Why I Believe the Government's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Conclusion

[Gil Jesus]

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

Click this:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_wc.htm

Get back to me when you’re ready to discuss the case instead of deleting all my points, changing the subject, and calling me names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:56:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:56:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
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?
Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

And another logical fallacy — the change of subject, e.g., a red herring — brought to you by Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:08:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:56:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

What I actually wrote was:

Click this:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_wc.htm

Get back to me when you’re ready to discuss the case instead of deleting all my points, changing the subject, and calling me names.
No, you deleted my points, and changed the subject.

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?
Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:14:24 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Ben Holmes
Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent eyewitnesses.

As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.

Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent eyewitnesses.

As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.
Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

This is another logical fallacy by you, Gil. You would be more persuasive if you actually stuck to summarizing our points accurately instead of making stuff up.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.

https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/

By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

There is another part in there you’re ignoring — we have to also agree with your assessment of the case, then and only then would we be guilty of what you claim. I pointed out an issue I saw with how you assess the case, and you ignored it. You don’t make the flaws in your assessment go away because you ignore them, although Ben seems to think so.

You advanced a flawed argument. Fix the flaws:

You wrote: “The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All witness statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.”

Witnesses recanting statements recorded in affidavits happens plenty of times. You pretend the only place it ever occurred is in the assassination investigation.

For example, Jean Hill was one of those who claimed her Warren Commission testimony was a “pack of lies”. But what recourse did she have? She kept changing her claims over the years, but her original testimony in the Warren Commission volumes as recorded here:
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
(First link)
“I didn’t see any person fire a weapon. … I only heard it”.
Matches closely to the radio and TV interviews she gave on the afternoon of the assassination.

In those initial interviews, she denied seeing any shooter. That’s the truth of the matter. Over the years, her testimony mutated to include seeing a shooter and even seeing him dressed as a police officer.

For example, her biography by Bill Sloan, has this blurb on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Dissenting-Witness-Bill-Sloan/dp/1589806727
“Jean Hill, the "lady in red" in Zapruder's Kennedy assassination film, saw a gunman on the famous grassy knoll on November 22, 1963.”

Those changes in her claims apparently came about because she liked being feted as a “key witness” at conspiracy theorist conventions. But it’s Hill who was telling the lies in those latter stories, as established by her initial interviews.

If you want to solve this crime, all you need to do is stop pretending every statement you like is carved on tablets from Mount Sinai, and every statement that you dislike is falsified by the FBI, the Dallas police, the Warren Commission, the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, etc.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.
There is another part in there you’re ignoring — we have to also agree with your assessment of the case, then and only then would we be guilty of what you claim. I pointed out an issue I saw with how you assess the case, and you ignored it. You don’t make the flaws in your assessment go away because you ignore them, although Ben seems to think so.
You wrote: “The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said.
That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All witness statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.”
Witnesses recanting statements recorded in affidavits happens plenty of times. You pretend the only place it ever occurred is in the assassination investigation.
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
(First link)
“I didn’t see any person fire a weapon. … I only heard it”.
Matches closely to the radio and TV interviews she gave on the afternoon of the assassination.
In those initial interviews, she denied seeing any shooter. That’s the truth of the matter. Over the years, her testimony mutated to include seeing a shooter and even seeing him dressed as a police officer.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Dissenting-Witness-Bill-Sloan/dp/1589806727
“Jean Hill, the "lady in red" in Zapruder's Kennedy assassination film, saw a gunman on the famous grassy knoll on November 22, 1963.”
Those changes in her claims apparently came about because she liked being feted as a “key witness” at conspiracy theorist conventions. But it’s Hill who was telling the lies in those latter stories, as established by her initial interviews.
If you want to solve this crime, all you need to do is stop pretending every statement you like is carved on tablets from Mount Sinai, and every statement that you dislike is falsified by the FBI, the Dallas police, the Warren Commission, the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, etc.

Remember, Gil,
It's YOUR evidence and your argument. It's the evidence you support. Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:23:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

Remember, Huckster,
It's YOUR evidence and your argument. It's the evidence you support.
Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?

