Discussion:
Fringe Reset's and Chuckles...
(too old to reply)
Ben Holmes
2020-07-01 02:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.

Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.

From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.

Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.

Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.


Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 05:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.


Further ad hominem deleted.

Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
David Healy
2020-07-01 10:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
hearing those footsteps in the closet, Pale White Thighs?

The 1964 Warren Commission conclusions have been found wanting, moron. Your next theory is?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 18:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
hearing those footsteps in the closet, Pale White Thighs?
The 1964 Warren Commission conclusions have been found wanting, moron. Your next theory is?
My theory is that you don't have one, hon.
David Healy
2020-07-01 19:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
hearing those footsteps in the closet, Pale White Thighs?
The 1964 Warren Commission conclusions have been found wanting, moron. Your next theory is?
My theory is that you don't have one, hon.
55+ years and you STILL can't close the lone nut, LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome WCR scenario. And NO, you can't close that 1964 WCR deal. If you could, you'd be pullin' pud elsewhere.
Bud
2020-07-01 19:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
hearing those footsteps in the closet, Pale White Thighs?
The 1964 Warren Commission conclusions have been found wanting, moron. Your next theory is?
My theory is that you don't have one, hon.
55+ years and you STILL can't close the lone nut, LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome WCR scenario. And NO, you can't close that 1964 WCR deal. If you could, you'd be pullin' pud elsewhere.
You probably think if you don`t accept that Trump is your President than he isn`t, also.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 21:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
hearing those footsteps in the closet, Pale White Thighs?
The 1964 Warren Commission conclusions have been found wanting, moron. Your next theory is?
My theory is that you don't have one, hon.
55+ years and you STILL can't close the lone nut, LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome WCR scenario. And NO, you can't close that 1964 WCR deal. If you could, you'd be pullin' pud elsewhere.
You'll never be convinced, no.

Believe all the stupid shit you want, old timer. History has pronounced its verdict: Oswald alone, no known help. Feel free to enjoy your hobby. If it helps pass the time between colostomy bag changes and your white-knuckle attempts to drag your way through another day without passing out in a booze induced piss-puddle at the Old Folk's home, then go for it.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-01 23:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
History has pronounced its verdict: Oswald alone, no known help.
"History" doesn't exist. You can't cite it, it can't make an
argument...

Neither can you.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-01 13:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.

Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...

So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.

Provably.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 18:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are arguing to simply argue.

Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination theory, complete for the tests and recreations, etc. that back your wacky claims.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-01 23:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-02 00:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?

Ben: The snipers.

Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-02 14:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!

Unlike you, I *have* posted a scenario... This is something you
simply aren't capable of doing.

Mostly because you simply don't know the case evidence. You've shown
time and time again an AMAZING ignorance of the actual case
evidence... such as your recent claim that I was lying when I stated
that the FBI had **NOT** found a palmprint on the rifle.

The liar, of course, is you.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-02 17:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen to your JFK assassination theory. Rather than link to your Magnum Opus for the umpteenth time, why don't you provide your research (or research you are familiar with) that supports 7-8 shots? No, I'm not looking for something a buff writer put out, I'm looking for hard data: rifle and silencer tests, etc.

Let me know when you are ready.
Post by Ben Holmes
Unlike you, I *have* posted a scenario... This is something you
simply aren't capable of doing.
You are missing the part about the 7-8 shots. Where is your research, and when will you be ready to defend your position?
Post by Ben Holmes
Mostly because you simply don't know the case evidence. You've shown
time and time again an AMAZING ignorance of the actual case
evidence... such as your recent claim that I was lying when I stated
that the FBI had **NOT** found a palmprint on the rifle.
Misstating my position doesn't improve yours.
Post by Ben Holmes
The liar, of course, is you.
How about less name calling, more JFK assassination discussion, okay? When will you be ready to discuss your views on the JFK assassination?
David Healy
2020-07-02 18:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen to your JFK assassination theory. Rather than link to your Magnum Opus for the umpteenth time, why don't you provide your research (or research you are familiar with) that supports 7-8 shots? No, I'm not looking for something a buff writer put out, I'm looking for hard data: rifle and silencer tests, etc.
Let me know when you are ready.
who the hell determined you, YOU to be the arbiter of anything posted here? You moron!

Oh, and why are you looking for hard data? Quest for truth?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Unlike you, I *have* posted a scenario... This is something you
simply aren't capable of doing.
You are missing the part about the 7-8 shots. Where is your research, and when will you be ready to defend your position?
Post by Ben Holmes
Mostly because you simply don't know the case evidence. You've shown
time and time again an AMAZING ignorance of the actual case
evidence... such as your recent claim that I was lying when I stated
that the FBI had **NOT** found a palmprint on the rifle.
Misstating my position doesn't improve yours.
Post by Ben Holmes
The liar, of course, is you.
How about less name calling, more JFK assassination discussion, okay? When will you be ready to discuss your views on the JFK assassination?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-02 19:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen to your JFK assassination theory. Rather than link to your Magnum Opus for the umpteenth time, why don't you provide your research (or research you are familiar with) that supports 7-8 shots? No, I'm not looking for something a buff writer put out, I'm looking for hard data: rifle and silencer tests, etc.
Let me know when you are ready.
who the hell determined you, YOU to be the arbiter of anything posted here? You moron!
((!!**BURP**!!))
Post by David Healy
Oh, and why are you looking for hard data? Quest for truth?
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Unlike you, I *have* posted a scenario... This is something you
simply aren't capable of doing.
You are missing the part about the 7-8 shots. Where is your research, and when will you be ready to defend your position?
Post by Ben Holmes
Mostly because you simply don't know the case evidence. You've shown
time and time again an AMAZING ignorance of the actual case
evidence... such as your recent claim that I was lying when I stated
that the FBI had **NOT** found a palmprint on the rifle.
Misstating my position doesn't improve yours.
Post by Ben Holmes
The liar, of course, is you.
How about less name calling, more JFK assassination discussion, okay? When will you be ready to discuss your views on the JFK assassination?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-02 20:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-03 00:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.

Be a man and let's hear you talk about the tests that were carried out to verify the Zapruder film was altered to cover up a limo stop and how the plotters managed to get the Nix film to corroborate the doctored Z film. Share the research, the thought process the plotters had behind the alterations when they could've just shit-canned the footage, etc. Be ready to defend your position.

Or I suppose you could RUN again. At an open forum.

My money is on you running.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-06 15:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
And here's the proof:

My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-06 21:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?


I have answered. You reset the argument back to asking me to respond to your lack of a scenario.

Your Magnum Opus doesn't lay out a scenario. It doesn't link to any research. It's word salad. Vague innuendos. A mishmash of theories that conflict with each other.

Did the sniper team(s) in the kill zone with their "triangulation of fire" use silenced weapons? Do you have tests for this?

Where are the tests for the sniper team on the south knoll firing through the windshield?

The bar is incredibly high for the WC and HSCA, but for you? Not so much.

You're a joke.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-06 22:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.

But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.

Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...



Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-06 23:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument. Another rest from the fringe Ben desperately attempts to keep the plates spinning.

My answer to your posts is that you do not set forth an alternative to the Oswald Alone conclusion. Saying that something else happened, somehow, doesn't cut it.

You don't get to claim JFK's body was switched without providing confirmation it could even be done.

