Gil Jesus
2024-01-27 11:34:23 UTC
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
Bud
2024-01-27 16:09:48 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Gil Jesus
2024-01-27 16:50:47 UTC
Post by Bud
There's no reasoning being done. It's evidence vs. evidence.Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Either explain it or run bitch, run.
Bud
2024-01-27 17:25:57 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
No argument here.Post by Bud
There's no reasoning being done.Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Explain it to an idiot`s satisfaction?
Gil Jesus
2024-01-28 09:53:13 UTC
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.
Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.
Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.
Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.
Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 15:34:28 UTC
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 01:53:13 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.
Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.
Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
That's an easy one... Chickenshit will continue to run from it.< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.
Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.
Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
Gil Jesus
2024-01-29 16:37:31 UTC
He's not the only one. None of the Nutters at the EF want to touch it either.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 16:58:32 UTC
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 08:37:31 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
You can't force a believer to admit that the Autopsy Report
contradicts the photos & X-rays...
For if they ever admitted it - they'd lose their only medico-legal
foundation for their faith.
You can't force a believer to admit that the Autopsy Report
contradicts the photos & X-rays...
For if they ever admitted it - they'd lose their only medico-legal
foundation for their faith.
Bud
2024-01-29 19:12:23 UTC
I`ve already addressed it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 19:24:06 UTC
You've NEVER addressed this:
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.
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 19:38:29 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
Done.< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
There is no discussion possible with delusional people. You will cling to your delusions no matter what I say.
Post by Gil Jesus
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
I said all that was needed to be said when I wrote this...So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Post by Gil Jesus
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
You`ve established your reputation as a childish thinker who is play games with the deaths of these men.While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
Post by Gil Jesus
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Of course you are going to spin things into some form you are personally comfortable with, it is all you ever do. Why should anyone argue with a delusional person over what he has decided to believe?But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Post by Gil Jesus
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
Tell yourself anything you like.Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
Post by Gil Jesus
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Again with your faulty assumptions, that I was looking to have something to show for the time I spent here.IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
What did Tom Rossley gain?
Post by Gil Jesus
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Accomplished men already looked into the case. You have nothing to put against their findings, you have no case. You`ll be spinning your wheels until the day you die, never being able to figure out these simple crimes.Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
"Explain this or that to my satisfaction or I get to believe stupid shit" is just one of your idiotic approaches. Tie all these anomalies into a cohesive package and put them on the table for consideration. You can`t, if you tried it would be like putting up a billboard saying "I`m An Idiot."
You say things you can`t begin to show. Are all resolved cases free from conflict?
I`ve already addressed it.
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Gil Jesus
2024-01-29 20:15:28 UTC
You're one of the biggest Goddamned liars in this newsgroup.
You haven't addressed the subject of the link.
Tell us, what is it about ?
You haven't addressed the subject of the link.
Tell us, what is it about ?
Bud
2024-01-29 20:27:21 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
You're one of the biggest Goddamned liars in this newsgroup.
You haven't addressed the subject of the link.
Yes, I have.You're one of the biggest Goddamned liars in this newsgroup.
You haven't addressed the subject of the link.
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 20:38:07 UTC
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:27:21 -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.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-29 20:37:39 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
Done.< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
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
2024-01-30 10:10:01 UTC
Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I asked him what the link was in reference to and he ran.
He's too "chickenshit" to look at the link because he's afraid of the truth.
It shows you how closed-minded these Lone Nutters really are.
These are not reasonable people.
These are not people who think for themselves.
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Not these people. They see a conflict and run for the hills.
They have "their truth" and they're secure in it.
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
They completely ignore how the prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt, how the authorities handled Oswald, how they handled the evidence, and how they handled the witnesses.
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
Bud
2024-01-30 14:08:30 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Post by Gil Jesus
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
Post by Gil Jesus
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
Post by Gil Jesus
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-30 15:23:49 UTC
Post by Bud
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies,Post by Gil Jesus
No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Post by Gil Jesus
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
Post by Gil Jesus
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
Post by Gil Jesus
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Gil Jesus
2024-01-30 15:44:02 UTC
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-30 15:49:11 UTC
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
But he can't post a scenario...
