Today is....

[David Drummond]

It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

[David Drummond]

Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

Fucking psyop farm, this place.

[David Drummond]

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.

I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?

But you never tell me, why is that?

Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?

Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:18:15 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Well, that’s the logical fallacy ...

What logical fallacy does cowardice fall under?

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?

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

[David Drummond]

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

I'm trolling idiots.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

I'm trolling idiots.

No, you’re reduced to issuing another logical fallacy.

Ad hominem.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html#:~:text=(Attacking%20the%20person)%3A%20This,who%20is%20making%20the%20argument.

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

Why avoid discussing a theory that has much support among CTs?

[David Drummond]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

I'm trolling idiots.

No, you’re reduced to issuing another logical fallacy.
Ad hominem.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html#:~:text=(Attacking%20the%20person)%3A%20This,who%20is%20making%20the%20argument.
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Why avoid discussing a theory that has much support among CTs?

Interesting. And have you called Roger Craig a kook today?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

I'm trolling idiots.

No, you’re reduced to issuing another logical fallacy.
Ad hominem.
https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html#:~:text=(Attacking%20the%20person)%3A%20This,who%20is%20making%20the%20argument.
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
Why avoid discussing a theory that has much support among CTs?

Interesting. And have you called Roger Craig a kook today?

And here’s the logical fallacy of a red herring.

All this running, no insight offered.

[David Drummond]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond
Interesting. And have you called Roger Craig a kook today?

And here’s the logical fallacy of a red herring.

Nice try.

Post by Hank Sienzant
All this running, no insight offered.

But enough about yourself, let's get back to the topic of why some ad hominem negates a position while some is totally fine.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:09:19 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Interesting. And have you called Roger Craig a kook today?

And here’s the logical fallacy of a red herring.

Nice try.

All this running, no insight offered.

But enough about yourself, let's get back to the topic of why some ad hominem negates a position while some is totally fine.

Watch out! Huckster's the leading expert in this forum for logical
fallacies, both spotting them, and using them.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:09:19 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond
Interesting. And have you called Roger Craig a kook today?

And here’s the logical fallacy of a red herring.

Nice try.

Post by Hank Sienzant
All this running, no insight offered.

But enough about yourself, let's get back to the topic of why some ad hominem negates a position while some is totally fine.

Watch out! Huckster's the leading expert in this forum for logical
fallacies, both spotting them, and using them.

I spot when you use them. And point that out, complete with naming what logical fallacies you are employing.

You call a lot of the arguments, facts, and evidence cited a logical fallacy, and simply dismiss and delete them. You never point out what logical fallacy was employed, because none was — its a dodge you use to simply dismiss valid points.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:00:54 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
...

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
Watch out! Huckster's the leading expert in this forum for logical
fallacies, both spotting them, and using them.

I spot when you use them.

And *NEVER* when you or a fellow believer uses them. That proves your
dishonesty. This following proves your cowardice:

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 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:00:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant
All this running, no insight offered.

How true! 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 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:03:52 -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 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:46:20 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
I'm trolling idiots.

Indeed you are!

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

This doesn't apply to people in receipt of paychecks for defending the LN narrative, like Gerald Posner, Bugliosi, Gary Mack, and Henry Sienzant.

Well, that’s the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Whether I being paid or not (and I'm not), what I am posting is either true or not. Why can you discuss the topic and show what I got wrong by citing the evidence? But you don't go that route, it's a constant stream of logical fallacies from you.
I've asked before, as you seem to be knowledgeable about these paychecks, where do I go to sign up to get paid for what I'm doing now for free?
But you never tell me, why is that?
Alternately, you're just making an assumption you have no evidence for because it fits your world view. Is this also how you decided upon a conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Please advise why you won't discuss Lifton’s theory, which has serious flaws that render his theory nonsensical.

He thinks this forum, the participation by lone assassin believers, is a "psyop" operation undertaken by, well I guess the CIA. Then he says you're being paid. Again I guess by "the CIA". Then to put a conspiracy cherry on his nut cake he says the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying Trump was an act of the "deep state."
But gosh, it's unfair to call him a kook.
More important, you forgot to forward your 10% to me this month. It's Christmas and I need it for some gifts.

I'm trolling idiots.

Oh, you're just fooling. I guess this mean I won't get my 10%?
Right, I'm the idiot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:34:08 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

Post by Steven Galbraith
Oh, you're just fooling. I guess this mean I won't get my 10%?
Right, I'm the idiot.

Indeed true.

[David Drummond]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Steven Galbraith
Right, I'm the idiot.

Indeed true.

They're not honest very often...but when they are they really nail it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:40:28 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Steven Galbraith
Right, I'm the idiot.

Indeed true.

They're not honest very often...but when they are they really nail it.

Don't worry, he'll tell you he was joking. (A favorite tactic of
Huckster)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:38:07 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

He thinks this forum...

Logical fallacy deleted.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

Yes. These people don't exist in real life, just on the interspooks.

