nemesis Bob Harris. As you know, he was always the very sole of a troll, only interested in advancing his claims, getting attention, and hoping to claim a hollow victory when you got tired of his nonsense. But I really got his goat one time when I told him that he existed for *my* amusement and I could predict he would continue to "perform" for me!
Maybe that realization caused him to leave the newsgroups.
Bud
2024-01-25 21:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Same here, but it's a shade less fun for me when I bear the weight of delusions alone. I am not going to answer Gill's diatribe against me as what you posted to him is pretty much how I feel about his noise. He's too far gone to realize how silly he looks to any sane and logical outsider once they read what he is saying vs. anything we say in return.
Gil now has the DPD planting a gun on Oswald when the arrested him. They brought a gun, knowing they would need it, and on the spot, in a public planted planted it on him and never once, in all his exchanges with the media, with his family or here...

Loading Image...

You`d think that would be the kind of thing he might mention.

Then they either planted shells fired from the gun they planted on Oswald, or switched the gun they planted on Oswald with a gun that fired the shells in evidence. Coerced witnesses to say they saw Oswald with a gun, lied that Oswald admitted to having a handgun when he was arrested during police interrogations and a truckload of other things.

Or Oswald was just guilty of killing Tippit.

Tough call.
...Not that that could possibly describe very many folks who will ever see these Usenet posts in the modern world.
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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
2024-01-29 15:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Gil now has ...
You forgot the beginning...

Huckster lied about what Brewer said.

Provably.

You lose!
Bud
2024-01-25 21:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into shutting up about what they heard and saw.
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And what you've just listed is the "smoking gun" of Oswald's innocence.
Continue to question a suspect once he has "lawyered up".
As long as he is answering questions they will keep asking them.
Post by Gil Jesus
Keep a suspect from making a phone call until the next day.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Refuse his family's request to speak with him.
They spoke with him.
Post by Gil Jesus
Put him in lineups with police employees dressed differently than the witnesses' descriptions.
So? You don`t understand lineups, they aren`t an attempt to fool people.
Post by Gil Jesus
Stage those lineups without a defense attorney present.
So?
Post by Gil Jesus
Tell witnesses before they view the lineup that the suspect is in the lineup.
Support that.
Post by Gil Jesus
Dissuade criminal attorneys from talking to the suspect.
How so?
Post by Gil Jesus
Arraign a suspect on murder charges without defense counsel present or appointing counsel if he has none.
So if a suspect refuses legal representation you can never charge them?
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to establish a chain of custody for the evidence AT THE POINT OF DISCOVERY by the use of evidence logs.
You refuse to show that the DPD handled the evidence in this case any different than any other case (cases which resulted in a high conviction rate).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to photograph evidence as found.
You fail to show this is necessary (or even possible in some cases).
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure evidence once it is collected.
Whatever that means.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to secure the Dealey Plaza and Tenth Ave. crime scenes.
Show they handled these crime scenes any different than others.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to correctly identify evidence that is clearly marked.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Fail to protect the suspect after receiving death threats against him.
Did Ruby send death threats?
Post by Gil Jesus
Coerce, threaten and harass witnesses into changing their stories or remaining silent.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering witness statements on reports.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
Altering statements and forging signatures on sworn affidavits.
Show this.
Post by Gil Jesus
And that doesn't even count the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the wounds or the autopsy debacle.
Like?
Post by Gil Jesus
Or the fact that the shells allegedly found at the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from his body.
Did they find all the shells? All the bullets?
Post by Gil Jesus
No, you're right, all of these things would not have occurred in a normal criminal investigation.
Wasn`t a normal criminal investigation. Police probably don`t interview more than a dozen people in a normal criminal investigation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But they would have occurred in a case where the authorities were trying to frame someone for a crime he did not commit.
You refuse to walk us through how such a framing is even possible.
Post by Gil Jesus
And since ALL of these were done in this case, it becomes obvious that the authorities arrested the wrong man for the crime.
You have to be a contortionist to get there.
Post by Gil Jesus
Then covered up that fact.
"Believers", as you call them, have spent the last 60 years making up excuses for these shortcomings. They think their comments,
speculations and opinions are the equivalent of evidence. They try to fill in the holes with "common sense" and "reason", neither of which
is recognized as evidence in a court of law. Neither should they be accepted in the court of public opinion.
Information is useless unless you can apply reason to it. That is why you get to the places you do, you can`t reason.
Post by Gil Jesus
They just can't wrap their minds around the fact that they were lied to about this case.
By everybody, according to you folks.
Post by Gil Jesus
Corroboration means nothing to these people. It doesn't matter if 30, 40, or 50 witnesses all saw or heard the same thing.
You have to look at all information correctly, for what it actually is, and what it isn`t. You frame things incorrectly and remove important context, which leaves you with nothing but hot air empty claims.
Post by Gil Jesus
They either lied or were all mistaken.
Ironic.
Post by Gil Jesus
In their world, the Dallas doctors, who saw on an average 3 gunshot wounds a day, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.
Not their job.
Post by Gil Jesus
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
If you don`t like the WC`s explanation for this event, put up your own.
Chickenshit proves that he agrees with me.
You`re delusional.
Keep 'em honest while you still can Bud!
I`ve never been able to do that.
We have seem to come to the point where they feel I am delusional, and I feel they are. So it is subjective, which makes discussion pointless.
Post by BT George
FYI, haven't dropped our ahead of the deadline, but have been incredibly busy at work and not even able to tune in and mock their truly dreadful ideas.
Do what you do, that is all I`ve even done here, and will as long as the place is open and I feel like it.
Same here, but it's a shade less fun for me when I bear the weight of delusions alone. I am not going to answer Gill's diatribe against me as what you posted to him is pretty much how I feel about his noise. He's too far gone to realize how silly he looks to any sane and logical outsider once they read what he is saying vs. anything we say in return.
Gil now has the DPD planting a gun on Oswald when the arrested him. They brought a gun, knowing they would need it, and on the spot, in a public place planted it on him and never mentioned it once, in all his exchanges with the media, with his family or here...