Post by Gil Jesus
He's a keyboard warrior. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn thatDid you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
But he can't post a scenario...
Bud
2024-01-30 18:48:08 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
You just displayed yours.On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
He's a keyboard warrior. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn thatDid you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 16:18:28 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:44:02 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
He's a keyboard warrior. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn thatDid you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.he still lives with his parents. He clearly has an active imaginary
life.
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
2024-01-31 10:58:53 UTC
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
No one wants to explain the info in the link.They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 16:16:06 UTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 02:58:53 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
If we both followed this... the believers would get no responses...Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
No one wants to explain the info in the link.They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
Bud
2024-01-31 17:30:35 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
You ignore the ones that do.Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
No one wants to explain the info in the link.They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:30:35 -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.
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
2024-01-30 17:30:08 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/FslI4ZmyAAAJDid you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 16:18:28 UTC
Post by Bud
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/ucnIpba2AAAJPost by Gil Jesus
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/FslI4ZmyAAAJDid you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
Bud
2024-01-30 17:28:31 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Who decides these things? You?Post by Bud
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies,Post by Gil Jesus
No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Post by Gil Jesus
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
Post by Gil Jesus
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
Post by Gil Jesus
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 16:18:28 UTC
Post by Bud
Any intelligent reader. Moron, aren't you?Post by Ben Holmes
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Who decides these things?Post by Bud
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies,Post by Gil Jesus
No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Post by Gil Jesus
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
Post by Gil Jesus
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
Post by Gil Jesus
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Bud
2024-01-31 17:34:08 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
Then I`ve won a long time ago. What now?Post by Bud
Any intelligent reader.Post by Ben Holmes
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Who decides these things?Post by Bud
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies,Post by Gil Jesus
No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I addressed it.
I told the truth.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available information.Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
Post by Gil Jesus
Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
Post by Gil Jesus
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
Post by Gil Jesus
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
Oswald never made it to trial.
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:34:08 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-31 03:23:00 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought — Some on your side of the fence even object to “conspiracy theorist”, without even considering why that phrase is considered perjorative. It’s certainly not a compliment to do what you do on a daily basis — theorize about a conspiracy. What are you accomplishing posting here — to what, ten people at most on a daily basis?Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.
Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 16:17:20 UTC
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
post.
Such as:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought...Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
post.
Such as:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Hank Sienzant
2024-01-31 19:24:09 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought — Some on your side of the fence even object to “conspiracy theorist”, without even considering why that phrase is considered perjorative. It’s certainly not a compliment to do what you do on a daily basis — theorize about a conspiracy. What are you accomplishing posting here — to what, ten people at most on a daily basis?Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?
I did — I responded to one of Gil’s points in Gil’s post.
You did what you accused me of, deleting and ignoring my point.
Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?
Ben Holmes
2024-01-31 19:48:15 UTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:24:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
post.
Such as:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought...Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
post.
Such as:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Bud
2024-01-31 20:12:24 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:24:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Stop with the logical fallacies and cowardice... and answer what we
post.
Stop framing things dishonestly.On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:24:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought...Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
post.
Oh, that`s right, you can`t, it kills the hobby.
Long live the hobby!
Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:12:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:
Logical fallacies deleted.
Here's the only post you need to worry about:
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.
wrote:
Logical fallacies deleted.
Here's the only post you need to worry about:
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
2024-01-31 17:37:52 UTC
Post by Hank Sienzant
Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.
Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?
Just have to realize that no meaningful dialog is possible with these guys.Post by Gil Jesus
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought — Some on your side of the fence even object to “conspiracy theorist”, without even considering why that phrase is considered perjorative. It’s certainly not a compliment to do what you do on a daily basis — theorize about a conspiracy. What are you accomplishing posting here — to what, ten people at most on a daily basis?Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Half agree with you (somewhat, although no CT truly agrees with any other) and don’t need convincing. The other half you label “the real kooks” and claim they have “JFK’s blood on their hands”.