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 04:19:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

I do the same thing... you REFUSE to answer 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 04:19:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus
As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.
Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

There is another part in there you’re ignoring — we have to also agree with your assessment of the
case, then and only then would we be guilty of what you claim. I pointed out an issue I saw with
how you assess the case, and you ignored it. You don’t make the flaws in your assessment go
away because you ignore them, although Ben seems to think so.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

What Gil is pointing out is a strawman argument by him. I asked him to cite for his claim that any LN ever said that it’s ok to not interview witnesses, or that said it was ok to warn witnesses to keep their mouths shut. He punted. So do you. CTs make up a boatload of stuff and expect us to disprove it.

Or post a link and expect us to rebut it. Gil is really good at that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:37:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

I do the same thing... you REFUSE to answer 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 12:37:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.
There is another part in there you’re ignoring — we have to also agree with your assessment of the case, then and only then would we be guilty of what you claim. I pointed out an issue I saw with how you assess the case, and you ignored it. You don’t make the flaws in your assessment go away because you ignore them, although Ben seems to think so.
You wrote: “The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said.

That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All witness statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct.”

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Witnesses recanting statements recorded in affidavits happens plenty of times. You pretend the only place it ever occurred is in the assassination investigation.
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
(First link)
“I didn’t see any person fire a weapon. … I only heard it”.

Matches closely to the radio and TV interviews she gave on the afternoon of the assassination.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
In those initial interviews, she denied seeing any shooter. That’s the truth of the matter. Over the years, her testimony mutated to include seeing a shooter and even seeing him dressed as a police officer.

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Dissenting-Witness-Bill-Sloan/dp/1589806727
“Jean Hill, the "lady in red" in Zapruder's Kennedy assassination film, saw a gunman on the famous grassy knoll on November 22, 1963.”

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Those changes in her claims apparently came about because she liked being feted as a “key witness” at conspiracy theorist conventions. But it’s Hill who was telling the lies in those latter stories, as established by her initial interviews.
If you want to solve this crime, all you need to do is stop pretending every statement you like is carved on tablets from Mount Sinai, and every statement that you dislike is falsified by the FBI, the Dallas police, the Warren Commission, the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, etc.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

Asked and answered above. Here it is again: “What Gil is pointing out is a strawman argument by him. I asked him to cite for his claim that any LN ever said that it’s ok to not interview witnesses, or that said it was ok to warn witnesses to keep their mouths shut. He punted. So do you. CTs make up a boatload of stuff and expect us to disprove it. Or post a link and expect us to rebut it. Gil is really good at that.”
Asked and answered months ago. The answer didn’t satisfy you. But no answer short of agreement with your arguments ever does, does it? So do you expect me to change my argument merely to satisfy you? If not, why do you repeat the same points I answered months ago?

You know what they say?

Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

You are doing exactly that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 16:37:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

I do the same thing... you REFUSE to answer 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 Hank Sienzant
Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.

Looking at the wrong things, and looking at them incorrectly is a choice, not a requirement.

Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

You guys have your own little worlds going on.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:36:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 02:48:27 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

He accepts it, BUT HE CAN'T PUBLICLY ADMIT IT HAPPENED!

Because then he'd be obligated to explain why.

And he can't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:19:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent eyewitnesses.

As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.
Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

Notice folks, that Huckster refuses to admit that this happened. He
can't... he's a coward.

As proven by 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?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:44:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent eyewitnesses.

As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.
Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

Not that any believer can publicly *admit* that eyewitnesses were told
to shut up... They simply deny inconvenient facts.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.

Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence, we disagree on how you weigh and utilize it. Your opinion is worthless, as you have no expertise to write about or criticize:
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's tests

Please, tell us of your education and training in the law, in weighing evidence, in interviewing witnesses, and in conducting tests. I’d love to hear that.

I’d be particularly interested in what value you put in recollections made as much as a third of a century after an event and your background in the law. Are they trustworthy recollections, and does the law allow evidence to be admissible even when the chain of custody is broken/incomplete?

For item #1, for example, it might be of value to compare and contrast Dallas in 1963 vs. New Orleans in 1968, but you won’t do that. You can compare and contrast how the authorities in Dallas,TX handled Oswald with how the Ramsey, NJ authorities handled Edgar Smith in Ramsey, NJ in 1957. You can compare the lineups used in 1963 involving Oswald with the lineups used in 1978 involving Ted Bundy. This would enable you to give the reader a more balanced and nuanced approach.