[Bud]

Post by NoTrueFlags Here

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

Yes. These people don't exist in real life, just on the interspooks.

THEY don`t care what you think. Nobody does, not even you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 03:58:35 -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.

[BT George]

Post by NoTrueFlags Here

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

Yes. These people don't exist in real life, just on the interspooks.

No. We mostly realize that the majority of people don't *really* care, and it takes far more energy to educate them than it's worth, so as often as not we roll our eyes and avoid the discussion unless we are asked or feel the person might actually care. CT Kooks will tend to crow without prompting, confident that most of the a masses either agree with them (by default) or don't care enough to engage and refute. Hence the exaggerated impression is left that *true* belief in conspiracy is widespread, and there are not very many who see through the silliness.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

And they seem to follow the CIA's 1967 directive on "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" almost to a "T".

[David Drummond]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

And they seem to follow the CIA's 1967 directive on "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" almost to a "T".

Hi Gil. Merry Christmas to yourself and Ben!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:01:23 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

And they seem to follow the CIA's 1967 directive on "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" almost to a "T".

Hi Gil. Merry Christmas to yourself and Ben!

And it *IS* a Merry Christmas! Corbutt has ran... and with Google's
new policy, most of the other kooks will be leaving too!

[Gil Jesus]

Post by David Drummond
Hi Gil. Merry Christmas to yourself and Ben!

Merry Christmas to you and your family as well and best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:49:09 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David Drummond
Hi Gil. Merry Christmas to yourself and Ben!

Merry Christmas to you and your family as well and best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year.

I should jump in too! Merry Chrismas Gil & David! (Although,
Corbutt's already given us a present, more to come!)

[Bud]

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

A lot of people seem to think something fishy happened. Doesn`t translate into anything specific.

Post by David Drummond
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

When people are asked who killed Kennedy, Oswald tops the list.

Post by David Drummond
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

I suppose you find that more satisfying than the truth.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 03:57:17 -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.

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by Bud

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

A lot of people seem to think something fishy happened. Doesn`t translate into anything specific.

Post by David Drummond
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

When people are asked who killed Kennedy, Oswald tops the list.

Post by David Drummond
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

I suppose you find that more satisfying than the truth.

Of all of the strange ideas the JFK conspiracy addled mind promotes the one that argues this (this place?) is a psyop and that there are disinformation agents out here covering up the assassination is near the top of my lengthy list (the JFK body alteration claim can't be topped). This is the same person, David Drumond, who says the media covered up what actually happened - Operation Mockingbird and all that - while simultaneously citing the abuses and conspiracies by the government, e.g., Watergate, the Family Jewels, et cetera to prove that the government can act corruptly (yes, we all know that).
So how did we learn about these abuses, these other conspiracies? From the same media he says was controlled by the CIA. In this world, the CIA covered up the murder of JFK but let the media destroy it through their reports on their abuses in other areas. Why would they do that? It's completely illogical. But in conspiracy world it doesn't have to make sense it just has to support their conspiracy.
And with that, as with John, let's move on. Good luck, Bud. Really enjoyed your sense of humor.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 07:51:38 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

Post by Steven Galbraith
Of all of the strange ideas the JFK conspiracy addled mind promotes the one that argues this (this place?) is a psyop and that there are disinformation agents out here covering up the assassination is near the top of my lengthy list (the JFK body alteration claim can't be topped). This is the same person, David Drumond, who says the media covered up what actually happened - Operation Mockingbird and all that - while simultaneously citing the abuses and conspiracies by the government, e.g., Watergate, the Family Jewels, et cetera to prove that the government can act corruptly (yes, we all know that).
So how did we learn about these abuses, these other conspiracies? From the same media he says was controlled by the CIA. In this world, the CIA covered up the murder of JFK but let the media destroy it through their reports on their abuses in other areas. Why would they do that? It's completely illogical. But in conspiracy world it doesn't have to make sense it just has to support their conspiracy.
And with that, as with John, let's move on. Good luck, Bud. Really enjoyed your sense of humor.

Ah! The coward who likes to sputter - but refuses to defend his kooky
ideas...

[Bud]

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by Bud

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

A lot of people seem to think something fishy happened. Doesn`t translate into anything specific.

Post by David Drummond
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

When people are asked who killed Kennedy, Oswald tops the list.

Post by David Drummond
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

I suppose you find that more satisfying than the truth.

Of all of the strange ideas the JFK conspiracy addled mind promotes the one that argues this (this place?) is a psyop and that there are disinformation agents out here covering up the assassination is near the top of my lengthy list (the JFK body alteration claim can't be topped). This is the same person, David Drumond, who says the media covered up what actually happened - Operation Mockingbird and all that - while simultaneously citing the abuses and conspiracies by the government, e.g., Watergate, the Family Jewels, et cetera to prove that the government can act corruptly (yes, we all know that).
So how did we learn about these abuses, these other conspiracies? From the same media he says was controlled by the CIA. In this world, the CIA covered up the murder of JFK but let the media destroy it through their reports on their abuses in other areas. Why would they do that? It's completely illogical. But in conspiracy world it doesn't have to make sense it just has to support their conspiracy.
And with that, as with John, let's move on. Good luck, Bud. Really enjoyed your sense of humor.

