Discussion:
Huckster Said It - Let's See How True It Is...
(too old to reply)
Ben Holmes
2023-12-22 16:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Huckster claimed: "Ben, like many other posters here, avoids
discussing the evidence and instead resorts to the logical fallacy of
ad hominem. And spamming the group. He says the evidence is on his
side, but where the rubber meets the road, he avoids every opportunity
to discuss the evidence."

Let's see how true that is...


The Post Henry Is Afraid To Read Or Respond To:

I asked for the following statement to be analyzed by believers:

"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He
was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who
came up to him and asked for his clearance. 'Clearance?' said the
corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took away his camera, exposed
all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.)
'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said. The FBI
photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He
had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body's interior
were out of focus ... Before the President was buried, no one, either
in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and
back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the
throat ... ." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a
Medical Examiner", pg. 10-11

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale refused to answer, Patty refused to answer, only Henry managed
enough courage to post a response.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The cowardice exhibited by believers in this forum is incredible...
they are CONSTANTLY running ... every single one of them ... even
Henry, who *did*, to his credit, offer his analysis. So now it's time
Sure. Baden wasn't there, so he is repeating hearsay for the most
part. Who was there who said all this and why don't you quote some
actual testimony instead of hearsay? let's go through that statement
sentence by sentence and see how much Baden can actually confirm by
claiming he witnessed it."
This, of course, is very poor analysis indeed... Henry is presuming
that Dr. Baden is being used as evidence... but refuses to LOOK AT
WHAT IS BEING SAID.

Or, more accurately, Henry *KNOWS* that what Dr. Baden is saying is
garbage, but is unwilling to correct Dr. Baden - who is a fellow
believer.

Nor was Henry ever concerned with the use of Dr. Baden as an expert.
Here's a few examples from Lil Dale:

"Read especially Dr. Baden's quote - it annihilates Ben's entire set
of beliefs."

"Dr. Baden exposes your little charade, doesn't he?"

"Dr. Baden stated it best: the Parkland doctors were WRONG"

Now, Henry was no-where to be found when Lil Dale was citing Dr. Baden
to counter what the Parkland doctors stated - and Henry had nothing to
say about "hearsay" being used to counter first-hand knowledge.

HENRY HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY WHEN DR. BADEN WAS BEING USED AS
AN EXPERT WITNESS TO COUNTER *ACTUAL* EYEWITNESSES!

But *NOW* - when actually quoting Dr. Baden - it's suddenly hearsay.
:)

Perhaps because he knows quite well just how wrong Dr. Baden is on
these statements - and since Dr. Baden is a believer - doesn't wish to
denigrate him.

****************
"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... it's not "hearsay" - it's flat WRONG. The photographer was
John Stringer, who as Dr. Humes pointed out "The medical school's
director of photography was a civilian, John Stringer." - not a
corpsman.

Nor was the implication that the photographer hadn't ever photographed
an autopsy before correct... as Dr. Humes pointed out, Stringer was
"one of the best medical photographers in the world."

So here's two errors OF FACT that Dr. Baden is guilty of... yet you
refer only to this as "hearsay".

****************
"He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent,
who came up to him and asked for his clearance."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... again, IT IS FLAT WRONG. Those familiar with the evidence
know that the Secret Service stopped Stringer's assistant, Floyd
Reibe, not the FBI.

Once again, you know that the statement is false, yet you hide that
fact behind a charge of "hearsay".

****************
" 'Clearance?' said the corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took
away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed
film is in the archive.)"
****************
Hearsay.
Again, it wasn't the FBI... it was the Secret Service. It's not
"hearsay" - it's WRONG.

Ironically, we see here one of the few accuracies that Dr. Baden is
guilty of - the exposing of film.

****************
" 'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... once again, it's WRONG. There was no FBI photographer
there, and you should certainly know that historical fact.

That you try to camouflage Dr. Baden's incorrect statements as
"hearsay" without stating that he was WRONG shows your bias against
the truth.

****************
"The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as
Humes."
****************
Hearsay.
There was no FBI photographer. Dr. Baden was flat wrong. If a critic
were to write a book, and have half the false statements we see here -
you'd go ballistic. But since it's a Warren Commission defender making
these false statements - you refuse to correct him.

****************
"He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry - it's a COMPLETE INVENTION. There was no "FBI Photographer"
- and the photographer who WAS there was "one of the best medical
photographers in the world" - who certainly knew his job.

