Jack Ruby Implicates LBJ While Hank Sienzant Quotes Ruby Saying The Opposite

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Thus contradicting what he just said to Gil about dismissing everything a proven liar has said. Hank just loves twisting that blade in JFK's back!

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Thus contradicting what he just said to Gil about dismissing everything a proven liar has said. Hank just loves twisting that blade in JFK's back! http://youtu.be/4tmTGXL1qn4

If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

And if he is a proven perjuror, then Mcclung was wrong to list him as someone with “Absolute Credibility” here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/_IV0UJWanws/m/Xt5zabjTEK4J

Right?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by NoTrueFlags Here
Thus contradicting what he just said to Gil about dismissing everything a proven liar has said. Hank just loves twisting that blade in JFK's back! http://youtu.be/4tmTGXL1qn4

If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/_IV0UJWanws/m/Xt5zabjTEK4J
Right?

Why do you hate JFK? Did he bang your mother?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Here ya go:
Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.
http://youtu.be/70kIINe4cbs

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

You know you're responding to Hank, right ?
Hank's the one talking about Ruby's perjury.
I posted the video in response to the thread topic. ( Ruby implicates LBJ )

Idiot.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

You know you're responding to Hank, right ?
Hank's the one talking about Ruby's perjury.
I posted the video in response to the thread topic. ( Ruby implicates LBJ )
Idiot.

Yes, I accidentally clicked on Hank's post rather than yours. BFD.

You posted the video in response to Hank's request for evidence that Ruby was a proven perjuror. Explain how an unsworn
statement made by Ruby to reporters is evidence he is a proven perjuror. Or did you accidentally click on Hank's post too?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:42:25 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett

If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

You know you're responding to Hank, right ?
Hank's the one talking about Ruby's perjury.
I posted the video in response to the thread topic. ( Ruby implicates LBJ )
Idiot.

Yes.

Nothing need be added.

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

You know you're responding to Hank, right ?
Hank's the one talking about Ruby's perjury.
I posted the video in response to the thread topic. ( Ruby implicates LBJ )

Do you know what the word "implicates" means? Can you show how it applies in this case?

Post by Gil Jesus
Idiot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:46:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury? If I were you,
I would contact that correspondence law school you got your legal training from and demand your money back.

You know you're responding to Hank, right ?
Hank's the one talking about Ruby's perjury.
I posted the video in response to the thread topic. ( Ruby implicates LBJ )
Idiot.

No, you responded directly to my post asking for evidence that Ruby was a perjurer.

This was the exchange:
== quote ==

Post by Gil Jesus
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Here ya go:
Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.

http://youtu.be/70kIINe4cbs
== unquote ==

What exactly did you mean by “Here ya go:” in the above, Gil?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 18:48:09 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:22:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.
http://youtu.be/70kIINe4cbs

You think an opinion ...

Only morons keep trying to label their lies "opinions."

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 05:22:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Hank Sienzant
If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.
http://youtu.be/70kIINe4cbs

You think an opinion ...

Only morons keep trying to label their lies "opinions."

Here’s the fuller quote, Ben, that you excised and turned into a strawman logical fallacy”
“You think an opinion expressed by Ruby in an unsworn statement to reporters is evidence of perjury?”

The opinion under discussion above is Ruby’s. Try to follow the conversation a little better.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 3 Dec 2023 18:53:22 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 02:48:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

If Ruby’s a proven perjuror, I'd love to see the evidence. When do you intend to post it here?

Jack Ruby tells reporters that if the Far Left liberal Adlai Stevenson had been Vice-President, Kennedy would never have been assassinated
and that the reason why he was, was because the right-wing Deep State preferred Johnson.
http://youtu.be/70kIINe4cbs

Let's not forget his lying during the lie detector tests that the HSCA
pointed out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 22:04:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?