https://www.jfk.org/wp-content/uploads/1989.100.0036.0010_1.jpg

You`d think that would be the kind of thing he might mention.

Then they either planted shells fired from the gun they planted on Oswald, or switched the gun they planted on Oswald with a gun that fired the shells in evidence. Coerced witnesses to say they saw Oswald with a gun, lied that Oswald admitted to having a handgun when he was arrested during police interrogations and a truckload of other things.

Or Oswald was just guilty of killing Tippit.

Tough call.
...Not that that could possibly describe very many folks who will ever see these Usenet posts in the modern world.
Post by Bud
Post by BT George
Post by Ben Holmes
And yet, the fact remains - you can't cite a *SINGLE* example of you
disagreeing with the WC... or agreeing with any of the obvious
problems Gil and I raise.
I've asserted this to be true... you claim I'm delusional for pointing
out the truth.
You lose...
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
In his world, everything
is perfect in this case. He doesn't have enough honesty to admit the
slightest problem in this case...
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
2024-01-25 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Gil now has ...
You forgot the beginning...

Huckster lied about what Brewer said.

Provably.

You lose!
Bud
2024-01-26 01:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Gil now has ...
You forgot the beginning...
"Still snipping what you're "responding" to... what a coward!!!" -Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster lied about what Brewer said.
Provably.
You lose!
You`re delusional.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 15:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Gil now has ...
You forgot the beginning...

Huckster lied about what Brewer said.

Provably.

You lose!
Bud
2024-01-24 11:39:40 UTC
Permalink
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
We just look at it correctly.

Why would anyone accept your take on things, you see reasoning as some sort of evil that needs to be avoided at all costs.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above,
Begged.
or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
Shifting the burden.

Boring.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 15:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.

His absolute cowardice is proven here:

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.
Bud
2024-01-24 21:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
You`re delusional.
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
2024-01-24 21:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
I can't "ignore" what doesn't exist.

Delusional, aren't you?
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
I'm delusional.
I agree.
Post by Bud
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.
Dead silence...
Bud
2024-01-24 22:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
I can't "ignore" what doesn't exist.
Stipulate that I get to decide when an issue has been addressed and I`ll be happy to get those cites for you.
Post by Ben Holmes
Delusional, aren't you?
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
I'm delusional.
I agree.
Post by Bud
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.
Dead silence...
Ben Holmes
2024-01-24 23:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
I can't "ignore" what doesn't exist.

Delusional, aren't you?
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
I'm delusional.
I agree.
Post by Bud
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.
Dead silence...
Bud
2024-01-25 00:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
I can't "ignore" what doesn't exist.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
Post by Ben Holmes
Delusional, aren't you?
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
I'm delusional.
I agree.
Post by Bud
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.
Dead silence...
Ben Holmes
2024-01-25 15:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
To a believer, everything is perfect. Not a single thing wrong with
any of the evidence, or with anything the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, or
ARRB ever said. (With the sole exception being the audio evidence,
allegedly refuted.)
Oh, they'll moan about some small item (Huckster actually listed four
minor items one time - nothing that impugns the official story) - but
never the important stuff we critics point out. Not *once* has any
believer publicly acknowledged any problems with this case.
But in order to believe everything is perfect, believers are forced to
stick their heads in a hole, and simply refuse to address so much of
the evidence that shows problems in this case.
Check the archives, you`ll find your issues have been addressed over and over.
You're lying. Take, for example, the following... eyewitness
intimidation. You cannot cite a *SINGLE* place where this has been
addressed by a believer.
So you can ignore it again?
I can't "ignore" what doesn't exist.

Delusional, aren't you?
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Such as the OVERWHELMING evidence that witnesses were intimidated into
shutting up about what they heard and saw. Not a *SINGLE* instance of
intimidation has EVER been admitted by ANY believer. Not once!
The multiple examples of eyewitnesses swearing under oath that they
didn't say what the FBI reported them saying.
The INCREDIBLE problems with the chain of custody.
The impossible selection of witnesses to call to testify, and the
number of irrelevant questions asked.
The *PROVEN* lies told by the WC & HSCA.
The list can go on and on... (Indeed, Gil Jesus could expand this list
immensely.)
Believers simply shut their eyes to the evidence.
Can't admit the truthfulness of the above, or explain it in
non-conspiratorial terms.
They simply run away.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And Chickenshit proves my point.
I'm delusional.
I agree.
Post by Bud
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.
Dead silence...
Loading...