****************
"The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..."
****************
Did Baden examine the photos of the interior of JFK's body? I
believe so. If so, then, as an expert witness, he can attest to this.
Did he attest to this at any point in testimony? Authors are sometimes
unreliable in what they put into their books --- and might inflate any
given story to change its importance. Books are hearsay, as are
newspaper articles and rumors. But let's grant this is accurate for
the sake of argument."
ROFLMAO!!!

The one point on which you grant Dr. Baden expert status is the one
where he is most OBVIOUSLY lying.

On all the other points, the passage of time could have made his
recollections fuzzy, he can seem to recall someone taking away
someones camera, and confusing the Secret Service with the FBI for
that incident... but Dr. Baden *NEVER* SAW any interior photos, in OR
out of focus... *NONE EXIST*.

And Henry *KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT*

Anyone can view the inventory of photos from 11/10/66 for themselves:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image00.htm

It's quite clear that there's no interior body shots. There's
testimony that they *were* taken, such as Stringer:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image11.htm

Henry also knows that Dr. Humes testified that at least one interior
body photo was taken that isn't found in the collection.

But this information has long been known... Ramsey Clark told LBJ back
in 1967:
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html

So Henry knows quite well that no interior body photos exist in the
record - YET THIS IS THE ONE ISSUE ON WHICH HE'S WILLING TO GRANT DR.
BADEN ACCURACY ON.

Which means that either Henry is ignorant - which, as this is a
longstanding issue known since 1966-67 time-frame seems incredible, or
Henry is intentionally lying.

Tell us Henry, can you cite ANYTHING for your claim that Dr. Baden was
telling the truth about seeing interior body photos of JFK?

(Despite Henry's claim to be able to cite for *HIS* claims, I don't
expect a citation... Henry will run!)

[And indeed, he has run from this... he got caught lying, and has no
defense, and no retraction of his lies are in sight...]


****************
"Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or
Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and
realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat ...
." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a Medical
Examiner", pg. 10-11
****************
Again, hearsay. He wasn't at Parkland in Dallas nor at Bethesda in Washington.
Of course, you know that this is a completely ACCURATE statement.
Perhaps, other than his statement that film had been exposed, the only
statement that Dr. Baden makes that is truthful to history.
So here's the evidence that Baden (at best) can personally testify
to: "The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..." The
rest of it is just hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a trial."
The one point that you allow as truthful is the one point that YOU
KNOW IS A LIE ON DR. BADEN'S PART. Everything else Dr. Baden said
could be simply mixed up memories... After all, this was written many
years later... but you can't 'remember' something that never happened
at all - there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any interior body photographs, and
quite obvious and credible evidence that they don't exist.

So where did Dr. Baden come up with the "out of focus" idea? HE NEVER
SAW ANY SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS... they don't exist.

You can't cite for them. Nor can you pretend that they exist, but are
simply still classified, BECAUSE THE INVENTORY LISTS NO SUCH
PHOTOGRAPHS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what's your point, exactly,
With your help, I just made it.

Dale was afraid (or too ignorant) to answer... Patty refused to
answer... and YOU REFUSED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS UNTRUTH OF MOST OF
THESE STATEMENTS.

THAT was my point, and you helped me make it. I knew IN ADVANCE that
no-one would dare state the obvious - that Dr. Baden was clearly wrong
on so many points in just a short paragraph. The point is that
believers refuse to correct other believers even when it's so
BLAZINGLY obvious...

For example, no-one will step up to the plate and point out to you
that there were MANY Grassy Knoll witnesses that you claim ignorance
of... no-one.

And this is the point.

Honest people don't act this way.

Quite surprisingly, you publicly accepted as truthful the one
statement that has contrary evidence going back to 1966-67.

Now, I'd defy you to produce ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there are
interior body photographs taken of JFK during the autopsy that still
exist somewhere - but I know that would be a meaningless challenge...
you can't produce any evidence, and you know it.

For some strange reason, you thought that a lie about internal body
photos would pass muster.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And we're still waiting for your response. We don't expect an answer
anytime soon. If ever." - and I told you I'd be expecting your apology
for that obviously incorrect statement.
[Note: Henry hasn't apologized or retracted his lie.]

Not that I really EXPECT one... you're notoriously dishonest... but
you and Dale owe me one... because you *KNEW* that I'd answer... and
lied.