Thanks. I enjoyed reading your input. But I have a few more weeks, I intend to ride this horse till it drops. I think people are leaving prematurely (posting for me seems to have settled down some), I`m thinking of composing a submittal outlining all the bad thinking conspiracy folks traffic in. I have about 8-9 weeks to put it together I figure (but there is a good chance I might not bother).

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:21:55 -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 David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

Where on earth did you find five people who were well-versed in the case evidence?

Remember this crime happened 60 years ago. Most of the people alive today weren't even born when this crime was committed. The vast majority of those alive now aren't conversant with the evidence and never will be. There is a small group of people with the assassination as an interest. So they congregate online. We see that everywhere, there are online groups to discuss everything under the sun.

And yet you somehow think that it's suspicious that some other people — with the same interest but who disagree with your conclusions — find a group that discusses the assassination and contribute their thoughts?

[David Drummond]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Where on earth did you find five people who were well-versed in the case evidence?

Nowhere, I made them up, because obviously Henry is the only one left on earth who knows anything about the JFK assassination.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Remember this crime happened 60 years ago. Most of the people alive today weren't even born when this crime was committed. The vast majority of those alive now aren't conversant with the evidence and never will be.

Add "historian" to the list of words not in Henry's vocabulary.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Where on earth did you find five people who were well-versed in the case evidence?

Nowhere, I made them up, because obviously Henry is the only one left on earth who knows anything about the JFK assassination.

More appeal to ridicule. Still a logical fallacy.

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Remember this crime happened 60 years ago. Most of the people alive today weren't even born when this crime was committed. The vast majority of those alive now aren't conversant with the evidence and never will be.

Add "historian" to the list of words not in Henry's vocabulary.

Why? What does the JFK library say about the assassination?

You deleted the exchange that started this. Why?

Let me add it back.

You wrote: “Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone. Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here. Fucking psyop farm, this place.“

I replied:
“ Remember this crime happened 60 years ago. Most of the people alive today weren't even born when this crime was committed. The vast majority of those alive now aren't conversant with the evidence and never will be. There is a small group of people with the assassination as an interest. So they congregate online. We see that everywhere, there are online groups to discuss everything under the sun.

And yet you somehow think that it's suspicious that some other people — with the same interest but who disagree with your conclusions — find a group that discusses the assassination and contribute their thoughts?”

What exactly do you find compelling enough to believe we’re all (or mostly) ‘spooks’?

What exactly is your evidence of that? That we disagree with you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:22:28 -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?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
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?

Avoid the topic you yourself to introduced much?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:35:58 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Ben Holmes
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:22:28 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
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?

Avoid the topic you yourself to introduced much?

You can keep proving your cowardice, but I think it's already far too
established.

So why do you keep proving your cowardice over and over again?

[David Drummond]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Let me add it back.
You wrote: “Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone. Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here. Fucking psyop farm, this place.“

I'll concede, Henry. I don't think any LNer in this place is well-versed in the case evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:57:01 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Let me add it back.
You wrote: “Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone. Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here. Fucking psyop farm, this place.“

I'll concede, Henry. I don't think any LNer in this place is well-versed in the case evidence.

Huckster proves it daily... He can't cite any evidence for the
prosectors dissecting the throat wound - yet he absolutely REFUSES to
state that they didn't.

Huckster Sienzant is simply a coward.

And a proven liar.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Let me add it back.
You wrote: “Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone. Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here. Fucking psyop farm, this place.“

I'll concede, Henry. I don't think any LNer in this place is well-versed in the case evidence.

Then why won't you discuss the Lifton Theory with me? According to you, you should be able to establish in short order Lifton’s theory is reasonable and makes perfect sense.

But yet you, Ben, NTF, and Gil have all declined to engage in any discussion of Lifton’s theory.

All Ben has been reduced to is spamming the board and issuing ad hominems — he’s called me a liar and a coward — but curiously, he refuses to discuss the topic he himself brought up here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/pytXqrXhAAAJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 14:38:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

Then why won't you discuss...

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?

[David Drummond]

Post by Hank Sienzant
Then why won't you discuss the Lifton Theory with me?

I already did. I said it doesn't matter what he said; all that matters is there was at least one shooter in the front. And it doesn't take Lifton to prove that.

Post by Hank Sienzant
According to you, you should be able to establish in short order Lifton’s theory is reasonable and makes perfect sense.

lol "according to me"...I haven't mentioned him once.

