Huckster Sienzant Blatantly Lies...

[Ben Holmes]

"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.

Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
fact that the WCR flat lied.

There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

And Huckster knows this to be a fact.

Yet he's willing to blatantly lie.

This fact tells you all you need to know about Huckster.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.

Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
fact that the WCR flat lied.
There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

Using what standard?

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Post by Ben Holmes
And Huckster knows this to be a fact.
Yet he's willing to blatantly lie.
This fact tells you all you need to know about Huckster.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".

The old double-standard again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 03:41:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
The old double-standard again.

You can't argue with morons... They're much better at stupidity than
you are.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 03:41:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
The old double-standard again.

You can't argue with morons... They're much better at stupidity than
you are.

I’ve been learning that. But you could have mentioned it sooner. Having been a conspiracy theorist myself decades ago, I have seen these arguments for conspiracy multiple times and know the inherent flaws. I always assumed other CTs would be willing to listen to the facts and learn from my mistakes, but it appears some CTs are just too wedded to their beliefs to let the facts get in their way.

So you delete my points, and the evidence I cite, and Gil simply ignores all that. “Don’t confuse me with the facts” appears to be your’s and Gil’s motto.

Neither one of you are willing to actually discuss the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

I’ve been learning that.

But not this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
I’ve been learning that.

Ben ignores the below. Of course.

Where judged *credible*.

Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, especially when eyewitnesses contradict each other. It’s up to the trier of fact (typically the jury) to make that determination in a criminal or civil trial about what eyewitnesses are credible and which aren’t.

The Commission found them not credible. They said that.

That doesn’t make them liars, as you claim.

You have reached a different conclusion, fine. What makes your opinion more valuable and accurate than the determination by the Commission, most of whom were lawyers with years of trial experience (Earl Warren, for example, was a prosecutor in California before he became a judge).

By all means, share your experience in American jurisprudence so we can judge who is better qualified to make that determination about which witnesses are credible and which aren’t.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:15:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

I’ve been learning that.

Ben ignores...
I’ve been learning that.

But not this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".

Ben said this...

"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

This is where the concept came from. Then Ben cries when the concept is explored.

Post by Gil Jesus
The old double-standard again.

It isn`t a double standard when you are talking about two different things.

The WC conducted an investigation for the purpose of producing findings.

When Ben was talking about (although he will likely lie and deny) was what is accepted into evidence. But even erroneous information is accepted into evidence, being accepted into evidence isn`t the standard for validity or veracity.

But these arte ideas, and this is reasoning, something you and Ben are incapable of.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

And this is merely a fact. (Huckster lied about it, and you remained
silent.)

Just as true as the fact that you can't answer this:

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

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t. It is accepted as evidence, but not credible evidence. It is up to the jury to decide how credible each witness is. On an individual basis, after hearing that person’s testimony, in court, under oath. All that is important to judging the credibility of a witness, iti is not simply bestowed upon a witness because he is a witness, that’s the point I made initially, and that you continue to ignore.

You want to ignore all those important distinctions and just pretend all eyewitness testimony is credible, merely because it comes from an eyewitness: “And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.”

I said the above initially, and repeatedly since.

You just continue to do an another fringe reset, and beat the same dead horse as if this was never addressed.

Addressed in 2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ

Addressed in 2021:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/IahGceB1AAAJ

Addressed in 2023:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0EEXKPBDVIk/m/T8pku2BMAwAJ

I responded other times as well. You continue with your pretense that this is some issue where the Commission lied, and I have not addressed this. Make sure to bring it up again when I’m no longer around to expose your perfidy here.

It won’t change the facts any.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Nor can cowardice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies in the below, that you deleted from my response, ignored, and ran from:
== quote ==
No, it doesn’t. It is accepted as evidence, but not credible evidence. It is up to the jury to decide how credible each witness is. On an individual basis, after hearing that person’s testimony, in court, under oath. All that is important to judging the credibility of a witness, iti is not simply bestowed upon a witness because he is a witness, that’s the point I made initially, and that you continue to ignore.