Do you really think that’s your best approach to mounting a convincing argument?
They make a claim or present an idea.
We point out the problems with the claim or idea.
They address none of the counter arguments, they merely repeat the claim.
Rinse, wash and repeat.
In a robust exchange of ideas the truth can be determined. They know this, which is why they avoid a robust exchange of ideas.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
Yep... you run ... EVERY SINGLE TIME:
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.
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
Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link...https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
deleted.
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
2024-01-31 21:53:10 UTC
Post by Bud
Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information.https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Gil Jesus
2024-02-01 10:05:59 UTC
Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.SMH
Bud
2024-02-01 11:14:09 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-01 12:39:24 UTC
Post by Bud
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence."Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
SMH
SMH
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 04:39:24 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
SMH
Indeed.Post by Bud
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence."Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
SMH
SMH
Bud
2024-02-01 19:25:39 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
Addressed above.Post by Bud
"Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence."Folks can hit the link if they are interested in what it looks like when an idiot applies his "reasoning" to information."
SMH
You should do what Ben does and remove the truth people write.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 19:36:52 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:25:39 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH
When all you have are logical fallacies - you're simply telling the
world that you lost. (Of course, polling data already shows this.)
Bud
2024-02-01 19:26:43 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
Logical fallacy deleted.
When all you have are logical fallacies - you're simply telling the
world that you lost. (Of course, polling data already shows this.)
I was telling the world what to expect if they hit Gil`s link.Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH
When all you have are logical fallacies - you're simply telling the
world that you lost. (Of course, polling data already shows this.)
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 19:36:52 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:26:43 -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.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 14:29:50 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 02:05:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical
fallacies...
Post by Gil Jesus
SMH
Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because heNah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.SMH
wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical
fallacies...
Gil Jesus
2024-02-01 16:54:04 UTC
Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 17:22:43 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Post by Gil Jesus
They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provablyIndeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Chuck Schuyler
2024-02-01 18:32:04 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Ben and Gil's conclusions?On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provablyIndeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 19:21:14 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:32:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
happened on 11/22/63 is quite smelly indeed.
Post by Chuck Schuyler
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Such slander coming from someone who absolutely REFUSES to say whatPost by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Ben and Gil's conclusions?On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provablyIndeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
happened on 11/22/63 is quite smelly indeed.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-01 20:31:46 UTC
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 21:45:02 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Chuck Schuyler
2024-02-01 21:51:56 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Not only do I know what city and state Dealey Plaza is located in, I even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and Commission Document.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Ouch.
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 22:59:07 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:51:56 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
(Notice folks, that he didn't say. He'll no doubt look it up now so
he won't feel so stupid.)
that I made such a mistake... but that simply never happened.
Run coward... RUN!
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Not only do I know what city and state Dealey Plaza is located in...On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
he won't feel so stupid.)
I even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and Commission Document.
Ouch.
Nah... you imply what you can't cite for. You're implying, of course,Ouch.
that I made such a mistake... but that simply never happened.
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to
point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the
years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?
Meaningless empty claims of logical fallacies don't move the needle.point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the
years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?
Run coward... RUN!
Gil Jesus
2024-02-04 11:46:12 UTC
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
Another asshole who's only here to insult people.Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 03:46:12 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
to post but logical fallacies.
Post by Gil Jesus
Well, he's not sure where Dealey Plaza is, he doesn't have much elsePost by Chuck Schuyler
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
Another asshole who's only here to insult people.Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
to post but logical fallacies.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-04 11:39:51 UTC
Post by Chuck Schuyler
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Bud
2024-02-04 12:18:59 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
It`s Sunday, get to church, repent a sin.Post by Chuck Schuyler
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:18:59 -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.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Chuck Schuyler
2024-02-04 17:10:20 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
What's childish?Post by Chuck Schuyler
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
How about a grown man who spends his entire day fantasizing about being Oswald's attorney and getting him "off" at some mythical trial which we all know was never going to happen after Oswald was murdered?