It's really more of a telling point that you could think that I
wouldn't respond to a thread I've started. Because you clearly aren't
so dumb as to actually BELIEVE I wouldn't respond. So you were simply
lying when you claimed that you weren't expecting this answer.

Now, would you like to offer any citations for your pretended belief
that interior body photos exist of JFK's autopsy?

Or explain why you were so unwilling to point out what YOU MUST HAVE
KNOWN were incorrect statements on Dr. Baden's part?

[Henry refuses to answer this...]

##################################################

Now, after reading the above - can anyone accept Huckster's claim that
"Ben, like many other posters here, avoids discussing the evidence and
instead resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem. And spamming the
group. He says the evidence is on his side, but where the rubber meets
the road, he avoids every opportunity to discuss the evidence."

Or is it clearly, as proven here... a lie?
Bud
2023-12-23 01:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Huckster claimed: "Ben, like many other posters here, avoids
discussing the evidence and instead resorts to the logical fallacy of
ad hominem. And spamming the group. He says the evidence is on his
side, but where the rubber meets the road, he avoids every opportunity
to discuss the evidence."
Let's see how true that is...
"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases. He
was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent, who
came up to him and asked for his clearance. 'Clearance?' said the
corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took away his camera, exposed
all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed film is in the archive.)
'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said. The FBI
photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He
had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds. The photographs of the body's interior
were out of focus ... Before the President was buried, no one, either
in Dallas or Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and
back, and realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the
throat ... ." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a
Medical Examiner", pg. 10-11
Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
Post by Ben Holmes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dale refused to answer, Patty refused to answer, only Henry managed
enough courage to post a response.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The cowardice exhibited by believers in this forum is incredible...
they are CONSTANTLY running ... every single one of them ... even
Henry, who *did*, to his credit, offer his analysis. So now it's time
Sure. Baden wasn't there, so he is repeating hearsay for the most
part. Who was there who said all this and why don't you quote some
actual testimony instead of hearsay? let's go through that statement
sentence by sentence and see how much Baden can actually confirm by
claiming he witnessed it."
This, of course, is very poor analysis indeed... Henry is presuming
that Dr. Baden is being used as evidence... but refuses to LOOK AT
WHAT IS BEING SAID.
Or, more accurately, Henry *KNOWS* that what Dr. Baden is saying is
garbage, but is unwilling to correct Dr. Baden - who is a fellow
believer.
Nor was Henry ever concerned with the use of Dr. Baden as an expert.
"Read especially Dr. Baden's quote - it annihilates Ben's entire set
of beliefs."
"Dr. Baden exposes your little charade, doesn't he?"
"Dr. Baden stated it best: the Parkland doctors were WRONG"
Now, Henry was no-where to be found when Lil Dale was citing Dr. Baden
to counter what the Parkland doctors stated - and Henry had nothing to
say about "hearsay" being used to counter first-hand knowledge.
HENRY HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO SAY WHEN DR. BADEN WAS BEING USED AS
AN EXPERT WITNESS TO COUNTER *ACTUAL* EYEWITNESSES!
But *NOW* - when actually quoting Dr. Baden - it's suddenly hearsay.
:)
Perhaps because he knows quite well just how wrong Dr. Baden is on
these statements - and since Dr. Baden is a believer - doesn't wish to
denigrate him.
****************
"The [autopsy] photographer was there, the corpsman who usually took
pictures of damaged hearts and cirrhotic livers and other diseases."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... it's not "hearsay" - it's flat WRONG. The photographer was
John Stringer, who as Dr. Humes pointed out "The medical school's
director of photography was a civilian, John Stringer." - not a
corpsman.
Nor was the implication that the photographer hadn't ever photographed
an autopsy before correct... as Dr. Humes pointed out, Stringer was
"one of the best medical photographers in the world."
So here's two errors OF FACT that Dr. Baden is guilty of... yet you
refer only to this as "hearsay".
****************
"He was snapping away when he caught the attention of an FBI agent,
who came up to him and asked for his clearance."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... again, IT IS FLAT WRONG. Those familiar with the evidence
know that the Secret Service stopped Stringer's assistant, Floyd
Reibe, not the FBI.
Once again, you know that the statement is false, yet you hide that
fact behind a charge of "hearsay".
****************
" 'Clearance?' said the corpsman. 'This is my job.' The agent took
away his camera, exposed all the film, and threw him out. (The exposed
film is in the archive.)"
****************
Hearsay.
Again, it wasn't the FBI... it was the Secret Service. It's not
"hearsay" - it's WRONG.
Ironically, we see here one of the few accuracies that Dr. Baden is
guilty of - the exposing of film.
****************
" 'We've got our own man taking pictures,' the FBI agent said."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry... once again, it's WRONG. There was no FBI photographer
there, and you should certainly know that historical fact.
That you try to camouflage Dr. Baden's incorrect statements as
"hearsay" without stating that he was WRONG shows your bias against
the truth.
****************
"The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as
Humes."
****************
Hearsay.
There was no FBI photographer. Dr. Baden was flat wrong. If a critic
were to write a book, and have half the false statements we see here -
you'd go ballistic. But since it's a Warren Commission defender making
these false statements - you refuse to correct him.
****************
"He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in
photographing gunshot wounds."
****************
Hearsay.