You don't get to claim 7-8 shots were fired without laying out a positive case for what you allege.

You don't get to claim the Z film was altered without first identifying what was removed or edited and then show how this was done with film technology from the late 50s/early 60s.

You don't get to claim JFK was hit by bullets not accounted for in the autopsy without identifying which wounds were caused by what bullet fired from what direction.

I have given a variation of this answer to you many, many times. Now...wait a few minutes/hours/days/weeks/months and claim I didn't answer your claim that I didn't answer.

You simply argue to argue.

Up your game.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 00:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.

It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.

Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.

Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Bud
2020-07-07 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
You are allergic to supporting what you say.
Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
You still don`t have that right.
Post by Ben Holmes
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Or that.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 14:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
You are allergic to supporting what you say.
How so?

Better yet, I'll simply agree with you that it's "eristic" to demand
that someone support their statements.
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
You still don`t have that right.
You see? Even Chickenshit is labeling Chuckles a liar.
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Or that.
Chickenshit pretends that what applies to one doesn't apply to
others...
Bud
2020-07-07 19:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
You are allergic to supporting what you say.
How so?
Better yet, I'll simply agree with you that it's "eristic" to demand
that someone support their statements.
Of course you are going to lie about what I`ve said.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
You still don`t have that right.
You see? Even Chickenshit is labeling Chuckles a liar.
You`re very confused.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Or that.
Chickenshit pretends that what applies to one doesn't apply to
others...
Apples aren`t oranges.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-07 04:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Arguing to argue. Again.

Another day ticks away and Ben has yet to lay out a case for a specific conspiracy against JFK that we can compare to the historically accepted, Oswald Alone case. The world moves along with new concerns, new worries, but Ben is stuck right here in a weird place; afraid to post his theories and support them, but oddly addicted to the vague feeling that something else happened, somehow, whining and begging people to stand in as a proxy for the Warren Commission so he can fling his begged questions at a willing participant, claiming hollow victories that no one cares about.

Wherever the JFK assassination is being discussed, there will always be one man fleeing the field of battle: Ben Holmes.

All Ben can do is argue for the sake of arguing.

Poor Benny.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 14:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...


How moronic of you!
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-07 15:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Doesn't have me "flummoxed" at all. I just enjoy pointing out the
hypocrisy, dishonesty, and cowardice of believers like you.
Indeed, you're worse than most, because *YOU NEVER DISCUSS THE ACTUAL
CASE EVIDENCE.*
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
No refutation... Chuckles implicity agrees with my statement.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Your cowardice is noted.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Notice that Chuckles AGREES that there's a previous answer given, yet
ABSOLUTELY REFUSES TO CITE IT...
So clearly, Chuckles is lying.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
Been there, done that, you ran.
Provably.
More knots to untangle, more strawmen to knock down. You are
arguing to simply argue.
And you're lying just to lie. Why can't you QUOTE this alleged
"strawman" you speak of?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let us know when you'll be providing your JFK assassination
theory...
Been there, done that. Let us know when you can provide **ANYTHING**
you know about 11/22/63.
Me: Who killed JFK?
Ben: The snipers.
Almost 57 years of this nonsense, folks.
For someone who keeps whining about eristics, you sure engage in it
alot!
I'm more than happy to stop and listen ...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Na.
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Be a man...
Be a man and respond to the above posts...
A classic reset from the fringe. Is anyone surprised?
According to Huckster - WHICH YOU AGREED WITH - this would mean that
these posts *were* responded to in the past.
But you're lying... you've NEVER responded to these posts.
Dead silence...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Can't convince people with lies, Chuckles... you have to do better...
Why not prove me a liar? Just CITE one of the above threads showing
your response....
Eristic argument.
Nope.
It's *NEVER* an eristic argument to tell someone to support what they
said.
Indeed, when *I* don't support what I said, Chickenshit labels me a
liar.
Tell us Chuckles, do you like being labeled a liar by Chickenshit?
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.

Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 15:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.

I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-07 16:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes. It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they make today. Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges. You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben. You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza, a switched JFK corpse/coffin, altered films and photos, mysterious deaths, LBJ as a co-conspirator, and on and on. Don't you see the difference? One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA and also various sub investigations, and the other side can only sputter that something else happened, somehow.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument. You get out of the need to explain your kooky theories because to do so would be an eristic argument? How foolish. Do your Snoopy Dance. Another victory for Ben in the quest for justice for JFK's family. Quick, call Healy and celebrate.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your proof of 7-8 shots? You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA, but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?

Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 17:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.


Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.

Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.

Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?

Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...

But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.


Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"

How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?

Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.

Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.


Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...


No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.

You're allowed to lie and run away ...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?

But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.

Prediction: you'll run again.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-07 19:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Fringe reset. This has been discussed. Endlessly.
Post by Ben Holmes
Prediction: you'll run again.
My answer is that you are resetting the argument from the fringe. Discussed often. And you still haven't laid out your 7-8 shot scenario, just one small part of your vague conspiracy claim that something else happened, somehow.

When will you be discussing it?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 21:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Fringe reset. This has been discussed. Endlessly.
Huckster would label you a liar.

Huckster CLEARLY stated that a fringe reset is something that has been
dealt with before, and refuted.

**NO-ONE** has ever explained how the WC was unable to duplicate
CE399. That's simply never happened.

You can't cite it.

Huckster can't cite it.

Chickenshit can't cite it.

And certainly - YOU can't cite it. So you're lying.



As Huckster stated: "you've posted this nonsense before, you've been
shown it's nonsense before, and yet you post it anew, pretending this
is a new revelation."


Yet no-one can CITE where this has been shown to be nonsense.

And no-one will.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Prediction: you'll run again.
Another prediction dead on the money!
Post by c***@gmail.com
My answer is that you are resetting the argument from the fringe.
Discussed often.
Sorry stupid, that's not the definition given by Huckster that you
agreed with. Merely "discussing" something before isn't enough. You
must have given a refutation before... as Huckster puts it, "you've
been shown it's nonsense before"

So where has this been shown to be nonsense before?

WHY CAN'T YOU CITE ANY PREVIOUS REFUTATION OF THIS FACT???


You're just a coward, aren't you Chuckles... desperately seeking ways
to evade and run away.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And you still haven't laid out your 7-8 shot scenario...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-07 22:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Fringe reset. This has been discussed. Endlessly.
Huckster would label you a liar.
Huckster CLEARLY stated that a fringe reset is something that has been
dealt with before, and refuted.
**NO-ONE** has ever explained how the WC was unable to duplicate
CE399. That's simply never happened.
You can't cite it.
Huckster can't cite it.
Chickenshit can't cite it.
And certainly - YOU can't cite it. So you're lying.
As Huckster stated: "you've posted this nonsense before, you've been
shown it's nonsense before, and yet you post it anew, pretending this
is a new revelation."
Yet no-one can CITE where this has been shown to be nonsense.
And no-one will.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Prediction: you'll run again.
Another prediction dead on the money!
Post by c***@gmail.com
My answer is that you are resetting the argument from the fringe.
Discussed often.
Sorry stupid, that's not the definition given by Huckster that you
agreed with. Merely "discussing" something before isn't enough. You
must have given a refutation before... as Huckster puts it, "you've
been shown it's nonsense before"
So where has this been shown to be nonsense before?
WHY CAN'T YOU CITE ANY PREVIOUS REFUTATION OF THIS FACT???
You're just a coward, aren't you Chuckles... desperately seeking ways
to evade and run away.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And you still haven't laid out your 7-8 shot scenario...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Yet the WC and HSCA did indeed conclude based on detailed examinations of the evidence that three shots, two hits--one through JFK and JBC, and one to JFK's head--to be the most plausible solution.

