The Truth That WCR Believers Run From... #20 (Watch Huckster Sienzant's Cowardice!)

[Ben Holmes]

My Scenario - The Conclusion

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.


So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?

There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.

This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.

And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.

It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.

The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.

Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.

But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.

For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.

Something he'll never do.

Nor can Huckster Sienzant...

Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.

And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...

Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.

Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.

CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.

And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.

Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.

Just as Chuckles lost.

Just as Davy Von Penis lost.

(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Another perfect prediction... Huckster read this, and ran screaming
for the hills...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Chickenshit admits he lost.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Chickenshit admits he lost.

Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

No conspiracy hobbyist ever will.

This is just a fact, and your gish gallop doesn`t impact this fact in the least.

[Ben Holmes]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Chickenshit admits he lost.

Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Yet you can't cite *ONE* of them.

Much like you can't answer this:

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

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

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

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

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Chickenshit admits he lost.

Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Yet you can't cite *ONE* of them.

Look at what you removed, you`ll find a recent example.

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:22:56 -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.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Bud
Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Prove it.

Post by Bud
You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

Prove it.

Post by Bud
The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

Prove it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:58:49 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Prove it.

A simple cite to where it's been done before would be the proof... but
we'll never see such a cite.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

Prove it.

He can't.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

Prove it.

Chickenshit can't.

Indeed, polling shows that he's failed.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:58:49 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Prove it.

A simple cite to where it's been done before would be the proof... but
we'll never see such a cite.

You have many times. You just aren`t man enough to admit it.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

Prove it.

He can't.

I have.

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

Prove it.

Chickenshit can't.
Indeed, polling shows that he's failed.

I doubt any polling has been done on your fringe reset.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:34:53 -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.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Prove it.

I did that when I addressed many times in the past.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

Prove it.

Check the archive, with your stellar reaearch abilities you should be able to find that challenge that was put to the CTers in this forum.

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Bud
The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

Prove it.

Available online. You scour through it looking for support for your wacky idea that Oswald was innocent.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:32:29 -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.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.

Strawman.



I've done

Post by Ben Holmes
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President.

Begging the question.

Team Oswald has never shown that what happened in Dealey Plaza wasn't a one-off lone nut.



I then showed that the Warren Commission had

Post by Ben Holmes
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness...

In the sane world of 1963/1964, where math wasn't racist and a boy was a boy and a girl was a girl, there was no doubt Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC, and killed JDT. The question revolved around how it happened and whether Oswald had any confederates or was put up to it. In the insane bubble you occupy with Fish Part Messiah, Oswald is an American tragic-hero, wrongly railroaded for a crime he was absolutely innocent of. Oswald was a "true" patsy who didn't fire at the motorcade or even shoot Tippit. This is an insane position. Even your fellow hobbyists like The Toilet and Gentleman Don Willis believe Oswald was up-to-his-neck complicit in the assassination. You and Gil have staked out a position on the far, far, fringes of the conspiracy hobby. You guys are the 911 Truther hobby version of the 911 "No Planers" who are a fringe element of the 911 Truther hobby. No Planers believe no planes hit the Pentagon or WTCs and that the wreckage of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania was carted there later.

Because you are afflicted with the disease of conspiracism, you do not see how insane your ideas are. Like today's gender confused teenage girl who looks in the mirror and sees herself as a boy, you and Gil look in the mirror and see yourselves as reasonable Investigooglers on the trail of the assassins. You're not.


and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**

Post by Ben Holmes
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll.

There is no strong evidence for anything other than shots from above and behind. This was true then and true today and will be true 100 years from now.


I went on to show that the original medical opinion

Post by Ben Holmes
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK.

Opinion. The autopsy showed otherwise.


I then demonstrated

Post by Ben Holmes
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally.

Lied or off by a fraction of a second in light of newer analysis over the decades?

And you think the Z film was altered, so why call their conclusions a lie if they're looking at an altered film?


I then demonstrated that there's

Post by Ben Holmes
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT.

There is evidence of a transit, but you don't accept it. You do you.


I then

Post by Ben Holmes
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one.

Dr. Ben Holmes. Lol.


I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid

Post by Ben Holmes
chain of custody.

Endlessly discussed here, and no I'm not going to sift through the hundreds of threads and posts that you'll say don't "prove you wrong" to your unique satisfaction.


In the last three posts, I showed how one of the

Post by Ben Holmes
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence.

Addressed over and over.


The last post showed provable alteration of an

Post by Ben Holmes
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Yawn. Same old Ben. All hat, no cattle.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:30:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.

Strawman.

You should look up what a "strawman" is. This is a declarative
assertion that *I CAN* match anything that a believer can post.

So no, it's not a "strawman"... and coming from someone who REFUSES to
post a scenario, it's quite cowardly as well.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I've done so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President.

Begging the question.

No stupid, I stated a FACT. One that you can't refute. Calling it
"begging the question" doesn't change the fact that the WC never
investigated the previous attempts on JFK's life.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Team Oswald...

Logical fallacy deleted.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I then showed that the Warren Commission had their "conclusions"
in written form before they interviewed a single witness...

In the sane world of 1963/1964, where math wasn't racist and a boy
was a boy and a girl was a girl, there was no doubt Oswald killed JFK,
wounded JBC, and killed JDT.

Polling shows that you're lying.