And I don't know why you think you can browbeat me into discussing a theory that was raised several days before I even got here. As you like to say, I'll respond to any post I want, when I want, if I want. And you can put any theory you want on trial, either Lifton's or Douglas Horne or Mark Lane or Harrison Livingstone or the proctologist that twice monthly has to surgically remove the stick from your ass. It doesn't matter who's correct and who's not. All that has to be correct is there were more than three shots fired. And the fact is many bullets/shells were found in DP:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/9pPHYlVUIls/m/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ

Not all of them had to be used in the assassination. Just one. But as Ben would say...Anything more than that, and you've lost.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:01:15 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Then why won't you discuss the Lifton Theory with me?

I already did. I said it doesn't matter what he said; all that matters is there was at least one shooter in the front. And it doesn't take Lifton to prove that.

He doesn't want to discuss the "Lifton theory" - he wants you to
refute what *HE* calls the "Lifton theory."

But he refuses to cite for it.

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
According to you, you should be able to establish in short order Lifton’s theory is reasonable and makes perfect sense.

lol "according to me"...I haven't mentioned him once.

I find it funny that Huckster is trying to force you into a debate on
HIS terms - he's quite famous for running from any topic and any post
that he doesn't care to respond to.

He even runs from HIS OWN WORDS!

Post by David Drummond
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/9pPHYlVUIls/m/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ
Not all of them had to be used in the assassination. Just one. But as Ben would say...Anything more than that, and you've lost.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by David Drummond

Post by Hank Sienzant
Let me add it back.
You wrote: “Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone. Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here. Fucking psyop farm, this place.“

I'll concede, Henry. I don't think any LNer in this place is well-versed in the case evidence.

Then why won't you discuss the Lifton Theory with me? According to you, you should be able to establish in short order Lifton’s theory is reasonable and makes perfect sense.
But yet you, Ben, NTF, and Gil have all declined to engage in any discussion of Lifton’s theory.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/pytXqrXhAAAJ

Hank needs somebody to defend Lifton's theory as if it is their own. JFK was shot from the front. That's my theory because that's what the Zapruder film shows and that's what the Parkland doctors said regarding the wounds, not because of anything Lifton said. So I don't need to defend Lifton's theory. Meanwhile, Hank refuses to defend his own idiotic theory because he doesn't have one; he just accepts a theory that doesn't need to be proven because it is the "historical truth theory." This is Hank Logic.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Hank Sienzant
But yet you, Ben, NTF, and Gil have all declined to engage in any discussion of Lifton’s theory.

I decline because I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is the first I've heard that Lifton had a theory that all the shooters were in front of the car.
I don't know anything about it, I haven't studied it and ( unlike you ) I prefer not to discuss things I haven't studied or have no knowledge of.
Most of my research is on the evidence in the case against Oswald.

What's next ?
The theory that Greer turned around and shot Kennedy ?
The theory that Hickey shot Kennedy ?
The theory that the Mafia killed Kennedy ?
The theory that the Russians did it ?
The theory that is was Castro ?
What about the theory that Jackie had JFK killed ?

You see, I don't get involved in theories, just like I don't get involved in interpretations of pictures.
Interpreting pictures is like a Rorschach test: different people can see different things.
All it is is a rabbit hole and I don't go down those.

So pardon me if I excuse myself from your little debate about Lifton's theory.
It's just not something I know anything about.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 05:03:45 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

But yet you, Ben, NTF, and Gil have all declined to engage in any discussion of Lifton’s theory.

I decline because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Surprising nobody at all - Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite for
this mythical "Lifton theory."

It simply is, what he *SAYS* it is.

I call him a liar.

Post by Gil Jesus
This is the first I've heard that Lifton had a theory that all the shooters were in front of the car.
I don't know anything about it, I haven't studied it and ( unlike you ) I prefer not to discuss things I haven't studied or have no knowledge of.
Most of my research is on the evidence in the case against Oswald.
What's next ?
The theory that Greer turned around and shot Kennedy ?
The theory that Hickey shot Kennedy ?
The theory that the Mafia killed Kennedy ?
The theory that the Russians did it ?
The theory that is was Castro ?
What about the theory that Jackie had JFK killed ?
You see, I don't get involved in theories, just like I don't get involved in interpretations of pictures.
Interpreting pictures is like a Rorschach test: different people can see different things.
All it is is a rabbit hole and I don't go down those.
So pardon me if I excuse myself from your little debate about Lifton's theory.
It's just not something I know anything about.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:15:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

And yet you somehow think...

That you're a coward... yes:

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?

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

At least you believe Oswald was complicit.

Post by David Drummond
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

This place was fun. Too bad it's going away. I had many a laugh here. Lots of interesting characters, like you, Boris the Truther. You once leaked a little mouse-fart of a comment to Hank that you believed Oswald was complicit. You quickly shut up. Are you thinking it would've been the death penalty for Oswald or just life in prison?

Ben thinks JFK's body was hijacked for a secret autopsy, and in contrast to your view, Ben holds that Oswald was not complicit at all: a true patsy.

No True Flags, a/k/a Sky Throne and many other aliases, believes Oswald shot at JFK's motorcade from the infamous grassy knoll and hustled back into the TSBD. He also believes Tippit was murdered in Dealey Plaza. He is my favorite CT of All-Time.