No Henry - it's a COMPLETE INVENTION. There was no "FBI Photographer"
- and the photographer who WAS there was "one of the best medical
photographers in the world" - who certainly knew his job.
****************
"The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..."
****************
Did Baden examine the photos of the interior of JFK's body? I
believe so. If so, then, as an expert witness, he can attest to this.
Did he attest to this at any point in testimony? Authors are sometimes
unreliable in what they put into their books --- and might inflate any
given story to change its importance. Books are hearsay, as are
newspaper articles and rumors. But let's grant this is accurate for
the sake of argument."
ROFLMAO!!!
The one point on which you grant Dr. Baden expert status is the one
where he is most OBVIOUSLY lying.
On all the other points, the passage of time could have made his
recollections fuzzy, he can seem to recall someone taking away
someones camera, and confusing the Secret Service with the FBI for
that incident... but Dr. Baden *NEVER* SAW any interior photos, in OR
out of focus... *NONE EXIST*.
And Henry *KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT*
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md13/html/Image00.htm
It's quite clear that there's no interior body shots. There's
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md19/html/Image11.htm
Henry also knows that Dr. Humes testified that at least one interior
body photo was taken that isn't found in the collection.
But this information has long been known... Ramsey Clark told LBJ back
http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html
So Henry knows quite well that no interior body photos exist in the
record - YET THIS IS THE ONE ISSUE ON WHICH HE'S WILLING TO GRANT DR.
BADEN ACCURACY ON.
Which means that either Henry is ignorant - which, as this is a
longstanding issue known since 1966-67 time-frame seems incredible, or
Henry is intentionally lying.
Tell us Henry, can you cite ANYTHING for your claim that Dr. Baden was
telling the truth about seeing interior body photos of JFK?
(Despite Henry's claim to be able to cite for *HIS* claims, I don't
expect a citation... Henry will run!)
[And indeed, he has run from this... he got caught lying, and has no
defense, and no retraction of his lies are in sight...]
****************
"Before the President was buried, no one, either in Dallas or
Washington, looked at both sides of the body, front and back, and
realized that a bullet had entered the back and exited the throat ...
." - Michael Baden "Unnatural Death - Confessions of a Medical
Examiner", pg. 10-11
****************
Again, hearsay. He wasn't at Parkland in Dallas nor at Bethesda in Washington.
Of course, you know that this is a completely ACCURATE statement.
Perhaps, other than his statement that film had been exposed, the only
statement that Dr. Baden makes that is truthful to history.
So here's the evidence that Baden (at best) can personally testify
to: "The photographs of the body's interior were out of focus ..." The
rest of it is just hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in a trial."
The one point that you allow as truthful is the one point that YOU
KNOW IS A LIE ON DR. BADEN'S PART. Everything else Dr. Baden said
could be simply mixed up memories... After all, this was written many
years later... but you can't 'remember' something that never happened
at all - there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any interior body photographs, and
quite obvious and credible evidence that they don't exist.
So where did Dr. Baden come up with the "out of focus" idea? HE NEVER
SAW ANY SUCH PHOTOGRAPHS... they don't exist.
You can't cite for them. Nor can you pretend that they exist, but are
simply still classified, BECAUSE THE INVENTORY LISTS NO SUCH
PHOTOGRAPHS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what's your point, exactly,
With your help, I just made it.
Dale was afraid (or too ignorant) to answer... Patty refused to
answer... and YOU REFUSED TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS UNTRUTH OF MOST OF
THESE STATEMENTS.
THAT was my point, and you helped me make it. I knew IN ADVANCE that
no-one would dare state the obvious - that Dr. Baden was clearly wrong
on so many points in just a short paragraph. The point is that
believers refuse to correct other believers even when it's so
BLAZINGLY obvious...
For example, no-one will step up to the plate and point out to you
that there were MANY Grassy Knoll witnesses that you claim ignorance
of... no-one.
And this is the point.
Honest people don't act this way.
Quite surprisingly, you publicly accepted as truthful the one
statement that has contrary evidence going back to 1966-67.
Now, I'd defy you to produce ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that there are
interior body photographs taken of JFK during the autopsy that still
exist somewhere - but I know that would be a meaningless challenge...
you can't produce any evidence, and you know it.
For some strange reason, you thought that a lie about internal body
photos would pass muster.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And we're still waiting for your response. We don't expect an answer
anytime soon. If ever." - and I told you I'd be expecting your apology
for that obviously incorrect statement.
[Note: Henry hasn't apologized or retracted his lie.]
Not that I really EXPECT one... you're notoriously dishonest... but
you and Dale owe me one... because you *KNEW* that I'd answer... and
lied.
It's really more of a telling point that you could think that I
wouldn't respond to a thread I've started. Because you clearly aren't
so dumb as to actually BELIEVE I wouldn't respond. So you were simply
lying when you claimed that you weren't expecting this answer.
Now, would you like to offer any citations for your pretended belief
that interior body photos exist of JFK's autopsy?
Or explain why you were so unwilling to point out what YOU MUST HAVE
KNOWN were incorrect statements on Dr. Baden's part?
[Henry refuses to answer this...]
##################################################
Now, after reading the above - can anyone accept Huckster's claim that
"Ben, like many other posters here, avoids discussing the evidence and
instead resorts to the logical fallacy of ad hominem. And spamming the
group. He says the evidence is on his side, but where the rubber meets
the road, he avoids every opportunity to discuss the evidence."
Or is it clearly, as proven here... a lie?
Gil Jesus
2023-12-23 10:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
And what exactly were those "findings that this expert produced" ?
Enlighten us.