Why don't you stop with the logical fallacies, and try to support your
empty claims with evidence?

Post by Chuck Schuyler
The question revolved around how it happened and whether Oswald had
any confederates or was put up to it.

Begging the question.


I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll.

There is no strong evidence for anything other than shots from above
and behind. This was true then and true today and will be true 100
years from now.

Both a logical fallacy, AND an outright lie.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK.

Opinion. The autopsy showed otherwise.

The Autopsy was opinion... and it was **NOT** aware of the neck wound
as anything other than a trach wound.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally.

Lied or off by a fraction of a second in light of newer analysis over the decades?

Lied. The WC dealt with frame numbers just as we do today.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
And you think the Z film was altered, so why call their conclusions a lie if they're looking at an altered film?

Because **YOU** have no options when you believe the film to be
authentic.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT.

There is evidence of a transit, but you don't accept it. You do you.

Begging the question. Chuckles is TERRIFIED of citing this
"evidence," or more likely... doesn't know what it is...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I then demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one.

Ad hominem deleted.

Chuckles couldn't refute my synopsis anymore than he could refute the
actual argument made...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody.

Endlessly discussed here, and no I'm not going to sift through the
hundreds of threads and posts that you'll say don't "prove you wrong"
to your unique satisfaction.

Yet another begging the question fallacy. Chuckles can't refute what
I said...

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence.

Addressed over and over.

Yet you'll never cite even *ONE* response that refuted what the
evidence pointed out.

You can't.

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.

ROTFLMAO!!! Chuckles had nothing to say!!!

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Ben Holmes
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.
Something he'll never do.
Nor can Huckster Sienzant...
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.
And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...
Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.
Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.
CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.
Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.
Just as Chuckles lost.
Just as Davy Von Penis lost.
(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Yawn. Same old Ben. All hat, no cattle.

Yawn... same old Cowardice... oops, I meant "Chuckles."

Not a single relevant refutation in sight... only vague logical
fallacies...

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:30:22 PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< his usual mental tirade >

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual mental tirade >
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Your "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" hobby rants have been endlessly addressed, Johnny Cochrane. There was no chance of a trial after Oswald's murder unless Team Oswald produced a different suspect or member of your still undefined conspiracy to put on trial. Clay Shaw was acquitted in an hour or so, and that's been it.

Put on your big boy pants and make an argument in favor of what happened that day, and stop pretending Oswald's attorney would've gotten him off somehow in court.

And IF Oswald had survived Ruby's shot and was acquitted at trial, what would've happened then?

If your answer is that the case would've been reinvestigated, it WAS reinvestigated in the late 70s, and Oswald was still found to be the perp, and the acoustic proof of a fourth shot from the knoll was dismissed.

Should it be reinvestigated every year? Every five years?

And what stopped Team Oswald all of these years from trying to put together a better case? Why didn't Team Oswald run their own shooting tests? Perform their own recreations to show how JFK's body could've been hijacked for a so-called secret autopsy? Attempt to "alter" film similar to what Zapruder used to show how the Z film was supposedly changed?

These things never happened because they are HOBBY KILLERS, and that's all this is: a hobby. Stamp collectors can't have a stamp collection without stamps, and you can't have endless JFK assassination scenarios if the scenarios have been shown TO YOUR SATISFACTION to be false, hence Team Oswald has no desire to run tests, put forward a specific scenario, etc.

P.S. I've spent a lot of time looking at your website. I even forwarded your "research" to the research department here:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/

Apparently they weren't impressed enough to get in touch with you.

I wonder why.

Face it Gil, you're a fringe player involved in a sixty-plus year old hobby. When the last Baby Boomers are gone, this dies, just like collecting stamps has largely died, and just like collecting beer cans or Beanie Babies has largely died. My involvement here has been for my own amusement, your involvement here is because you feel you're an important "voice" speaking up for Oswald's innocence. Good grief.

You're delusional, and yes I admit I derive amusement over your Dunning-Kruger inability to recognize your shortcomings. It's fascinating, because you seem fairly normal when you get off the topic of JFK. To me, this is more proof that there is no reasoning with the truly conspiracism-afflicted.

It isn't Oswald alone or a conspiracy, Gil; it's Oswald alone or a SPECIFIC conspiracy. Team Oswald has yet to put one forward to compare against the Oswald Alone historical null hypothesis. And at this board, you're running out of time because I won't pay a dime to post here.

Tic, toc, tic, toc. Time is running out for you to show us what you have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:44:59 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual mental tirade >
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Logical fallacies & speculations deleted.

No evidence to answer... no citations... no nothing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:33:14 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus
< his usual mental tirade >
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Chuckles is probably the most ignorant believer in this forum - he
literally doesn't know where Dealey Plaza is located. Or the
difference between Bethesda & Parkland.

[Gil Jesus]

Chuckles is probably the most ignorant believer in this forum - he literally doesn't know where Dealey Plaza is located. Or the difference between Bethesda & Parkland.

That explains why he acts like a 10 year old and every one of his posts involve insults and childish name calling.
He's trying to distract from the fact that he doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

I agree that he's probabaly the most worthless piece of shit who posts here because he NEVER posts evidence.
He's a proven liar and an asshole who serves no other purpose than to give everybody shit.
Not worth my time or the sweat off my balls.
Glad he's killfiltered.