Gentleman Don Willis believes Oswald was likely at least one of the assassins firing from--get this--the TSBD FIFTH floor, and for reasons Don can't explain, the evidence of the shooting from this floor was trundled up to the sixth floor.

Gil fantasizes about being Oswald's Johnny Cochrane and getting Oswald "off" on various technicalities, despite the many reminders to Gil that we don't try dead people for crimes in the Untied States.

Post by David Drummond
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

Indeed. Unintentionally funny--as you frequently have been over the years--but this place is indeed a psyop farm.

You're all different captains on different ships carrying different cargo in different directions to different ports on different oceans, yet you all pretend to be part of the same convoy: Team Oswald. You and the other harmless CTs here are afflicted with the disease of conspiracism. You'll never recognize it in yourself, but that's what you have.

None of you has ever really had an interest in "solving" what to Team Oswald is the biggest historical Rubik's Cube of All-Time, which always fascinated me. Gil has even said as much. None of you seem to even care how different each of your own views is from your co-conspiracists. You can't all be right: this only happened ONE WAY. You are all conspiracy intersectional allies, fighting for justice for JFK against the White Supremacy of the Oswald Alone historical narrative.

You guys have had DECADES to run firing tests, recreate the motorcade route and try firing bullets through the limo windshield, and on and on. Nothing. Nada. Zip. More proof that this is a hobby--the assassination is a prism to discuss other political events, current events and so on--and not a quest for truth.


Merry Christmas.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 21:01:09 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by David Drummond
Funny thing is based on my travels and people I've met, I've found it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to find five people on earth who are both well-versed in this case evidence AND believe LHO acted alone.

At least you believe Oswald was complicit.

Is that what you got out of that sentence?

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by David Drummond
Yet there are like a dozen of them all converged here.

This place was fun. Too bad it's going away.

Only for those too cheap to be able to pay.

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Ben thinks JFK's body was hijacked for a secret autopsy...

You agree.

The fact that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite the evidence for what time
JFK's body arrived at Bethesda shows that you know you can't go
against the evidence.

Coward, aren't you?

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by David Drummond
Fucking psyop farm, this place.

Indeed. Unintentionally funny--as you frequently have been over the years--but this place is indeed a psyop farm.

You clearly don't have any idea of what the definition of a "psyop"
farm is.

[David Drummond]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Chuck Schuyler
This place was fun. Too bad it's going away.

Only for those too cheap to be able to pay.

Henry will still be here. He can write the cost off as a work expense.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 07:32:07 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Chuck Schuyler
This place was fun. Too bad it's going away.

Only for those too cheap to be able to pay.

Henry will still be here. He can write the cost off as a work expense.

Sadly, that won't change his cowardice & lying...

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Gil fantasizes about being Oswald's Johnny Cochrane and getting Oswald "off" on various technicalities, despite the many reminders to Gil that we don't try dead people for crimes in the Untied States.

But haven't you proclaimed Oswald as "historically guilty " ?
And you came to that conclusion after the Warren Commission "tried" him in the court of public opinion after he was dead.
You can't have it both ways.

Remember those 19 men who were convicted by Henry Wade ? Weren't they also "historically guilty" by your standards ?
And yet their convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791

I don't care about technicalities. The conduct of the police in this case is consistent with their framing an innocent man for crimes he did not commit.
And I'd say that if it were the assassination of JFK and the murder of J.D. Tippit, or the theft of some chicken out of a barnyard.
Those 19 wrongful convictions prove that this wasn't the only case in which they framed the suspects.

John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs."
"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys." ( ibid. )

They weren't interested in convicting the right person, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN CONVICTING THE PERSON THEY ARRESTED.
That's why when Oswald was arrested in the theater, one of the cops yelled out, "Kill the President will you ?" ( 7 H 6 )
They didn't know he killed the President, but he was the guy they were arresting and he was the guy ( in their minds ) who was going to be guilty.
This is the way they did business. They called it "police work".

In 2005, Craig Watkins was elected DA in Dallas County. He said, "Clearly it was a culture. A lot of folks don't want to admit it. It was there" ( ibid. )

So blow it out your ass, Chuck. There are REAL problems with this case, not the least of which has to do with the credibility of the police and the DA.

There are problems with the way the authorities handled Oswald.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the evidence.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the witnesses.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the autopsy.

Add to that the problem that the authorities seemed to be, "historically guilty" of framing innocent defendants.

They arrested the wrong guy and let Ruby kill him before it could be proven in court.
Then the FBI took over the investgation and covered up that fact.

Boy you Lone Nutters are really blind. You can't see the forest for the trees.

[David Healy]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Gil fantasizes about being Oswald's Johnny Cochrane and getting Oswald "off" on various technicalities, despite the many reminders to Gil that we don't try dead people for crimes in the Untied States.