How about a man who thinks Tom Rossley was an "important voice" in the so-called JFK "research" community?
How about a grown man who can't accept the FACT that history recognizes Oswald as JFK's killer and that your own little online hobby posts amount to generic digital noise, soon to be swept away--at least here--after 02/22/24?
How about a grown man who feels that Oswald was ENTIRELY innocent of everything that happened on 11/22/63?
How about a grown man who has spent decades reading everything there is to read about this murder who incapable or unwilling to put forward a counter-version of what happened on 11/22/63?
Sound pretty childish to me.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 09:10:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
Post by Chuck Schuyler
You. What part of that didn't you understand?Post by Gil Jesus
What's childish?Post by Chuck Schuyler
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-01 20:47:36 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
with the absence of SCALP and bone, but the BOH autopsy photograph shows the scalp intact.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Over 40 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda who saw the back of the head corroborate the autopsy report.
No 6.5mm ammunition known to man makes a 5" entrance hole. That hole was an exit wound and was described as such.
Other witnesses saw a 1/4" entrance wound in the right front near the temple.
The head shot came from the front and it wasn't fired by Oswald.
And the evidence to support that is overhwhelming.
Chuckles and the rest of the mental deficients can cry all they want but I'm putting together a video on the head wounds at the present time.
I'll be posting it on the website with a link here for anyone who wants to see the evidence.
Part 1 will be on the entrance wound in the front
and Part 2 will be on the exit wound at the rear.
Stay tuned.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 21:45:02 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:47:36 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
one of them was willing to state for the record where the largest of
the fragments seen in the side X-ray are located...
Because it's SCIENTIFIC PROOF of a shot from the front.
scientifically that one shot came from the front.
Post by Gil Jesus
with the absence of SCALP and bone, but the BOH autopsy photograph shows the scalp intact.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Over 40 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda who saw the back of the head corroborate the autopsy report.
No 6.5mm ammunition known to man makes a 5" entrance hole. That hole was an exit wound and was described as such.
Other witnesses saw a 1/4" entrance wound in the right front near the temple.
The head shot came from the front and it wasn't fired by Oswald.
And the evidence to support that is overhwhelming.
Indeed, even believers understand this... this is why not a *SINGLE*Post by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
with the absence of SCALP and bone, but the BOH autopsy photograph shows the scalp intact.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Over 40 witnesses in Dealey Plaza, at Parkland Hospital and at Bethesda who saw the back of the head corroborate the autopsy report.
No 6.5mm ammunition known to man makes a 5" entrance hole. That hole was an exit wound and was described as such.
Other witnesses saw a 1/4" entrance wound in the right front near the temple.
The head shot came from the front and it wasn't fired by Oswald.
And the evidence to support that is overhwhelming.
one of them was willing to state for the record where the largest of
the fragments seen in the side X-ray are located...
Because it's SCIENTIFIC PROOF of a shot from the front.
Post by Gil Jesus
Chuckles and the rest of the mental deficients can cry all they want but I'm putting together a video on the head wounds at the present time.
I'll be posting it on the website with a link here for anyone who wants to see the evidence.
Part 1 will be on the entrance wound in the front
and Part 2 will be on the exit wound at the rear.
Stay tuned.
Be sure to explain why the fragment trail in the X-ray provesChuckles and the rest of the mental deficients can cry all they want but I'm putting together a video on the head wounds at the present time.
I'll be posting it on the website with a link here for anyone who wants to see the evidence.
Part 1 will be on the entrance wound in the front
and Part 2 will be on the exit wound at the rear.
Stay tuned.
scientifically that one shot came from the front.