Or you can run screaming from a honest discussion of these issues. Your choice, Gil.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.
THEY DID IT. And it's documented.

But **YOU** will absolutely REFUSE to publicly acknowledge this as the
truth... you will reject the evidence for it.

See how easy it is to prove a liar to be a liar?

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's tests

More lies... Tell us Huckster - on what basis do you discount Gil's
stated expertise?

Please, tell us...

He has. You're simply lying about it. Your cowardice in facing the
evidence is obvious...

For example:

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 Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

Post by Ben Holmes
THEY DID IT. And it's documented.

A statement you make is not evidence.

Post by Ben Holmes
But **YOU** will absolutely REFUSE to publicly acknowledge this as the
truth... you will reject the evidence for it.

You have provided no evidence of this.

Post by Ben Holmes
See how easy it is to prove a liar to be a liar?

I point out the facts. You run from them.
See the above. Delete. Ignore. Repeat.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's tests

More lies... Tell us Huckster - on what basis do you discount Gil's
stated expertise?

It conflicts with the law as I have documented and 1963 procedures. Ergo, he’s wrong.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Hank Sienzant
Please, tell us...

He has.

He has no stated law background. He doesn’t compare to other trials of the era.

Post by Ben Holmes
You're simply lying about it. Your cowardice in facing the
evidence is obvious...

Ad hominem gets you nowhere.

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 Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.

You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

This isn't the first time this topic has come up... you've run ...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts. You run from them.
See the above. Delete. Ignore. Repeat.

And let’s not forget change the subject and call names.

So attempting to discuss the assassination with you goes something like this:

Delete. Ad hominem. Ignore. Red herring. Repeat.

Instead of talking about the assassination, we get responses like this from you, where you merely attempt to insult the other poster and inflame their responses:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/FoZ9ShtbVOU/m/Fq6_g96tAAAJ
— quote —
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!
— unquote —

Or this:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/FoZ9ShtbVOU/m/aGAtNxV8AAAJ
— quote —
Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...

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

You have no interest in discussing the assassination from an evidentiary standpoint.
That’s established by your posts here. You constantly resort to deflecting to personal attacks and changing the subject (ad hominem and red herring logical fallacies).

You lose when you resort to the above instead of responding with rational, reasoned responses based on the evidence.

Whether you realize it or not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:10:36 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.

I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.

Amusingly, you snipped the cite.

Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.
This isn't the first time this topic has come up... you've run ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

CT authors constantly ignore simple explanations and pretend molehills are mountains. They speculate suspicious activity and ignore simpler explanations.

I suspect what happened was a common work-day workaround of the era: typing two versions of the same document in advance of the results coming back while you had time.

This was before WiteOut (created 1966 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wite-Out )
and well before personal computers where you can modify an electronic document and reprint a copy in seconds, so so if you wanted a clean copy, without errors, you typed up the two versions in advance.

Drain then attached the wrong version to the document, and corrected it later, as requested. As Speer notes, Drain was not responsible for the testing. That was done by James Cadigan, who was the FBI’s Questioned Document expert, and testified thusly:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
“In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.”
That was for the sample of paper recovered on 11/22/63 as supplied by Drain.

On 12/1/63 more paper was obtained, this was from a different roll of Depository paper. Cadigan also examined that paper, and compared it to the paper sack found in the Depository on 11/22/63 (Exhibit 142), and concluded:
— quote —
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different---or approximately 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.
— unquote —

Given the testing of two different samples, it’s understandable that drain could make a simple errror and put the wrong memo into the document.

But Drain’s memos are not important, he’s not the expert, he didn’t do the testing. His claims are not admissible (they are hearsay), and again, critics are guilty of looking at the wrong things (hearsay from Drain) and looking at them wrongly (ignoring commonplace workarounds from that era) in their desperate search to get Oswald off the hook.

Cadigan did the testing, and his results are clear and unequivocal.

The paper from the Depository on 11/23/63 matched the bag found in the Depository and the paper from the Depository on 12/1/63 did not.