You'll notice that in every one of his posts, "Bud" posts no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos

To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."
It's obvious to any lurker that "Bud" is not here to debate the evidence.
He's a troll.

"Bud" does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
"Bud" does no research or analytics. He prefers to let others do it for him, then copies their work without double-checking it for accuracy.
What little sources he DOES provide are usually half-wit posters in JFK forums or some off-topic article.
This is what he calls, "looking at the right things".

"Bud" makes up excuses for gaps in the evidence and avoids addressing those issues.
Or as it is referred to in internet terms, he "runs".
Sometimes he "runs" by responding to questions with questions.
Other times, he "runs" by "chickenshitting" word definitions.

What "Bud" considers slickness, the world considers cowardice.
You won't see "Bud" click on any links, because he's afraid of what he will see.
He's afraid of seeing something that will shake his world of magic bullets, moving bullet wounds and revision after revision of the evidence.

And his fear is not limited to what he might see. He's also "chickenshit" of what he might hear.
He's already admitted to going mute like a coward when a fellow employee went on a rant that the CIA killed Kennedy.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ

Why didn't ball-less "Bud" stick up for his beliefs ? Because like all cowards, he was afraid. He didn't say anything because he didn't have the balls to open his mouth in person.
He talks a lot of shit here, where he can hide behind a computer and a keyboard, but he's a pussy in real life.
Then the idiot brags about his cowardice in a post in this newsgroup.

"Bud" thinks his "reasoning" and common sense outweight evidence.
"Bud" thinks analyzing what his "experts" say about the case is "looking at the wrong things", as is any examination of the Warren Commission's case.

"IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" ---The Wizard of Oz.
That's how "Bud" and the other Lone Nutters think.
Don't go looking behind curtains or in dark corners because you might find out the truth --- the emperor has no new clothes and is really naked.

What "Bud" DOES post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.

To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."