But haven't you proclaimed Oswald as "historically guilty " ?
And you came to that conclusion after the Warren Commission "tried" him in the court of public opinion after he was dead.
You can't have it both ways.
Remember those 19 men who were convicted by Henry Wade ? Weren't they also "historically guilty" by your standards ?
And yet their convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't care about technicalities. The conduct of the police in this case is consistent with their framing an innocent man for crimes he did not commit.
And I'd say that if it were the assassination of JFK and the murder of J.D. Tippit, or the theft of some chicken out of a barnyard.
Those 19 wrongful convictions prove that this wasn't the only case in which they framed the suspects.
John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs."
"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys." ( ibid. )
They weren't interested in convicting the right person, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN CONVICTING THE PERSON THEY ARRESTED.
That's why when Oswald was arrested in the theater, one of the cops yelled out, "Kill the President will you ?" ( 7 H 6 )
They didn't know he killed the President, but he was the guy they were arresting and he was the guy ( in their minds ) who was going to be guilty.
This is the way they did business. They called it "police work".
In 2005, Craig Watkins was elected DA in Dallas County. He said, "Clearly it was a culture. A lot of folks don't want to admit it. It was there" ( ibid. )
So blow it out your ass, Chuck. There are REAL problems with this case, not the least of which has to do with the credibility of the police and the DA.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled Oswald.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the evidence.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the witnesses.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the autopsy.
Add to that the problem that the authorities seemed to be, "historically guilty" of framing innocent defendants.
They arrested the wrong guy and let Ruby kill him before it could be proven in court.
Then the FBI took over the investgation and covered up that fact.
Boy you Lone Nutters are really blind. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Oh-my-goodness Chuckles, you've been literally undressed here... shame on you - shame on lone nuts everywhere... what a public showing your clown squad has achieved. And after all these years, between Gil and Ben, you and the rest of the neutter brigade of 5 haven't stood a chance, Dude.... where is Gary Mack and Dale *Wanna See My Emmy Myers when you need hime eh? rotflmfao... Merry Christmas!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 09:36:15 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Gil fantasizes about being Oswald's Johnny Cochrane and getting Oswald "off" on various technicalities, despite the many reminders to Gil that we don't try dead people for crimes in the Untied States.

But haven't you proclaimed Oswald as "historically guilty " ?
And you came to that conclusion after the Warren Commission "tried" him in the court of public opinion after he was dead.
You can't have it both ways.
Remember those 19 men who were convicted by Henry Wade ? Weren't they also "historically guilty" by your standards ?
And yet their convictions were overturned on DNA evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
I don't care about technicalities. The conduct of the police in this case is consistent with their framing an innocent man for crimes he did not commit.
And I'd say that if it were the assassination of JFK and the murder of J.D. Tippit, or the theft of some chicken out of a barnyard.
Those 19 wrongful convictions prove that this wasn't the only case in which they framed the suspects.
John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs."
"When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys." ( ibid. )
They weren't interested in convicting the right person, THEY WERE INTERESTED IN CONVICTING THE PERSON THEY ARRESTED.
That's why when Oswald was arrested in the theater, one of the cops yelled out, "Kill the President will you ?" ( 7 H 6 )
They didn't know he killed the President, but he was the guy they were arresting and he was the guy ( in their minds ) who was going to be guilty.
This is the way they did business. They called it "police work".
In 2005, Craig Watkins was elected DA in Dallas County. He said, "Clearly it was a culture. A lot of folks don't want to admit it. It was there" ( ibid. )
So blow it out your ass, Chuck. There are REAL problems with this case, not the least of which has to do with the credibility of the police and the DA.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled Oswald.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the evidence.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the witnesses.
There are problems with the way the authorities handled the autopsy.
Add to that the problem that the authorities seemed to be, "historically guilty" of framing innocent defendants.
They arrested the wrong guy and let Ruby kill him before it could be proven in court.
Then the FBI took over the investgation and covered up that fact.
Boy you Lone Nutters are really blind. You can't see the forest for the trees.

And what's truly amusing is that believers can't admit a *SINGLE*
error on the part of the DPD, WC, FBI, SS, etc... *particularly* the
WCR.

And that fact tells the tale.

That, and the fact that Chuckles can't cite for his claims, of course.

[Bud]

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Polls show that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to believe Oswald killed Kennedy.

They teach critical thinking in many college courses.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 03:52:50 -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.

[David Drummond]

Post by Bud
Polls show that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to believe Oswald killed Kennedy.
They teach critical thinking in many college courses.

A moron apparently unfamiliar with the recent Claudine Gay/Harvard scandal pops into the chat to once again demonstrate what the value of higher education is worth.

[Bud]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Bud
Polls show that the more education a person has, the more likely they are to believe Oswald killed Kennedy.
They teach critical thinking in many college courses.

A moron apparently unfamiliar with the recent Claudine Gay/Harvard scandal pops into the chat to once again demonstrate what the value of higher education is worth.