Hank Sienzant
2024-02-01 23:52:18 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in the parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal) but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone, the scalp, or both.Post by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-02 00:21:45 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
The statement you refer to is this:
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
answering this post:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesnt say that. It puts the defect chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
The statement you refer to is this:
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
answering this post:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Bud
2024-02-02 00:45:25 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Once you understand that all your invented problems disappear.
Of course they are going to give a detailed, specific location to the missing skull, it is the most import aspect of the head injuries.
If it isn`t the "A,B,C,D" location carefully mapped out, where is it?
Saying the wound is extended somewhat in the occipital, it like saying someone is shot in the leg, it gives no specific location.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-02 00:57:41 UTC
Post by Bud
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support yourPost by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesnt say that. It puts the defect chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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
2024-02-02 01:02:34 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.Post by Bud
The fact thatPost by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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.
Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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
2024-02-02 15:28:47 UTC
Post by Bud
Not a refutation.Post by Ben Holmes
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Run coward... RUN!
Bud
2024-02-02 15:55:16 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
More noise. Still no engagement on the points made.Post by Bud
Not a refutation.Post by Ben Holmes
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Ben couldn`t discuss ideas honestly if his life depended on it.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Post by Bud
Not a refutation.Post by Ben Holmes
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
Run coward... RUN!
Hank Sienzant
2024-02-02 01:28:13 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
No, you’re still making claims but not supporting them with evidence. Please show that my claims and Bud’s are opposed to each other, don’t just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong. That’s called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you must prove.Post by Bud
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support yourPost by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
And stop putting words in Bud’s mouth. Bud never called me ignorant. Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. You’ve simply proclaimed it so.
Post by Ben Holmes
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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
2024-02-02 02:05:19 UTC
Post by Hank Sienzant
And stop putting words in Bud’s mouth. Bud never called me ignorant. Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. You’ve simply proclaimed it so.
Ben can`t discuss ideas honestly, or even at all. He has no interest in a discussion of the head wound, he has his "gotcha", "this is all I need to know" talking points he is going to retreat to every time.Post by Ben Holmes
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
No, you’re still making claims but not supporting them with evidence. Please show that my claims and Bud’s are opposed to each other, don’t just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong. That’s called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you must prove.Post by Bud
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support yourPost by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
And stop putting words in Bud’s mouth. Bud never called me ignorant. Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. You’ve simply proclaimed it so.
If he had to discuss the head wound honestly, he might be forced to acknowledge that the head wound seen in the z-film is right where the "A,B,C,D" landmarks put it.
Or he might have to explain why the prosectors thought it was important to give landmarks for missing scalp, but not the infinitely more important missing skull.
But Ben has no interest in the truth, he has made a hobby out of the deaths of this men. Further, he had disgraced the Marine Corps every day he has posted here.
Post by Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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
2024-02-02 15:28:47 UTC
Neither you nor Huckster will answer. Your logical fallacy can't hide
that fact...
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.
that fact...
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
2024-02-02 15:52:48 UTC
Ben proves me right.
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.
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
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Neither you nor Huckster will answer. Your logical fallacy can't hide
that fact...
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.
that fact...
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
2024-02-02 15:28:47 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:28:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Notice folks, that Huckster RAN AWAY from my demonstration of his
lies...
He literally had **NOTHING** to say!!!
Then you whine that no-one debates anymore...
evidence. Please show that my claims and Buds are opposed to each
other, dont just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong.
Thats called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you
must prove.
HEY GUTLESS COWARD!!! It's not possible to show that Chickenshit's
claims and your NON-EXISTENT claims are "opposed to each other."
YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER!!!
You're clearly a coward.
Quite the provable coward, aren't you?
You can run, coward, but you can't hide that fact in an open forum.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Gil Jesus
Maybe because it doesnt say that. It puts the defect chiefly in thePost by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's headThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
lies...
He literally had **NOTHING** to say!!!
Then you whine that no-one debates anymore...