"Bud" is a.c.j.'s village idiot.
Bud
2023-12-23 13:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
And what exactly were those "findings that this expert produced" ?
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html
Post by Gil Jesus
Enlighten us.
You'll notice that in every one of his posts, "Bud" posts no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
I included everything I needed for the observation I made, an example.
Post by Gil Jesus
To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."
I`ve already determined what occurred to my satisfaction, stupid. The question is whether you can produce a better understanding of this event, and the answer is "no", you don`t even try, except some vague "the conspiracy was everywhere doing everything, with lots of people on board to make Oswald look guilty".
Post by Gil Jesus
It's obvious to any lurker that "Bud" is not here to debate the evidence.
I don`t even know what you mean by "debate". You are supposed to be posting support for the proposition that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. I then look at what you produce to see if you are looking at things correctly by applying reason and critical thinking. Often I find your ideas to be wanting, you look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly. You contrive reasons to disregard the right things (better supported, more pertinent, give better insight, ect). You give no reason for anyone to have confidence in your ability to process information, weigh evidence, or look at anything correctly.
Post by Gil Jesus
He's a troll.
I have the ability to discuss ideas, something you and Ben lack. When people insist on looking at the right things, you either try to grab the steering wheel and head back towards the wrong things, go silent (you), or remove content (Ben).
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
What the hell are you talking about? Should I "research" whether we landed on the moon? When am an allowed to conclude we did land on the moon, when idiots say so?

There is tons of information about this murder. I`ve looked at much of it. I conclude Oswald killed Kennedy and I see no reason to believe anyone aided him in doing so.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" does no research or analytics. He prefers to let others do it for him, then copies their work without double-checking it for accuracy.
This is how things look to an idiot.
Post by Gil Jesus
What little sources he DOES provide are usually half-wit posters in JFK forums or some off-topic article.
This is how things look to an idiot.
Post by Gil Jesus
This is what he calls, "looking at the right things".
Funny, you call for debate. So I express an idea, you scoff at it, ridicule it but never contest it with anything of substance. Ultimately you run away without ever explaining how the idea I expressed was wrong. Because you or Ben cannot discuss ideas to save your life.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" makes up excuses for gaps in the evidence and avoids addressing those issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Conspiracy hobbyists go the same thing, whether there is a gap, they park "conspiracy" there. Always in the dark, never in the light.
Post by Gil Jesus
Or as it is referred to in internet terms, he "runs".
I look at what you produce. When people challenge what you produce, you disappear. If you think this is me running, you have things backwards.
Post by Gil Jesus
Sometimes he "runs" by responding to questions with questions.
The questions you ask are often flawed. The questions are ask are meant to expose those flaws.
Post by Gil Jesus
Other times, he "runs" by "chickenshitting" word definitions.
You want to change the meanings of words. You want to make "reasoning" mean "speculation", for example. You think reasoned deduction is some evil that must be avoided at all costs. If someone displays actual thinking to the evidence, you and Ben go into a tizzy, cold water must be thrown on this activity, God forbid anyone do any actual thinking in regards to information.
Post by Gil Jesus
What "Bud" considers slickness, the world considers cowardice.
Idiots think they speak for the world. I`d put my thinking up against yours any day of the week.
Post by Gil Jesus
You won't see "Bud" click on any links, because he's afraid of what he will see.
Retard spin. If you link to evidence connected to an argument made here, I will click on the link. If your whole argument exists somewhere else, I won`t. I`ve explained this to you several times, but you are too stupid to grasp the concept.
Post by Gil Jesus
He's afraid of seeing something that will shake his world of magic bullets, moving bullet wounds and revision after revision of the evidence.
Nobody is "afraid" of anything you idiots say. That is a fabrication you idiots are comfortable with, it is a delusion you have chosen to accept.
Post by Gil Jesus
And his fear is not limited to what he might see. He's also "chickenshit" of what he might hear.
Yes, that is why I`ve been coming here for decades, because I am so afraid of what you idiots might say.
Post by Gil Jesus
He's already admitted to going mute like a coward when a fellow employee went on a rant that the CIA killed Kennedy.
And this is what happens to all information that goes into your head, it comes out twisted and distorted.
Post by Gil Jesus
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ
Why didn't ball-less "Bud" stick up for his beliefs ? Because like all cowards, he was afraid. He didn't say anything because he didn't have the balls to open his mouth in person.
He talks a lot of shit here, where he can hide behind a computer and a keyboard, but he's a pussy in real life.
Are you smarter now than the last time I explained this to you?
Post by Gil Jesus
Then the idiot brags about his cowardice in a post in this newsgroup.
I related something that occurred, stupid. You provided your idiot take on it.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" thinks his "reasoning" and common sense outweight evidence.
You get nothing right. I think reasoning should be applied to evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" thinks analyzing what his "experts" say about the case is "looking at the wrong things", as is any examination of the Warren Commission's case.
By looking at the right things I was able to understand these simple crimes. By looking at the wrong things you have yourself completely flummoxed. I think my approach must be the correct one, if I follow your approach I will be as completed confused and clueless as you are.