What's your solution? Multiple snipers??? Lol.

Ben: Something else happened, somehow.

Wherever JFK's assassination is discussed, one man will always flee from laying out his case. that man is Ben Holmes. He will run at every opportunity.

Ever.

Single.

Time.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 22:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Fringe reset. This has been discussed. Endlessly.
Huckster would label you a liar.
Huckster CLEARLY stated that a fringe reset is something that has been
dealt with before, and refuted.
**NO-ONE** has ever explained how the WC was unable to duplicate
CE399. That's simply never happened.
You can't cite it.
Huckster can't cite it.
Chickenshit can't cite it.
And certainly - YOU can't cite it. So you're lying.
And Chuckles RAN LIKE A YELLOW COWARD from each of these points.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
As Huckster stated: "you've posted this nonsense before, you've been
shown it's nonsense before, and yet you post it anew, pretending this
is a new revelation."
Yet no-one can CITE where this has been shown to be nonsense.
And no-one will.
Another perfect prediction...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Prediction: you'll run again.
Another prediction dead on the money!
Post by c***@gmail.com
My answer is that you are resetting the argument from the fringe.
Discussed often.
Sorry stupid, that's not the definition given by Huckster that you
agreed with. Merely "discussing" something before isn't enough. You
must have given a refutation before... as Huckster puts it, "you've
been shown it's nonsense before"
So where has this been shown to be nonsense before?
WHY CAN'T YOU CITE ANY PREVIOUS REFUTATION OF THIS FACT???
You're just a coward, aren't you Chuckles... desperately seeking ways
to evade and run away.
And yet more points raised that Chuckles can't answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
And you still haven't laid out your 7-8 shot scenario...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Yet the WC and HSCA did indeed conclude based on detailed
examinations of the evidence that three shots, two hits--one through
JFK and JBC, and one to JFK's head--to be the most plausible solution.
Can't base the truth on a lie.

You can't answer any of the previous points... yet you want to jump in
and pretend you've done something.

Eristics...

You just LOVE to argue, meaninglessly.
Post by c***@gmail.com
What's your solution? Multiple snipers??? Lol.
The solution to the evidence is what the evidence shows happened.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Ben: Something else happened, somehow.
You're molesting your own mother now. I've never made any such
statement, and you know it.

You're TERRIFIED of answering what I *DO* post - as shown above.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Wherever JFK's assassination is discussed, one man will always flee
from laying out his case. that man is me. I will run at every opportunity.
Ever.
Single.
Time.
Nah... you're not unique. *ALL* believers share this trait of
cowardice and dishonesty.

Here's what you're afraid of:

My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rwmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
Bud
2020-07-08 00:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're denying that anyone needs to support their own statements...
Eristic argument. Arguing to argue. Again.
So you're agreeing that it's "eristic" to demand that someone support
their own statement.
On useless side arguments over what this poster said, etc. yes.
Good of you to be explicit. Even though you weasel with the "side
argument" garbage.
Post by c***@gmail.com
It's just arguing to argue. It goes no where. The same demands buffs
make at this board almost thirty years ago are the same demands they
make today.
And the answers that believers are providing today are the same absent
ones they gave decades ago.
Such cowards you believers are... you can't admit that most all of
your arguments have evaporated in the wind now that we have more
information.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Postjacking something from .john and asking if a "believer" here will
dare support the statement is just another eristic argument.
No, it's merely additional proof for the cowardice and dishonesty of
all believers.
Johnny would censor such a post in his playground, and now you object
to me pointing it out in public.
Eristics...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
I'll have to save this one for the next time you whine and demand
citations.
Apples and oranges.
How so?
Why are critics required to present a scenario, do tests, support
their claims...
But believers aren't?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're the C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E-R, Ben.
Meaningless. Scientists who argued against Phlogiston were also
challenging the original viewpoint.
Sounds to me like you're a flat earther...
Post by c***@gmail.com
You make mighty big claims about 7-8 shots in the Plaza
'The evidence is better explained by 7-8 shots' is a "mighty big
claim?"
How so?
Post by c***@gmail.com
a switched JFK corpse/coffin
That is indeed what the evidence shows... You're simply TERRIFIED of
explaining this, aren't you?
Post by c***@gmail.com
altered films and photos
Altered film, yes. Altered autopsy photos, yes.
Post by c***@gmail.com
mysterious deaths
Oh, you're simply lying... No need to ask you to support what you
cannot support.
Post by c***@gmail.com
LBJ as a co-conspirator
Who, in this case, had the biggest motive?
Don't bother answering - you're terrified of the truth.
Post by c***@gmail.com
and on and on. Don't you see the difference?
Yep... you're a liar and a flat earther... how silly!
Post by c***@gmail.com
One side has already laid out a case--twice--with the WC and HSCA
and also various sub investigations,
And by that standard, so have the critics. Mark Lane, Douglas Horne,
et al... So what are you whining about?
Post by c***@gmail.com
and the other side can only sputter that
something else happened, somehow.
You're lying again, Chuckles.
Lies won't convince anyone...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
How moronic of you!
Ad hominem.
Indeed it is... but it's also true. From now on - AND BASED ON YOUR
OWN STATEMENT - it would be "eristic" of me to support my own
statements, so I need no longer do so.
Ironically, another erisitc argument.
Oh, *anything* said to you is "eristic" or has some flaw of the month.
Any excuse to hide the fact that you're a coward.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's talk about your 7-8 shot shooting sequence.
You won't. You'll simply run away. Does 3 evenly spaced shots or 7-8
closely spaced shots best describe a "flurry of shots?"
So someone saying there was a "flurry of shots" constitutes your
proof of 7-8 shots?
Logical fallacy. I knew you'd run... I predicted it.
Post by c***@gmail.com
You demand absolute precision in all areas from the WC or HSCA
Another logical fallacy...
No, I demand the honest truth. Both investigations *PROVABLY* lied.
And you can't explain that fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but you are allowed to conclude 7-8 shots based on an earwitness
statement in the limo. Can you even set the bar any lower?
I'm allowed to use the evidence to conclude what actually happened.
You're allowed to lie and run away ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Well, let's discuss it. Lay out your 7-8 shot shooting scenario. Ready?
You ran ... why are you demanding even *MORE* evidence to run from?
But if you're willing to look even more cowardly - tell us why CE399
couldn't be duplicated by the WC's testing.
Fringe reset. This has been discussed. Endlessly.
Huckster would label you a liar.
You`re lying.
Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster CLEARLY stated that a fringe reset is something that has been
dealt with before, and refuted.
You`re lying that Hank was defining the term.
Post by Ben Holmes
**NO-ONE** has ever explained how the WC was unable to duplicate
CE399. That's simply never happened.
**NO-ONE** has ever explained why CE399 needs to be duplicated.