You want to ignore all those important distinctions and just pretend all eyewitness testimony is credible, merely because it comes from an eyewitness: “And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying.”

I said the above initially, and repeatedly since.

You just continue to do an another fringe reset, and beat the same dead horse as if this was never addressed.

Addressed in 2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ

Addressed in 2021:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/5j1CpnJsfoY/m/IahGceB1AAAJ

Addressed in 2023:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0EEXKPBDVIk/m/T8pku2BMAwAJ

I responded other times as well. You continue with your pretense that this is some issue where the Commission lied, and I have not addressed this. Make sure to bring it up again when I’m no longer around to expose your perfidy here.

It won’t change the facts any.
== unquote ==
Speaking of cowardice, why are you constantly deleting my responses on the topic under discussion,, ignoring my points, running from the topic under discussion, and desperately trying to change the subject to something I explained months ago, as you again do below?

Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
you've NEVER supported.

And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?

Let's not forget:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.

Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, especially when eyewitnesses contradict each other. It’s up to the trier of fact (typically the jury) to make that determination in a criminal or civil trial about what eyewitnesses are credible and which aren’t.

The Commission found them not credible. They said that.

That doesn’t make them liars, as you claim.

You have reached a different conclusion, fine. What makes your opinion more valuable and accurate than the determination by the Commission, most of whom were lawyers with years of trial experience (Earl Warren, for example, was a prosecutor in California before he became a judge).

By all means, share your experience in American jurisprudence so we can judge who is better qualified to make that determination about which witnesses are credible and which aren’t.

Post by Ben Holmes
Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
you've NEVER supported.

Supported multiple times, including again immediately above.

Post by Ben Holmes
And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?

Calling me a coward is simple ad hominem, and you wouldn’t resort to this if you had anything substantial.
Ben changing the subject again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...

You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.

Just as you've been running from this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Thousand of people were found not guilty because eyewitness testimony was not accepted as credible.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Where judged *credible*.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...
You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.

Eyewitness testimony has no default value of credibility, making Ben`s whole argument meaningless.

But as Chucks points out, he argues to argue.

Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:56:59 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this...

You didn’t. And won’t, because it destroys your argument.

Post by Ben Holmes
or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...

False dichotomy logical fallacy. You’re funny, you think if you never said “Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, somehow that means I must be molesting my grandmother. I don’t know what combination of confusion and idiocy led you to that argument, but it’s got to be the most bizarre I have ever read in discussing the JFK assassination.

Post by Ben Holmes
You're such a despicable slimebag...

And when stuck, Ben resorts to his old standbys, ad hominem, as above,

Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:22:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this...

You didn’t.

Then you're a liar to imply that I did - and argue based on something
that not only I never said, but that you can't quote me saying.

In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!

You're a sick sick man... get help!

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:22:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Bud
Ben said this...
"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this...

You didn’t.

Then you're a liar to imply that I did

Your inference is not my implication. That’s entirely on you.

Post by Ben Holmes
- and argue based on something
that not only I never said, but that you can't quote me saying.

Which is exactly what you are doing here. You draw an inference, pretend it’s what I meant, and argue against something I never said. So your above complaint is projection on your part.

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Sick, aren't you?

And CLEARLY a coward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".

Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".

Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Post by Ben Holmes
Sick, aren't you?

You certainly are.

Post by Ben Holmes
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

Coward too!

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

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

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

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

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

You were making a distinction where none exists an then crying like you are some victim who has been wronged.

Post by Ben Holmes
Coward too!
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...

Just like you can't figure out what Bugliosi said:

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

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

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

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

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...

I did. It was a distinction without a difference.

Post by Ben Holmes
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!
You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".
Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".
Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...

Just like you can't figure out what Bugliosi said:

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

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
The old double-standard again.

It’s *your* double standard, Gil.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:08:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".
The old double-standard again.

As well as cowardice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:25:16 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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