Post by Ben Holmes
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
No, youre still making claims but not supporting them withPost by Bud
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support yourPost by Ben Holmes
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
evidence. Please show that my claims and Buds are opposed to each
other, dont just claim it and then pretend one of us must be wrong.
Thats called Begging The Question, where you simply assume what you
must prove.
claims and your NON-EXISTENT claims are "opposed to each other."
YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER!!!
You're clearly a coward.
And stop putting words in Buds mouth. Bud never called me ignorant.
Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. Youve simply proclaimed it
so.
You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to jpublicly agree with Chickenshit.Nor have you shown he and I disagree here. Youve simply proclaimed it
so.
Quite the provable coward, aren't you?
You can run, coward, but you can't hide that fact in an open forum.
Post by Ben Holmes
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
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.
Of course, it's you yourself who's the coward...
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Hank Sienzant
2024-02-02 01:17:21 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Chiefly in the parietal… which is what the photo shows.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Hank Sienzant
Maybe because it doesn’t say that. It puts the defect “chiefly in the
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.Post by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htmThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal”, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage “extends somewhat”into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it’s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Post by Ben Holmes
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
In the region chiefly of the parietal, extending *somewhat* in other areas.Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
And that’s what the photo shows.
And much is *somewhat*, Ben? Define it for us.
Gil lied and pretended the wound was exclusively in the occipital:
“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.”
The autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal— the top and side of the head.
What part of “chiefly in the parietal” don’t you and Gil understand?
Post by Ben Holmes
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
No, it’s not. The photo shows a head wound chiefly in the parietal, and the autopsy report says exactly that.You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
Post by Ben Holmes
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
And the hole is visible. And the “more or less” intact scalp is visible outside of the hole. Exactly as the autopsy report said.So you simply lie about it.
Post by Hank Sienzant
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the “more or less intact scalp”, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Post by Ben Holmes
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
What lies? The one Gil told about the large defect being in the back of the head here:Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
“Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head”.
That lie?
The evidence of the photo and the autopsy report agree with each other, and with me. The wound was chiefly in the parietal.
In rebuttal, you call me a liar, and below, change the subject. Those are logical fallacies of ad hominem and a red herring.
When you have no evidence, you must resort to that kind of argument to make your case.
Post by Ben Holmes
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-02 15:28:47 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 17:17:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
The photo is irrelevant... you can't even admit that it CONTRADICTS
the Autopsy Report... which you are currently lying about.
You are DESPERATE to retain both the photo and the AR, as they are
both critical to your faith.
But you can't show a 13cm wound, devoid of bone and scalp, that is in
the Parietal, and extends to the Occipital.
I suspect that you're even too much a coward to admit that a good
portion of the Parietal IS IN THE *BACK* OF THE HEAD.
So what was "unclear?" Lied, didn't you? You made a claim about
something being "unclear" ... and can't support it.
Of course, supporting lies is always difficult, isn't it?
And what part of the occipital CANNOT be seen in the BOH photo? You'll
run from that question like the provably coward you are.
I'VE PREDICTED IT!!
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
description of the wound as it existed at 8pm.
You don't.
You're lying again, moron.
YOU'RE SO BUSY MOLESTING YOUR OWN MOTHER THAT YOU CAN'T BE HONEST
ENOUGH TO STATE WHAT GIL ACTUALLY SAID!
The wound could be ENTIRELY in the Parietal - AND STILL BE ON THE BACK
OF THE HEAD. You're a gutless slime molesting your own mother by
putting words in Gil's statement that YOU CANNOT QUOTE HIM SAYING.
Where did Gil say that the wound was "exclusively in the occipital?"
QUOTE HIM, OR BE KNOWN AS A MOTHER MOLESTING SLIMEBAG!!
in the BACK of the head.
And it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for a wound that extended into the
occipital to **NOT** be in the back of the head.
Precisely contradicting your BOH photo.
I DARE you to publicly admit that a part of the Parietal is in the
BACK of the head. You won't, of course.
to either be a moron or a liar.