**NO-ONE** has ever explained how bullets are duplicated in other cases.

**NO-ONE** has explain how CE399 could be duplicated.

**NO-ONE has explained why "duplication" is the goal that needs to be achieved.

**NO-ONE** has explained how duplication is even possible.
Post by Ben Holmes
You can't cite it.
Huckster can't cite it.
Chickenshit can't cite it.
And certainly - YOU can't cite it. So you're lying.
As Huckster stated: "you've posted this nonsense before, you've been
shown it's nonsense before, and yet you post it anew, pretending this
is a new revelation."
Yet no-one can CITE where this has been shown to be nonsense.
And no-one will.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Prediction: you'll run again.
Another prediction dead on the money!
Post by c***@gmail.com
My answer is that you are resetting the argument from the fringe.
Discussed often.
Sorry stupid, that's not the definition given by Huckster that you
agreed with. Merely "discussing" something before isn't enough. You
must have given a refutation before... as Huckster puts it, "you've
been shown it's nonsense before"
So where has this been shown to be nonsense before?
WHY CAN'T YOU CITE ANY PREVIOUS REFUTATION OF THIS FACT???
You're just a coward, aren't you Chuckles... desperately seeking ways
to evade and run away.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And you still haven't laid out your 7-8 shot scenario...
You're lying again, Chuckles.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 03:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
My God, is this fucking idiot still asking for a scenario?

Scenarios are for screenwriters. We discuss the evidence, not what Shooter #3 had for breakfast that morning.

Total dipshit.
Jason Burke
2020-07-08 04:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
My God, is this fucking idiot still asking for a scenario?
Scenarios are for screenwriters. We discuss the evidence, not what Shooter #3 had for breakfast that morning.
Total dipshit.
Scary thing is that Natasha is *honestly* this fucking stupid.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 13:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
This really has you flummoxed. Good.
Post by Ben Holmes
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
Yawn.
Post by Ben Holmes
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Go for it. Have fun with the hobby.
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Fringe reset.
Further ad hominem deleted.
Let us know when you are ready to provide your theory about the JFK assassination.
My God, is this fucking idiot still asking for a scenario?
Scenarios are for screenwriters. We discuss the evidence, not what Shooter #3 had for breakfast that morning.
Total dipshit.
Welts healing and fresh off his protest tour where he pulled down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, Boris is back, propeller on his tinfoil beanie spinning, ready to aid the Kennedy family in the quest to find JFK's real killers.

Let's discuss the evidence which lead you to tell Hank that Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK.

Ready?

Perhaps Ben could chime in and have a nice evidence-based exchange with you and argue against your idea that Oswald was complicit in t he murder of JFK.

Muster your arguments, I'll get popcorn.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 17:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
My God, is this fucking idiot still asking for a scenario?
Scenarios are for screenwriters. We discuss the evidence, not what Shooter #3 had for breakfast that morning.
Total dipshit.
Welts heali
Hmm, yup, he's still asking.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's discuss the evidence which lead you to tell Hank that Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK.
Ready?
Sure.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/u-JjLXdU0d0/XkuD9eZTAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/XgKtKfPVWok/pwT6Jk86AgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/Vk-5CPbIAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c88Jxa48yPE/1xR70RnqAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/5WWp2fDOAAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/OknYzrHJAAAJ

That's just a small sample of posts that Henry has rum from. And those are just mine. I'm sure Ben has several of his own that your hero has shit his pants over and skittered from.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 20:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
My God, is this fucking idiot still asking for a scenario?
Scenarios are for screenwriters. We discuss the evidence, not what Shooter #3 had for breakfast that morning.
Total dipshit.
Welts heali
Hmm, yup, he's still asking.
More arguing to argue.

Look what this poster ran from.

Look what this poster said.

This poster said this in 2013.

Look at what this poster posted in 2002.

Are you ever going to present your ideas on the JFK assassination, other than to mutter that something else happened, somehow?
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Let's discuss the evidence which lead you to tell Hank that Oswald was complicit in the murder of JFK.
Ready?
Sure.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/u-JjLXdU0d0/XkuD9eZTAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/XgKtKfPVWok/pwT6Jk86AgAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/Vk-5CPbIAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c88Jxa48yPE/1xR70RnqAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/5WWp2fDOAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9hzCOL-hv0M/OknYzrHJAAAJ
That's just a small sample of posts that Henry has rum from. And those are just mine. I'm sure Ben has several of his own that your hero has shit his pants over and skittered from.
So-and-so ran from this.

This guy said this.

Another guy said that.

Any idea yet on a shot sequence?

Why does the evidence lead you to believe Oswald was complicit in JFK's murder?

What are you analyzing and seeing that Ben isn't seeing?

Let's talk it out.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 22:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
So-and-so ran from this.
You brought up your hero, Henry. I reciprocated. That's all. I presented evidence. He ran. Like you're doing. It's okay, Chuck. Evidence is not your thing. You want a screenplay with a cast of characters. Just not Oliver Stone's, apparently.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 22:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
More arguing to argue.
Look what this poster ran from.
Look what this poster said.
This poster said this in 2013.
Look at what this poster posted in 2002.
Are you ever going to present your ideas on the JFK assassination, other than to mutter that something else happened, somehow?
So-and-so ran from this.
This guy said this.
Another guy said that.
You mock those communist assholes who tear down statues, but you debate and sound just like them.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 00:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
More arguing to argue.
Look what this poster ran from.
Look what this poster said.
This poster said this in 2013.
Look at what this poster posted in 2002.
Are you ever going to present your ideas on the JFK assassination, other than to mutter that something else happened, somehow?
So-and-so ran from this.
This guy said this.
Another guy said that.
You mock those communist assholes who tear down statues, but you debate and sound just like them.
Pointing out that you literally do not have a case for a JFK conspiracy--and that you need to make a case FOR something and not treat this rapidly fading piece of American history as a criminal defense trial where "reasonable doubt" is raised that miraculously historically springs Oswald--is the proper way to counter your constant demands that someone stand in and "defend" the Warren Commission/HSCA against your whataboutisms over the same speculative bullshit that's been recycled here for over 25 years. How many times are you going to bring up the Katzenbach memo? The so called hole in the limo windshield? The 6.5mm artifact in the x-ray? Do you think you'll get different answers on this board (or any other board) by asking it the 10,000th time?

Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G. There was NO CONSPIRACY in the death of JFK. It's just not there brother, no matter how much you think you have your finger on the pulse of the event. It's OVER. Otherwise, put something up to be compared to the historically accepted, Oswald Alone, no KNOWN help narrative, and we can dissect what you've uncovered. Be prepared to defend your position dispassionately. Invite criticism of your work, your methods, your tests.

If you can't do this, it's time to pack it in. A conspiracy is specific, conspiracism is a sort of disorder. Do not confuse one for the other. Do not shift the burden. You think something else happened, somehow. Show the world what happened, and how.

If you think the line of reasoning I've advanced for years at this board--asking you to make a case for what you think happened--has any similarities with the soy boy, self-loathing, trust fund sissies tearing down the country to show how much they care for their black brothers--whose neighborhoods they don't live in--then you are more lost than I thought.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-09 14:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
More arguing to argue.
Look what this poster ran from.
Look what this poster said.
This poster said this in 2013.
Look at what this poster posted in 2002.
Are you ever going to present your ideas on the JFK assassination, other than to mutter that something else happened, somehow?
So-and-so ran from this.
This guy said this.
Another guy said that.
You mock those communist assholes who tear down statues, but you debate and sound just like them.
Pointing out that you literally do not have a case for a JFK conspiracy...
If this were actually true, there'd be no reason for the non-stop
cowardice & continual lying on the part of believers.

