Johnny McAdams - Proven Liar...

[Ben Holmes]

I evaluate witnesses on their merits.
If you applied the same standard to JFK witnesses you apply to
scripture, you would reject *all* of them.
So who's being dogmatic?
.John

It's truly amusing that Johnny can say this with a straight face...
since he refuses to name a *SINGLE* eyewitness whom he believes
completely in all their 1963-64 statements concerning the murder of
JFK.

So the *FACT* is... Johnny *DOES* reject all eyewitnesses. He
cherry-picks their testimony to find things that support his faith,
and pretends otherwise.

Now... Johnny refuses to post in an open forum where he cannot control
other people when they refute what he says... so he won't respond
here.

But he *DOES* read these posts... as proven by his occasional 'theft'
of a post to be posted and answered in his censored arena... but
*this* post won't be one of them... anyone care to bet?


[No-one wanted to bet - and if they had, I won.]

[Gil Jesus]

I evaluate witnesses on their merits.
If you applied the same standard to JFK witnesses you apply to scripture, you would reject *all* of them.
So who's being dogmatic?
.John

Dot johnny was a piece of shit who didn't like people.
His final evil act was to screw his very own friends and supporters by failing to have a successor take over his moderated newsgroup, a.a.j.
This is his legacy.
www.prouty.org/mcadams

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes

I evaluate witnesses on their merits.
If you applied the same standard to JFK witnesses you apply to
scripture, you would reject *all* of them.
So who's being dogmatic?
.John

It's truly amusing that Johnny can say this with a straight face...
since he refuses to name a *SINGLE* eyewitness whom he believes
completely in all their 1963-64 statements concerning the murder of
JFK.

He looked at what they said correctly, for what it was, and what it wasn`t. If everyone could do this there would be no assassination conspiracy theorists.

Post by Ben Holmes
So the *FACT* is... Johnny *DOES* reject all eyewitnesses.

You figure. What is that worth?

Post by Ben Holmes
He
cherry-picks their testimony to find things that support his faith,
and pretends otherwise.

Ironic.

Post by Ben Holmes
Now... Johnny refuses to post in an open forum where he cannot control
other people when they refute what he says...

Who decides when something is refuted? Let me guess, you appoint yourself that role.

Post by Ben Holmes
so he won't respond
here.

No discussion of ideas occurs here.

Post by Ben Holmes
But he *DOES* read these posts... as proven by his occasional 'theft'
of a post to be posted and answered in his censored arena... but
*this* post won't be one of them... anyone care to bet?

Nothing of substance to be found in what you wrote. You did what you always do, you blew hot air.

Post by Ben Holmes
[No-one wanted to bet - and if they had, I won.]

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 06:04:50 -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
He looked at what they said correctly, for what it was, and what it wasn`t.

You don't evaluate witnesses on their merits. What does that even mean ? Certain witnesses were above lying ?
You evaluate witnesses based on whether the physical evidence and/or other witnesses corroborate what they say.

Post by Bud
If everyone could do this there would be no assassination conspiracy theorists.

There'd be no "believers" like you. There's too much doubt caused by corroborating evidence.

Post by Bud
Who decides when something is refuted? Let me guess, you appoint yourself that role.

So you appoint McAdams. McAdams appointed himself. That's why his newsgroup was moderated. It was all about what HE wanted.

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
[No-one wanted to bet - and if they had, I won.]

True. Everyone agrees you're a winner.