If the wound only *TOUCHED* the occipital, but didn't go into it, IT
WOULD PROVABLY BE A WOUND IN THE ***BACK*** OF THE HEAD.
There's nothing that Gil or I said that would lead any HONEST person
to believe we don't understand the statement found in the AR, and that
you referenced.
No it doesn't. You're lying again.
And answer the question that **NO** believer has ever answered: What
part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
Huckster won't say...
WHAT A JACKASS!!! YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT A 13cm HOLE, DEVOID OF
SCALP AND BONE IS VISIBLE IN THE BOH PHOTO!???
Can you show a 5+ inch hole in the Occipital/Parietal in the BOH
photo?
No, you can't.
You're simply lying.
don't understand what 13cm... devoid of scalp and bone means...
Detailed above. I've labeled them lies, and shown why....
If you can't quote Gil saying what you CLAIMED he said, then you're a
liar, aren't you?
And can you CITE where any Lone Nutter has answered Gil's question?
language. (that you pretend is "unclear.")
You can't point to any 13cm hole, devoid of bone & scalp, located in
the BOH photo.
And a gutless coward as demonstrated by the topics you run from...
time and time again...
it as well.
You can't answer the above, because it would put you in DIRECT
conflict with a fellow believer. I know it, you know it, Chickenshit
knows it...
Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Maybe because it doesnt say that. It puts the defect chiefly in the
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Chiefly in the parietal
which is what the photo shows.On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Post by Ben Holmes
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htmThis is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
parietal, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage extends somewhatinto other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, its unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
the Autopsy Report... which you are currently lying about.
You are DESPERATE to retain both the photo and the AR, as they are
both critical to your faith.
But you can't show a 13cm wound, devoid of bone and scalp, that is in
the Parietal, and extends to the Occipital.
I suspect that you're even too much a coward to admit that a good
portion of the Parietal IS IN THE *BACK* OF THE HEAD.
Post by Ben Holmes
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
In the region chiefly of the parietal, extending *somewhat* in other areas.Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
something being "unclear" ... and can't support it.
Of course, supporting lies is always difficult, isn't it?
And what part of the occipital CANNOT be seen in the BOH photo? You'll
run from that question like the provably coward you are.
I'VE PREDICTED IT!!
And thats what the photo shows.
No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear thatthere's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
And much is *somewhat*, Ben? Define it for us.
No. This is *YOUR* problem, not mine. I ACCEPT the Autopsy Report'sdescription of the wound as it existed at 8pm.
You don't.
You're lying again, moron.
YOU'RE SO BUSY MOLESTING YOUR OWN MOTHER THAT YOU CAN'T BE HONEST
ENOUGH TO STATE WHAT GIL ACTUALLY SAID!
The wound could be ENTIRELY in the Parietal - AND STILL BE ON THE BACK
OF THE HEAD. You're a gutless slime molesting your own mother by
putting words in Gil's statement that YOU CANNOT QUOTE HIM SAYING.
Where did Gil say that the wound was "exclusively in the occipital?"
QUOTE HIM, OR BE KNOWN AS A MOTHER MOLESTING SLIMEBAG!!
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.
The autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal the top and side of the head.
No Huckster - you're lying again. A good portion of the Parietal isThe autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal the top and side of the head.
in the BACK of the head.
And it's simply IMPOSSIBLE for a wound that extended into the
occipital to **NOT** be in the back of the head.
Precisely contradicting your BOH photo.
I DARE you to publicly admit that a part of the Parietal is in the
BACK of the head. You won't, of course.
What part of chiefly in the parietal dont you and Gil understand?
The fact that you can't understand the rest of the sentence proves youto either be a moron or a liar.
If the wound only *TOUCHED* the occipital, but didn't go into it, IT
WOULD PROVABLY BE A WOUND IN THE ***BACK*** OF THE HEAD.