The evidence for conspiracy is the same now as it was on 11/22/63. The
TREMENDOUS body of eyewitnesses for a Grassy Knoll shooter... the
major problems with the "evidence" of a lone assassin.

Indeed, Chuckles wants to claim that there was no conspiracy, YET HE
CAN'T CITE A *SINGLE* PIECE OF EVIDENCE PROVING A LONE ASSASSIN!

Nor can he cite dozens of pieces of evidence.

CHUCKLES CAN'T CITE!!!


Watch folks, as Chuckles ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite anything that
supports his faith.

I've predicted it!
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 16:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-09 17:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Indeed true. Believers are TERRIFIED of the actual evidence... you'll
note that they rarely if ever refer to it.

**MOST** of the time, they refer to other people's *OPINIONS* of the
evidence... the WC, the HSCA - but when challenged to explain the
provable lies of these "investigations" - they invariably run away...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME.

And I predict that Chuckles & Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to
give any reason at all for the blatant lie told about the medical
testimony by the HSCA.

Watch!
Bud
2020-07-09 17:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Indeed true. Believers are TERRIFIED of the actual evidence... you'll
note that they rarely if ever refer to it.
This is a conspiracy forum. Use the "actual evidence" to form cohesive arguments that a conspiracy took JFK`s life. Or blow hot air forever, whatever suits you.
Post by Ben Holmes
**MOST** of the time, they refer to other people's *OPINIONS* of the
evidence... the WC, the HSCA - but when challenged to explain the
provable lies of these "investigations" - they invariably run away...
Who cares about your *OPINIONS* about these investigations?
Post by Ben Holmes
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
And I predict that Chuckles & Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to
give any reason at all for the blatant lie told about the medical
testimony by the HSCA.
You have to try to make it about other people or the investigations because you have nothing. If you has something, you`d be showing what you have.
Post by Ben Holmes
Watch!
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 18:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Indeed true. Believers are TERRIFIED of the actual evidence... you'll
note that they rarely if ever refer to it.
**MOST** of the time, they refer to other people's *OPINIONS* of the
evidence... the WC, the HSCA - but when challenged to explain the
provable lies of these "investigations" - they invariably run away...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
And I predict that Chuckles & Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to
give any reason at all for the blatant lie told about the medical
testimony by the HSCA.
Watch!
Arguing to argue. Another fringe reset.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-09 19:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Indeed true. Believers are TERRIFIED of the actual evidence... you'll
note that they rarely if ever refer to it.
**MOST** of the time, they refer to other people's *OPINIONS* of the
evidence... the WC, the HSCA - but when challenged to explain the
provable lies of these "investigations" - they invariably run away...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
And I predict that Chuckles & Chickenshit will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to
give any reason at all for the blatant lie told about the medical
testimony by the HSCA.
Watch!
Arguing to argue. Another fringe reset.
Responding without addressing the issues raised is EXACTLY that...

Tell us Chuckles, why are you arguing just to argue?

Are you simply intent on proving me right?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 18:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris, you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
I have evidence. You have complaining. You do yours, I'll do mine.
Evidence of what? How many shots? Fired from where and when?

I'm certainly not complaining. You want to rewrite history to show the US as an evil country that conspired to kill Camelot. If one side of this issue can be compared to BLM and whats happening today, it's the JFK conspiracy side. Like BLM, the JFK Truthers think the country is irredeemably evil.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 18:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Evidence of what? How many shots?
More than three.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Fired from where and when?
Doesn't matter. Evidence of more than three is literally all that's required. You lose.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 19:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Evidence of what? How many shots?
More than three.
And less than????
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Fired from where and when?
Doesn't matter.
Specifics hurt the hobby.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Evidence of more than three is literally all that's required.
To prove a conspiracy in a court of law in this case, yes, but we're not in court. You say Oswald was complicit, Ben says Oswald most likely wasn't involved. How does Team Oswald reconcile the vast chasm? What are you seeing that Ben doesn't see?
Post by b***@gmail.com
You lose.
It's a game.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-09 20:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Evidence of what? How many shots?
More than three.
And less than????
I guarantee that it was less than 100.

The important point is that the EVIDENCE tends to show more than 3.

If the government hadn't started intimidating all the witnesses so
early on - we might have even better evidence.
Bud
2020-07-09 21:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Evidence of what? How many shots?
More than three.
And less than????
I guarantee that it was less than 100.
The important point is that the EVIDENCE tends to show more than 3.
I`ve never seen any compelling arguments made that more than one person firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD is necessary.
Post by Ben Holmes
If the government hadn't started intimidating all the witnesses so
early on - we might have even better evidence.
Intimidated, how?
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 21:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
I`ve never seen any compelling arguments made that more than one person firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD is necessary.
Left-wing media has never seen any compelling evidence that Antifa exists either (they actually reported this). And that was as of a month ago.

People see what they want. The rest are retards, like you.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-09 21:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
I`ve never seen any compelling arguments made that more than one person firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD is necessary.
Left-wing media has never seen any compelling evidence that Antifa exists either (they actually reported this). And that was as of a month ago.
People see what they want. The rest are retards, like you.
Looks like Chickenshit got spanked...
Bud
2020-07-09 21:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Bud
I`ve never seen any compelling arguments made that more than one person firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD is necessary.
Left-wing media has never seen any compelling evidence that Antifa exists either (they actually reported this). And that was as of a month ago.
People see what they want. The rest are retards, like you.
Looks like Chickenshit got spanked...
Look again. He said "People see what they want". Presumably he puts himself in that category, because his next utterance puts me in a different one. "The rest are retards, like you." I`d rather see things as they are than delude myself into believing they are as I imagine them to be.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 21:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Look again. He said "People see what they want". Presumably he puts himself in that category
That's right. What *I* want to see is the truth. And I can see it freely despite the convoluted filters thrown up by the media.
Post by Bud
because his next utterance puts me in a different one. "The rest are retards, like you."
I'm pleased you're so proud to be in the "retard" group.
Jason Burke
2020-07-13 02:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Evidence of what? How many shots?
More than three.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Fired from where and when?
Doesn't matter. Evidence of more than three is literally all that's required. You lose.
Are you fuckers *HONESTLY* this stupid?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-07 22:16:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...

Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.

Not once!

Eristics!

Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...

Every

Single

Time.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 00:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong? You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was years or decades ago, as if the points have never been addressed:

"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"

"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"

Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.

Instead of swiping some old post from Walt Cakebread, why not discuss your 7-8 shot scenario?

