Discussion:
Watch Chickenshit Run!
(too old to reply)
Ben Holmes
2023-12-01 16:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Bud
2023-12-01 17:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-01 17:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
What did I say, folks? Watch Chickenshit run!
Bud
2023-12-01 17:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
What did I say, folks? Watch Chickenshit run!
Troll response.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-01 18:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
What did I say, folks? Watch Chickenshit run!
Troll response.
Pointing out that you ran isn't a "troll response" - that's merely a
logical fallacy by you.

And AGAIN you've refused to cite any evidence that the prosectors
dissected the wound. Huckster has already stated that they did *NOT*
dissect the throat wound.

Is Huckster Sienzant a liar?
Bud
2023-12-01 18:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
What did I say, folks? Watch Chickenshit run!
Troll response.
Pointing out that you ran isn't a "troll response" - that's merely a
logical fallacy by you.
And AGAIN you've refused to cite any evidence that the prosectors
dissected the wound. Huckster has already stated that they did *NOT*
dissect the throat wound.
Is Huckster Sienzant a liar?
A troll says what?
Ben Holmes
2023-12-01 19:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Already have, troll.
What did I say, folks? Watch Chickenshit run!
Troll response.
Pointing out that you ran isn't a "troll response" - that's merely a
logical fallacy by you.
And AGAIN you've refused to cite any evidence that the prosectors
dissected the wound. Huckster has already stated that they did *NOT*
dissect the throat wound.
Is Huckster Sienzant a liar?
Chickenshit ran again...
Ben Holmes
2023-12-05 18:01:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 08:55:18 -0800, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Chickenshit ran...
Bud
2023-12-05 19:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 01 Dec 2023 08:55:18 -0800, Ben Holmes
Post by Ben Holmes
Can you cite for your claim that the prosector dissected JFK's throat
wound?
Chickenshit ran...
Now I know a troll`s opinion.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-05 19:11:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:07:55 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

Who would believe a coward?

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
2023-12-05 19:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
Who would believe a coward?
Yet you still post your troll opinions.
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
2023-12-05 21:05:01 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:39:29 -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.
Loading...