There's nothing that Gil or I said that would lead any HONEST person
to believe we don't understand the statement found in the AR, and that
you referenced.
Post by Ben Holmes
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
No, its not. The photo shows a head wound chiefly in the parietal...You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
and the autopsy report says exactly that.
Where's the described defect? 13cm, devoid of scalp and bone?And answer the question that **NO** believer has ever answered: What
part of the occipital is *NOT* in the back of the head?
Post by Ben Holmes
So you simply lie about it.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
So you simply lie about it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!Note that the report references the more or less intact scalp, which is what the photo you reference shows.
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
Post by Ben Holmes
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
And the hole is visible.FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
SCALP AND BONE IS VISIBLE IN THE BOH PHOTO!???
Can you show a 5+ inch hole in the Occipital/Parietal in the BOH
photo?
No, you can't.
You're simply lying.
And the more or less intact scalp is visible outside of the hole. Exactly as the autopsy report said.
You clearly live in an alternative universe. Or perhaps you simplydon't understand what 13cm... devoid of scalp and bone means...
Post by Ben Holmes
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
What lies?Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.
That lie?
Where's the word "occipital?"That lie?
If you can't quote Gil saying what you CLAIMED he said, then you're a
liar, aren't you?
And can you CITE where any Lone Nutter has answered Gil's question?
The evidence of the photo and the autopsy report agree with each other, and with me. The wound was chiefly in the parietal.
No, the BOH photo is CONTRADICTED by the Autopsy Report's clearlanguage. (that you pretend is "unclear.")
You can't point to any 13cm hole, devoid of bone & scalp, located in
the BOH photo.
In rebuttal, you call me a liar, and below, change the subject. Those are logical fallacies of ad hominem and a red herring.
You **ARE** provably a liar...And a gutless coward as demonstrated by the topics you run from...
time and time again...
When you have no evidence, you must resort to that kind of argument to make your case.
You're lying again, asshole! I've been quoting evidence. I can citeit as well.
Post by Ben Holmes
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
conflict with a fellow believer. I know it, you know it, Chickenshit
knows it...
Gil Jesus
2024-02-02 17:13:30 UTC
No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
Loading Image...
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-02 17:27:04 UTC
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:13:30 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!
I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.
Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
autopsy photos.
He's sunk to simply lying about it.
Post by Gil Jesus
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
He can't. He's simply chosen to lie about this - claiming that theNo moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!
I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.
Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
autopsy photos.
He's sunk to simply lying about it.
Bud
2024-02-02 19:21:51 UTC
Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:13:30 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!
I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.
Conspiracy hobbyists have to call the witnesses liars, what they related doesn`t support their faith.On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:13:30 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
He can't. He's simply chosen to lie about this - claiming that theNo moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
BOH photo shows exactly what the AR says ... yet clearly, IT DOES NOT!
I can't recall right now who said it, but a witness hypothesized that
the scalp was being pulled *UP* to cover the wound.
Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
autopsy photos.
You refuse to show that the chain of possession is a legitimate issue.Huckster can't show any chain of custody for that BOH photo (or *any*
autopsy material!) And he simply can't admit that eyewitness after
eyewitness (to INCLUDE the Autopsy Report!) contradict the alleged
autopsy photos.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:21:51 -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.
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
2024-02-02 19:20:22 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
Wrong.No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
They're faced with a conundrum.there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
Post by Gil Jesus
Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.
False Dilemma Fallacy.Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.
Post by Gil Jesus
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
Wrong.The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
Post by Gil Jesus
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
What did Boswell say he was doing when the BOH photo was taken?There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Quote them saying this.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
And idiots play silly games with the evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
Shifting the burden.Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:20:22 -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.
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
2024-02-01 19:28:48 UTC
Post by Gil Jesus
They're all killfiled.
Fucking hilarious.Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.They're all killfiled.
He is going to stop reading what people write after they stop writing things for him to read.
Post by Gil Jesus
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-01 19:36:52 UTC
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:28:48 -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.
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.