A moron unable to think critically offers an unsupportable "this means this" argument.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:11:30 -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.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:36:20 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yes, while it's true that conservatives in general care more about
truth (while liberals care more about feelings), I wouldn't put a
political spin on this - as people from all sides of the aisle accept
a conspiracy in this case.

Good to see you back!

[David Drummond]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yes, while it's true that conservatives in general care more about
truth (while liberals care more about feelings), I wouldn't put a
political spin on this - as people from all sides of the aisle accept
a conspiracy in this case.
Good to see you back!

Very true, it's just that in the year 2023 (ie., in a post-Trump landscape) conservatives should have a more personal understanding of how the Deep State can target an enemy, and the power of flooding the mainstream with misinformation narrative. Some Liberals may be able to see it, but they're not experiencing it because they're not currently the target.

Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 07:59:50 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yes, while it's true that conservatives in general care more about
truth (while liberals care more about feelings), I wouldn't put a
political spin on this - as people from all sides of the aisle accept
a conspiracy in this case.
Good to see you back!

Very true, it's just that in the year 2023 (ie., in a post-Trump landscape) conservatives should have a more personal understanding of how the Deep State can target an enemy, and the power of flooding the mainstream with misinformation narrative. Some Liberals may be able to see it, but they're not experiencing it because they're not currently the target.
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

Colorado is demonstrating that liberals are afraid of the vote.

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yes, while it's true that conservatives in general care more about
truth (while liberals care more about feelings), I wouldn't put a
political spin on this - as people from all sides of the aisle accept
a conspiracy in this case.
Good to see you back!

Very true, it's just that in the year 2023 (ie., in a post-Trump landscape) conservatives should have a more personal understanding of how the Deep State can target an enemy, and the power of flooding the mainstream with misinformation narrative. Some Liberals may be able to see it, but they're not experiencing it because they're not currently the target.
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:31:58 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by David Drummond
It's December 20, 2023, and it's still a virtual anomaly of nature to be a conservative in this country AND believe LHO acted alone.

Yes, while it's true that conservatives in general care more about
truth (while liberals care more about feelings), I wouldn't put a
political spin on this - as people from all sides of the aisle accept
a conspiracy in this case.
Good to see you back!

Very true, it's just that in the year 2023 (ie., in a post-Trump
landscape) conservatives should have a more personal understanding of
how the Deep State can target an enemy, and the power of flooding the
mainstream with misinformation narrative. Some Liberals may be able to
see it, but they're not experiencing it because they're not currently
the target.
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the
entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see?

Only a moron would think that a state supreme court is not a very
integral part of the power elite. Put any name you want on it.

Post by Steven Galbraith
Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to
cover your dislike of events.

This wacky assertion won't be defended by you at all.

It shows no reasoning whatsoever.


I deleted your logical fallacies.

Post by Steven Galbraith
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down.
And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

\

Quite likely they will. This incredibly stupid reasoning on your part
that something doesn't exist if it gets shut down is beyond stupid!!!

And you'll absolutely refuse to try to defend your kook ideas!

[David Drummond]

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."

Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by David Drummond
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

No he teaches them.
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:52:56 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by David Drummond
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

No he teaches them.
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

[David Drummond]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is scrambling to clean up a public relations mess until they have the institutional support to back them up.

Once their support goes mainstream, they get a lot more brazen. Goes from, "We just want to teach inclusion" to "Yeah, we believe your children can sexually consent; what are you going to do about it?"

The JFK assassination is much the same. Because the public still overwhelmingly believes in a conspiracy, critics still need to be dealt with rather than swept aside and ignored.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a
kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is
scrambling to clean up a public relations mess until they have the
institutional support to back them up.
Once their support goes mainstream, they get a lot more brazen. Goes
from, "We just want to teach inclusion" to "Yeah, we believe your
children can sexually consent; what are you going to do about it?"
The JFK assassination is much the same. Because the public still
overwhelmingly believes in a conspiracy, critics still need to be
dealt with rather than swept aside and ignored.

Fortunately, it's easy to deal with them - you just post facts &
evidence, and keep pointing out their lies & cowardice.

There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in theses forums I've ever seen that
didn't run from something. Indeed, I've been showing for weeks now
specific statements that Chickenshit & Huckster have been running
from.

[Bud]

Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a
kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is
scrambling to clean up a public relations mess until they have the
institutional support to back them up.
Once their support goes mainstream, they get a lot more brazen. Goes
from, "We just want to teach inclusion" to "Yeah, we believe your
children can sexually consent; what are you going to do about it?"
The JFK assassination is much the same. Because the public still
overwhelmingly believes in a conspiracy, critics still need to be
dealt with rather than swept aside and ignored.

Fortunately, it's easy to deal with them - you just post facts &
evidence, and keep pointing out their lies & cowardice.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in theses forums I've ever seen that
didn't run from something. Indeed, I've been showing for weeks now
specific statements that Chickenshit & Huckster have been running
from.

You have your own little world going on, don`t you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:38:03 -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.