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?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.
This isn't the first time this topic has come up... you've run ...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

CT authors constantly ignore simple explanations and pretend molehills are mountains. They speculate suspicious activity and ignore simpler explanations.
I suspect what happened was a common work-day workaround of the era: typing two versions of the same document in advance of the results coming back while you had time.
This was before WiteOut (created 1966 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wite-Out )
and well before personal computers where you can modify an electronic document and reprint a copy in seconds, so so if you wanted a clean copy, without errors, you typed up the two versions in advance.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
“In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.”
That was for the sample of paper recovered on 11/22/63 as supplied by Drain.
— quote —
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different---or approximately 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.
— unquote —
Given the testing of two different samples, it’s understandable that drain could make a simple errror and put the wrong memo into the document.
But Drain’s memos are not important, he’s not the expert, he didn’t do the testing. His claims are not admissible (they are hearsay), and again, critics are guilty of looking at the wrong things (hearsay from Drain) and looking at them wrongly (ignoring commonplace workarounds from that era) in their desperate search to get Oswald off the hook.
Cadigan did the testing, and his results are clear and unequivocal.
The paper from the Depository on 11/23/63 matched the bag found in the Depository and the paper from the Depository on 12/1/63 did not.

And of course, this is just a fringe reset by you — where you ignore everything that transpired in the past and bring up atopic anew — as Drain’s memo has been discussed plenty of times:

Here’s one from June of 2021 (2.5 years ago):
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/G9TT4b14ftU/m/EhTGH5AvAAAJ

A fringe reset establishes nothing. And as I pointed out in that thread:

1. As you've admitted, you've got an entire series of over 400 posts asserting that every sentence in RUSH TO JUDGMENT is the god's-honest truth. You can post those any time you wish. You think I have time to rebut them all, given that citing and quoting the actual evidence is time-consuming? Only to see you delete the entire post with "logical fallacy deleted" and ignore my points entirely?

2. You're still trying to shift the burden of proof. In every post (or almost every post) you typically post some assertion (whether from Lane or elsewhere) and challenge me to refute your assertion. When I do, you typically ignore the points made and simply call me a liar and coward. Your burden is not met by simply posting assertions, and then claiming my failure to respond to your liking proves your case, but that's exactly what you're doing time after time.

3. I think Bud calls this the 'crooked game you play'. He's right of course. For example, in the Lane #1 thread you started, you have yet to deal with any of the many conflicts I pointed out between how Lane summarized the Julia Ann Mercer reporting versus what the evidence revealed. You've been failing to deal with that evidence for Lane's perfidy in that threat I'm been pointing out since early May and deleting my responses for nearly that long. You then pretend I haven't met my burden. But I have no burden to meet. Your assertions are yours to prove, not mine to disprove, and my lack of response does not indicate I'm running and certainly doesn't indicate your assertions are true.

Post by Hank Sienzant

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 06:11:57 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.

I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.

Amusingly, you snipped the cite.

Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:57:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.

I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.

Amusingly, you snipped the cite.

Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:57:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.
I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.
Amusingly, you snipped the cite.
Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

I don’t rebut links. I used to, until CTs started playing the “Oh, yeah? Well, what about [insert another link]” game.

If you think there’s evidence in there worth discussing, post it here, and be willing to discuss rationally and civilly.

Of course you won’t. As below, you will resort to ad hominem and red herring logical fallacies.

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 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:16:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:57:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688
Sadly, believers don't click links.
Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence
That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.
I just proved you a liar.
You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.
I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.
Amusingly, you snipped the cite.
Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

I don’t rebut links.

You already did... and you lied in doing so.

Once again, it's a FACT that the FBI was proven to have willingly
changed reports after they were written and disseminated. The cite is
merely the supporting evidence.

You've DENIED that the FBI was willing to change reports... You're
provably a liar.

I used to, until CTs started playing the “Oh, yeah? Well, what about [insert another link]” game.
If you think there’s evidence in there worth discussing, post it here, and be willing to discuss rationally and civilly.

Already done - you simply lied, then ran away.

Of course you won’t. As below, you will resort to ad hominem and red herring logical fallacies.

Anyone notice that Huckster didn't say anything relevant to this case?

All he did was prove yet again that he's a coward and a liar.

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?