That was the point of my response to Ben. You have an event you are interested in. You find the autopsy to be flawed. A new investigation appoints a panel of experts to look at the material. You don`t like the findings of that panel, so you set out to contrive reasons to disregard those findings (by looking at the wrong thing, Baden`s book).
Post by Gil Jesus
"IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" ---The Wizard of Oz.
Ignore the monsters under you bed, Gil. They don`t exist.
Post by Gil Jesus
That's how "Bud" and the other Lone Nutters think.
We think. That is the difference.
Post by Gil Jesus
Don't go looking behind curtains or in dark corners because you might find out the truth --- the emperor has no new clothes and is really naked.
That is the claim.
Post by Gil Jesus
What "Bud" DOES post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
Among other things, yes. Sometimes I post ideas.
Post by Gil Jesus
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
I cannot give you my ability to reason, you have to get your own.

Think, Gil, think. You have the conspiracy everywhere doing everything. You have them on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the Paine`s house, 10th and Patton, the basement of the DPD, the boardinghouse, the bus, the Texas Theater, just everywhere, in some cases immediately, doing things in some concerted way. You haven`t shown that this is even possible, or anything even close to this has happened in all of history. A small simple break-in of the Watergate hotel and you had people stepping on their own dicks and the President of the United States couldn`t put the genie back in the bottle. But you feel an operation about a thousand times more complex is plausible. Bullets and shells are removed from evidence, bullets and shells are introduced. All sorts of people coerced to lie. Everybody gets on board with framing the poor patsy. Photos are manufactured overnight of the suspect holding the murder weapon. Fingerprints added. Bullets planted. PO boxes opened, ahead of time. Paperwork altered or manufactured. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of actions. And you are going to feed them to us one at a time, instead of you doing the right thing, and put them together into a cohesive package. But you can`t do that because it would give away the game, that you have put together a huge pile of fantastic things.
Post by Gil Jesus
To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."
Neither you or Ben do care about what occurred. You play silly games, is all.
Post by Gil Jesus
"Bud" is a.c.j.'s village idiot.
When the village idiot can school you on how to think properly, what does that make you?
Ben Holmes
2023-12-26 15:27:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 05:28:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-26 15:27:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 02:22:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
And what exactly were those "findings that this expert produced" ?
Enlighten us.
You'll notice that in every one of his posts, "Bud" posts no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."
It's obvious to any lurker that "Bud" is not here to debate the evidence.
He's a troll.
"Bud" does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
"Bud" does no research or analytics. He prefers to let others do it for him, then copies their work without double-checking it for accuracy.
What little sources he DOES provide are usually half-wit posters in JFK forums or some off-topic article.
This is what he calls, "looking at the right things".
"Bud" makes up excuses for gaps in the evidence and avoids addressing those issues.
Or as it is referred to in internet terms, he "runs".
Sometimes he "runs" by responding to questions with questions.
Other times, he "runs" by "chickenshitting" word definitions.
What "Bud" considers slickness, the world considers cowardice.
You won't see "Bud" click on any links, because he's afraid of what he will see.
He's afraid of seeing something that will shake his world of magic bullets, moving bullet wounds and revision after revision of the evidence.
And his fear is not limited to what he might see. He's also "chickenshit" of what he might hear.
He's already admitted to going mute like a coward when a fellow employee went on a rant that the CIA killed Kennedy.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ
Why didn't ball-less "Bud" stick up for his beliefs ? Because like all cowards, he was afraid. He didn't say anything because he didn't have the balls to open his mouth in person.
He talks a lot of shit here, where he can hide behind a computer and a keyboard, but he's a pussy in real life.
Then the idiot brags about his cowardice in a post in this newsgroup.
"Bud" thinks his "reasoning" and common sense outweight evidence.
"Bud" thinks analyzing what his "experts" say about the case is "looking at the wrong things", as is any examination of the Warren Commission's case.
"IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" ---The Wizard of Oz.
That's how "Bud" and the other Lone Nutters think.
Don't go looking behind curtains or in dark corners because you might find out the truth --- the emperor has no new clothes and is really naked.
What "Bud" DOES post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts.
To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred."
"Bud" is a.c.j.'s village idiot.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/LgegSTe8hBw/m/XQrzTkj3AgAJ
Ben Holmes
2023-12-26 15:27:09 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:40:30 -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.
Loading...