Whenever the JFK assassination is being discussed, you can count on Ben not participating. Ben will run. Every. Single. Time.
Jason Burke
2020-07-08 00:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
Instead of swiping some old post from Walt Cakebread, why not discuss your 7-8 shot scenario?
Whenever the JFK assassination is being discussed, you can count on Ben not participating. Ben will run. Every. Single. Time.
What ever happened to Cakeshit? I trust he killed himself in shame.
David Healy
2020-07-08 15:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Burke
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
Instead of swiping some old post from Walt Cakebread, why not discuss your 7-8 shot scenario?
Whenever the JFK assassination is being discussed, you can count on Ben not participating. Ben will run. Every. Single. Time.
What ever happened to Cakeshit? I trust he killed himself in shame.
he's fulfilling your BLM obligation you useless piece of crappe, you!
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 16:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by Jason Burke
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
Instead of swiping some old post from Walt Cakebread, why not discuss your 7-8 shot scenario?
Whenever the JFK assassination is being discussed, you can count on Ben not participating. Ben will run. Every. Single. Time.
What ever happened to Cakeshit? I trust he killed himself in shame.
he's fulfilling your BLM obligation you useless piece of crappe, you!
((!!**BURP**!!))
Ben Holmes
2020-07-08 14:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
This is, of course, a lie. Chuckles inserted his response where it's
implied that he actually GAVE an answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong?
That's what Huckster stated... and you *agreed* with him. Calling him
a liar now, are we?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a
kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was
Addressed and shown to be wrong, you mean. That *is* what Huckster
stated.

Why can't you ever quote Huckster on this issue?

Why are you terrified that you agreed with Huckster?

Why can't you simply admit that you think Huckter lied?
Post by c***@gmail.com
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
Logical fallacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Complain to Kellerman, not me.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
It wouldn't be a lie. The *ACTUAL* statements I've made that you
claim are fringe resets have **NEVER** been answered.

Merely "responding" isn't the standard that Huckster set.


And you agreed with.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Chuckles agrees that he's eristic bound...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
It's not *my* fault... couldn't do it without believers like you.


[More ad hominem deleted... Chuckles is clearly getting frustrated.]
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 16:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
This is, of course, a lie. Chuckles inserted his response where it's
implied that he actually GAVE an answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong?
That's what Huckster stated... and you *agreed* with him. Calling him
a liar now, are we?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a
kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was
Addressed and shown to be wrong, you mean. That *is* what Huckster
stated.
Why can't you ever quote Huckster on this issue?
Why are you terrified that you agreed with Huckster?
Why can't you simply admit that you think Huckter lied?
Post by c***@gmail.com
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
Logical fallacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Complain to Kellerman, not me.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
It wouldn't be a lie. The *ACTUAL* statements I've made that you
claim are fringe resets have **NEVER** been answered.
Merely "responding" isn't the standard that Huckster set.
And you agreed with.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Chuckles agrees that he's eristic bound...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
It's not *my* fault... couldn't do it without believers like you.
[More ad hominem deleted... Chuckles is clearly getting frustrated.]
Arguing to argue. Around and around we go on various posts this person wrote or that person avoided, etc.

Why?

Ben refuses to discuss the JFK assassination. He'll never do it. Ever.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-08 21:30:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
This is, of course, a lie. Chuckles inserted his response where it's
implied that he actually GAVE an answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong?
That's what Huckster stated... and you *agreed* with him. Calling him
a liar now, are we?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a
kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was
Addressed and shown to be wrong, you mean. That *is* what Huckster
stated.
Why can't you ever quote Huckster on this issue?
Why are you terrified that you agreed with Huckster?
Why can't you simply admit that you think Huckter lied?
Post by c***@gmail.com
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
Logical fallacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Complain to Kellerman, not me.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
It wouldn't be a lie. The *ACTUAL* statements I've made that you
claim are fringe resets have **NEVER** been answered.
Merely "responding" isn't the standard that Huckster set.
And you agreed with.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Chuckles agrees that he's eristic bound...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
It's not *my* fault... couldn't do it without believers like you.
[More ad hominem deleted... Chuckles is clearly getting frustrated.]
Arguing to argue. Around and around we go on various posts this
person wrote or that person avoided, etc.
And the coward runs from everything...

He's got no choice...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Why?
I refuse to discuss the JFK assassination. I'll never do it. Ever.
Then why are you here?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-08 21:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
This is, of course, a lie. Chuckles inserted his response where it's
implied that he actually GAVE an answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong?
That's what Huckster stated... and you *agreed* with him. Calling him
a liar now, are we?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a
kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was
Addressed and shown to be wrong, you mean. That *is* what Huckster
stated.
Why can't you ever quote Huckster on this issue?
Why are you terrified that you agreed with Huckster?
Why can't you simply admit that you think Huckter lied?
Post by c***@gmail.com
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
Logical fallacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Complain to Kellerman, not me.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
It wouldn't be a lie. The *ACTUAL* statements I've made that you
claim are fringe resets have **NEVER** been answered.
Merely "responding" isn't the standard that Huckster set.
And you agreed with.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Chuckles agrees that he's eristic bound...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
It's not *my* fault... couldn't do it without believers like you.
[More ad hominem deleted... Chuckles is clearly getting frustrated.]
Arguing to argue. Around and around we go on various posts this
person wrote or that person avoided, etc.
And the coward runs from everything...
He's got no choice...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Why?
I refuse to discuss the JFK assassination. I'll never do it. Ever.
Then why are you here?
It's fun.

Why are you here?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-08 22:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:05 -0700, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles has positively agreed with Huckster's assertion that a
"fringe reset" is such because the topic HAS been dealt with
unambigously in the past.
Each time Chuckles makes the claim that something is a "fringe reset,"
he is implicitly asserting that the answer **HAS** been given in the
past... Chuckles has *agreed* with Huckster on that point.
From now on, unless Chuckles is ready to CITE for such a claim, any
assertion of "fringe resets" are blatant lies, and will be pointed out
as such.
Chuckles has asserted that any questioning of why James Chaney wasn't
questioned has already been answered.
Yet Chuckles will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to quote or cite that answer.
Chuckles is both a coward and a liar... and not a man.
Chuckles has now answered a dozen times or more...
Then stop asking for a 13th answer.
This is, of course, a lie. Chuckles inserted his response where it's
implied that he actually GAVE an answer.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Yet not *ONCE* has he cited where a "fringe reset" has ever been shown
to be wrong.
I'm supposed to show where your "fringe resets" are wrong?
That's what Huckster stated... and you *agreed* with him. Calling him
a liar now, are we?
Post by c***@gmail.com
You're all twisted around. Again. A fringe reset is the act of a
kook who constantly resets the argument right back to where it was
Addressed and shown to be wrong, you mean. That *is* what Huckster
stated.
Why can't you ever quote Huckster on this issue?
Why are you terrified that you agreed with Huckster?
Why can't you simply admit that you think Huckter lied?
Post by c***@gmail.com
"Explain the hole in the windshield if there weren't shots from the front!"
Logical fallacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
"If there were only three shots, why were there seven wounds!"
Complain to Kellerman, not me.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lie and say these (and countless other begged questions) haven't been addressed.
It wouldn't be a lie. The *ACTUAL* statements I've made that you
claim are fringe resets have **NEVER** been answered.
Merely "responding" isn't the standard that Huckster set.
And you agreed with.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Not once!
Eristics!
Indeed!
Chuckles agrees that he's eristic bound...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Chuckles just loves to argue - but runs...
Every
Single
Time.
Another victory for Ben. He's batting one-thousand.
It's not *my* fault... couldn't do it without believers like you.
[More ad hominem deleted... Chuckles is clearly getting frustrated.]
Arguing to argue. Around and around we go on various posts this
person wrote or that person avoided, etc.
And the coward runs from everything...
He's got no choice...
Post by c***@gmail.com
Why?
I refuse to discuss the JFK assassination. I'll never do it. Ever.
Then why are you here?
It's fun.
Admitting you're a troll. How honest of you!
Post by c***@gmail.com
Why are you here?
I've stated the reason any number of times. Why should I keep doing
so? Training morons isn't my job.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 21:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.

LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.

But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis" that is a flat-out lie to absolutely anyone with eyes and even a lobotomized brain. 2020 should have been the year people woke up from this nonsense. Instead it seems to have made Chuck dumber (if that's even possible).
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 21:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.
LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.
But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis"
What might that be?
Post by b***@gmail.com
that is a flat-out lie to absolutely anyone with eyes and even a >lobotomized brain. 2020 should have been the year people woke up from this >nonsense. Instead it seems to have made Chuck dumber (if that's even possible).
Your pal Oswald would be wearing a BLM shirt and carrying around a placard with George Floyd's pic on it if he was around today.

No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-09 22:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.
LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.
But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis"
What might that be?
White supremacy is the greatest threat facing America today.
The protests are peaceful.
They only want to take down Confederate statues.
Antifa doesn't exist.
Racism is everywhere.
Majority of damage was done by white supremacists.
It's just property.
Tight confined protests are not causing any COVID spread.
Police brutality only affects one community.
The black community is literally being hunted down.
Abolish the police doesn't really mean what it means.


And you know what you're called if you don't believe any of those things.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
that is a flat-out lie to absolutely anyone with eyes and even a >lobotomized brain. 2020 should have been the year people woke up from this >nonsense. Instead it seems to have made Chuck dumber (if that's even possible).
Your pal Oswald would be wearing a BLM shirt and carrying around a placard with George Floyd's pic on it if he was around today.
No doubt. He was commie trash. Defected and everything.
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?

See how you lie?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-10 00:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.
LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.
But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis"
What might that be?
White supremacy is the greatest threat facing America today.
The protests are peaceful.
They only want to take down Confederate statues.
Antifa doesn't exist.
Racism is everywhere.
Majority of damage was done by white supremacists.
It's just property.
Tight confined protests are not causing any COVID spread.
Police brutality only affects one community.
The black community is literally being hunted down.
Abolish the police doesn't really mean what it means.
And you know what you're called if you don't believe any of those things.
So you are equating those people with people who believe Oswald acted alone? LOLOLOL! To the extent those little pussies know anything about the JFK assassination I'd bet they're firmly on your side: something else happened, somehow.

Nice try.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
that is a flat-out lie to absolutely anyone with eyes and even a >lobotomized brain. 2020 should have been the year people woke up from this >nonsense. Instead it seems to have made Chuck dumber (if that's even possible).
Your pal Oswald would be wearing a BLM shirt and carrying around a placard with George Floyd's pic on it if he was around today.
No doubt. He was commie trash. Defected and everything.
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
See how you lie?
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-10 01:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.
LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.
But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis"
What might that be?
White supremacy is the greatest threat facing America today.
The protests are peaceful.
They only want to take down Confederate statues.
Antifa doesn't exist.
Racism is everywhere.
Majority of damage was done by white supremacists.
It's just property.
Tight confined protests are not causing any COVID spread.
Police brutality only affects one community.
The black community is literally being hunted down.
Abolish the police doesn't really mean what it means.
And you know what you're called if you don't believe any of those things.
So you are equating those people with people who believe Oswald acted alone?
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.

You, of course, knew this.

Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-10 01:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Truth is, after what's happened in America this last month, I can no longer understand how **anyone** believes any so-called "official" narrative on anything.
LNers want to pretend Operation Mockingbird was never a thing? Fine, it's easy enough to pretend all you want, because it's 50 years removed.
But now we are now living through a modern-day "historically accepted null hypothesis"
What might that be?
White supremacy is the greatest threat facing America today.
The protests are peaceful.
They only want to take down Confederate statues.
Antifa doesn't exist.
Racism is everywhere.
Majority of damage was done by white supremacists.
It's just property.
Tight confined protests are not causing any COVID spread.
Police brutality only affects one community.
The black community is literally being hunted down.
Abolish the police doesn't really mean what it means.
And you know what you're called if you don't believe any of those things.
So you are equating those people with people who believe Oswald acted alone?
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth. Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue. You know what you could do to break the cycle?

Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-12 18:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth.
I see we're back to appealing to "historic truth" after we just went over why that is fallacious with modern-day examples. Good to see nothing is getting through.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only several thousand books have been written on the subject of their inadequacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Indistinguishable from who? Antifa doesn't exist.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue.
No. Liars lie out of necessity. In this case, you wouldn't do it unless you needed to, unless you were forced to preserve a narrative that makes you feel safe.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
More than three bullets fired. That's all I need. And you can keep your screenwriting exercise.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-12 20:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth.
I see we're back to appealing to "historic truth" after we just went over why that is fallacious with modern-day examples. Good to see nothing is getting through.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only several thousand books have been written on the subject of their inadequacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Indistinguishable from who? Antifa doesn't exist.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue.
No. Liars lie out of necessity. In this case, you wouldn't do it unless you needed to, unless you were forced to preserve a narrative that makes you feel safe.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
More than three bullets fired. That's all I need. And you can keep your screenwriting exercise.
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."

Almost 57 years of this, folks.

And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 06:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."
Almost 57 years of this, folks.
And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
They don't, and you're not an historian.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-13 15:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."
Almost 57 years of this, folks.
And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
They don't, and you're not an historian.
True, and when believers need to constantly lie to support their
faith, it shows where the truth lies.

Chuckles can't cite a *SINGLE* historian, let alone any number of
them, who "laugh" at critics.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 06:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth.
I see we're back to appealing to "historic truth" after we just went over why that is fallacious with modern-day examples. Good to see nothing is getting through.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only several thousand books have been written on the subject of their inadequacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Indistinguishable from who? Antifa doesn't exist.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue.
No. Liars lie out of necessity. In this case, you wouldn't do it unless you needed to, unless you were forced to preserve a narrative that makes you feel safe.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
More than three bullets fired. That's all I need. And you can keep your screenwriting exercise.
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."
Almost 57 years of this, folks.
And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
You know what makes me laugh? Gerald Posner being charged with plagiarism, and hiring Mark Lane to defend him. If you were in legal trouble, would you trust someone that you knew to be wrong about everything? That's got to be one of the greatest ironies in the history of the courts. Ell-oh-ell.
Mark Ulrik
2020-07-13 08:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth.
I see we're back to appealing to "historic truth" after we just went over why that is fallacious with modern-day examples. Good to see nothing is getting through.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only several thousand books have been written on the subject of their inadequacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Indistinguishable from who? Antifa doesn't exist.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue.
No. Liars lie out of necessity. In this case, you wouldn't do it unless you needed to, unless you were forced to preserve a narrative that makes you feel safe.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
More than three bullets fired. That's all I need. And you can keep your screenwriting exercise.
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."
Almost 57 years of this, folks.
And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
You know what makes me laugh? Gerald Posner being charged with plagiarism, and hiring Mark Lane to defend him. If you were in legal trouble, would you trust someone that you knew to be wrong about everything? That's got to be one of the greatest ironies in the history of the courts. Ell-oh-ell.
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 16:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 18:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Fortunately, history isn't written on what you find convincing or Bush, Cheney, elements of the FDNY, FBI, Port Authority, Mayor Giuliani, American Airlines, the USAF, NSA, Larry Silverstein, etc. would be rotting in prison for plotting/planning/covering up 911.
Mark Ulrik
2020-07-13 23:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you, but Lane was superficially convincing, and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 23:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".

Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?

I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Mark Ulrik
2020-07-14 11:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
To find Lane convincing, it probably helps to not know too much about the assassination. Or, as in the case of Ben Holmes, share the same (dishonest) personality traits.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
It's in the delivery. On closer examination, it's mostly hot air.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Why would the average juror not believe a word Mark Lane said? How do you think Saul Goodman won so many cases? The guy was tricky.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-14 20:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
To find Lane convincing, it probably helps to not know too much about the assassination. Or, as in the case of Ben Holmes, share the same (dishonest) personality traits.
If years of my life were on the line I'd certainly want someone genuine like Lane who went out and did the footwork. As opposed to, say, my counsel arguing on my behalf, "But Your Honor, my client didn't pack his lunch that day. He didn't read the paper that day. Surely this nonsense bullshit = guilty."
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Why would the average juror not believe a word Mark Lane said?
You realize in a real court of law, jurors hear two sides of the story, unlike the abysmally biased horseshit that was the WC. Any average juror has the opportunity to hear both sides. And on that note, they WOULD find Lane convincing, because the facts are there, and the facts simply aren't there for you.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-14 15:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal. You are an "expert" in the rapidly fading hobby of JFK trivia.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Posner is definitely still around. Why don't you write him a repectful email and ask for an answer?
Ben Holmes
2020-07-14 15:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal.
This is the reverse of what believers are always arguing... that it's
the ignorance of the American people that causes so many to accept
that there was a conspiracy.

If it's good for the goose, why not the gander?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-14 17:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal.
This is the reverse of what believers are always arguing... that it's
the ignorance of the American people that causes so many to accept
that there was a conspiracy.
If it's good for the goose, why not the gander?
Apples and oranges.

Look up the fallacy known as an argument from authority.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-14 22:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal.
This is the reverse of what believers are always arguing... that it's
the ignorance of the American people that causes so many to accept
that there was a conspiracy.
If it's good for the goose, why not the gander?
Apples and oranges.
Nope.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Look up the fallacy known as an argument from authority.
Quote where I used that fallacy.

But you won't... you're a coward and a liar...
Bud
2020-07-14 23:01:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal.
This is the reverse of what believers are always arguing... that it's
the ignorance of the American people that causes so many to accept
that there was a conspiracy.
If it's good for the goose, why not the gander?
Apples and oranges.
Nope.
Wrong. If most American are ignorant about the facts of the case then their opinions about the case aren`t worth very much. Any arguments about other groups has no effect on the truthfulness of this assertion, it is merely misdirection that results in a non sequitur.
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by c***@gmail.com
Look up the fallacy known as an argument from authority.
Quote where I used that fallacy.
He was saying Boris used that fallacy.
Post by Ben Holmes
But you won't... you're a coward and a liar...
Learn how to follow a discussion.
David Healy
2020-07-14 16:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal. You are an "expert" in the rapidly fading hobby of JFK trivia.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Posner is definitely still around. Why don't you write him a repectful email and ask for an answer?
55+ years and you dumb fucks STILL can't close the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome'.

Now *THAT*fact tells the tale. What the hell is the matter with you?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-14 17:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal. You are an "expert" in the rapidly fading hobby of JFK trivia.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Posner is definitely still around. Why don't you write him a repectful email and ask for an answer?
55+ years and you dumb fucks STILL can't close the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome'.
Now *THAT*fact tells the tale. What the hell is the matter with you?
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
David Healy
2020-07-14 23:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by David Healy
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Ulrik
Perhaps Saul Goodman wasn't available. Lane may have been dishonest to the core, but many people found him convincing.
That's where we differ. I don't find a single LNer convincing.
Perhaps "many people" doesn't include you,
That's right, because I know more about the assassination than the average "many people".
Sort of an Argument from Authority? Big deal. You are an "expert" in the rapidly fading hobby of JFK trivia.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Just like Posner is supposed to have known more about it than the average person. Maybe he should have gone to Bugliosi for some counsel advice.
Post by Mark Ulrik
but Lane was superficially convincing,
How so?
Post by Mark Ulrik
and his book RTJ is like Holy Scripture to people like your fellow traveller Ben Holmes.
Which is why I might call on Mark Lane for legal advice. But it would make no sense for a LNer to do the same. Why would they, if everything he says is wrong?
I need to ask, what does someone who doesn't believe a word Mark Lane said find convincing?
Posner is definitely still around. Why don't you write him a repectful email and ask for an answer?
55+ years and you dumb fucks STILL can't close the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome'.
Now *THAT*fact tells the tale. What the hell is the matter with you?
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
need someone to burp you, poopsie? Other side of the story is a bitch, isn't it?
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 14:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Nope. I'm comparing the error in appealing to "historically accepted null hypotheses," and accepting them as fact.
Burden shifting. My pointing out that the null--Oswald alone, no known help--is the response to your inability to articulate any cogent case negating that historic truth.
I see we're back to appealing to "historic truth" after we just went over why that is fallacious with modern-day examples. Good to see nothing is getting through.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only several thousand books have been written on the subject of their inadequacy.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
You, of course, knew this.
Twisting words and glossing over people's points en route to snide mockery is EXACTLY what they do. You are just like them. You are indistinguishable.
Na, these clowns would agree with you if, in fact, any of them are bright enough to know who Oswald was or could name the event that happened on 11-22-63. You are indistinguishable from them.
Indistinguishable from who? Antifa doesn't exist.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
No wonder you have a soft spot for him.
I thought you said I believed he was complicit in the assassination?
Doesn't mean you don't have a soft spot for him.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by b***@gmail.com
See how you lie?
See how you avoid addressing your lie?
And we're back to arguing to argue.
No. Liars lie out of necessity. In this case, you wouldn't do it unless you needed to, unless you were forced to preserve a narrative that makes you feel safe.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Put forward your entire JFK assassination theory--especially the part about Oswald's complicity--and let's see how it stands up against the Oswald Alone, no known help narrative.
More than three bullets fired. That's all I need. And you can keep your screenwriting exercise.
Boris: "Something else happened, somehow."
Almost 57 years of this, folks.
And they wonder why historians laugh at them.
You know what makes me laugh? Gerald Posner being charged with plagiarism, and hiring Mark Lane to defend him. If you were in legal trouble, would you trust someone that you knew to be wrong about everything? That's got to be one of the greatest ironies in the history of the courts. Ell-oh-ell.
Perhaps you should turn it around and ask why Mark Lane would represent Gerald Posner. Ell-oh-Ell.
b***@gmail.com
2020-07-13 16:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Perhaps you should turn it around and ask why Mark Lane would represent Gerald Posner. Ell-oh-Ell.
Because in America there is something called a right to counsel? Or maybe Lane just pitied him. Like I pity rescue animals.
Ben Holmes
2020-07-13 14:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Note to Boris: if you want to CHANGE the narrative, you need a
conspiracy you can articulate that leaves fewer questions remaining
than the WC version of the event. Get busy.
That might be hard. The WC left so few questions remaining that only
several thousand books have been written on the subject of their
inadequacy.
Ouch!
Loading...