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by Bud

Post by Ben Holmes
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:20:47 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a
kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is
scrambling to clean up a public relations mess until they have the
institutional support to back them up.
Once their support goes mainstream, they get a lot more brazen. Goes
from, "We just want to teach inclusion" to "Yeah, we believe your
children can sexually consent; what are you going to do about it?"
The JFK assassination is much the same. Because the public still
overwhelmingly believes in a conspiracy, critics still need to be
dealt with rather than swept aside and ignored.

Fortunately, it's easy to deal with them - you just post facts &
evidence, and keep pointing out their lies & cowardice.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in theses forums I've ever seen that
didn't run from something. Indeed, I've been showing for weeks now
specific statements that Chickenshit & Huckster have been running
from.

You have your own little world going on, don`t you?

They all have their own little world, their own little Rube Goldberg machines that explain things. One says the CIA, another says the Birchers, the Mob, Hoover, the Pentagon. The only way they can process the information on the assassination is through this conspiracy filter. "A" doesn't happen by itself; it must be directed by someone or some thing. There are no innocent events, the government is never incompetent, people never just screw up. No, everything is planned out, controlled.
So we have, again, this odd view that we've discovered that the government engages in conspiracies but that the same media that told us of these conspiracies has covered up the conspiracy behind the assassination. Well, that's goofy as hell but that's the way their world works.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:16:47 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

They all have their own little world...

Logical fallacy deleted.

If you don't know what happened on 11/22/63, then just say so...

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is scrambling to clean up a… mess.

Change ‘kook’ to ‘spook’ and it fits what you you just did. Mote, meet beam. Beam, more.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:26:07 -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?

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Ben Holmes

Post by Gil Jesus
He's one of those college professors who teaches that males can be females, that the earth is really flat and that men can get pregnant.

This would have been a prediction that people would have thought you
were crazy if you'd said this was coming just 20-30 years ago...

I often find when people are so invested in portraying someone as a kook, it's often because the "kook" is correct and the accuser is scrambling to clean up a...mess…

Change ‘kook’ to ‘spook’ and it fits what you just did. Mote, meet beam. Beam, mote.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:31:46 -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?

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

I understood the usage which is why I, in turn, wrote that the ruling to you was some kind of "assassination by state supreme court rulings." It seems that the person having trouble understanding figures of speech is not me.
But I'll repeat again: the idea of yours that this ruling is indicative of some sort of act by the "deep state" to prevent Trump from being elected can only come from a conspiracy confused mind. That would be yours. One that can only understand events they don't like by ascribing them to powerful forces secretly acting behind the stage. That would be yours again.
The framers of the constitution understood that, as Madison said, "men are not angels." They can and will abuse power. So they created a government with checks and balances, different branches, "mechanisms" (as they called it) to prevent that abuse. We have an independent judiciary, Congress, political parties, independent press, et cetera. All of this prevents the type of "deep state" you think exists. The idea that all of this - this bureaucracy and branches and people - could do what you think is absurd. It's a fantasy world. But you seem to like it since it's the only way you can understand the world.

[Steven Galbraith]

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

I understood the usage which is why I, in turn, wrote that the ruling to you was some kind of "assassination by state supreme court rulings." It seems that the person having trouble understanding figures of speech is not me.
But I'll repeat again: the idea of yours that this ruling is indicative of some sort of act by the "deep state" to prevent Trump from being elected can only come from a conspiracy confused mind. That would be yours. One that can only understand events they don't like by ascribing them to powerful forces secretly acting behind the stage. That would be yours again.
The framers of the constitution understood that, as Madison said, "men are not angels." They can and will abuse power. So they created a government with checks and balances, different branches, "mechanisms" (as they called it) to prevent that abuse. We have an independent judiciary, Congress, political parties, independent press, et cetera. All of this prevents the type of "deep state" you think exists. The idea that all of this - this bureaucracy and branches and people - could do what you think is absurd. It's a fantasy world. But you seem to like it since it's the only way you can understand the world.

And to put a bow on this again: Trump lost Colorado in 2020 by 55-40. It's a blue/liberal state. The idea that the "deep state" needed to kick him off the ballot in Colorado to stop his election is completely illogical. He had no chance of winning it. But the confused conspiracy mind can't understand things like this. They can only make sense of the world by filtering it through a conspiracy mindset.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:05:50 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

And to put a bow on this again...

Run coward... RUN!

[David Drummond]

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

I understood the usage which is why I, in turn, wrote that the ruling to you was some kind of "assassination by state supreme court rulings." It seems that the person having trouble understanding figures of speech is not me.
But I'll repeat again: the idea of yours that this ruling is indicative of some sort of act by the "deep state" to prevent Trump from being elected can only come from a conspiracy confused mind. That would be yours. One that can only understand events they don't like by ascribing them to powerful forces secretly acting behind the stage. That would be yours again.
The framers of the constitution understood that, as Madison said, "men are not angels." They can and will abuse power. So they created a government with checks and balances, different branches, "mechanisms" (as they called it) to prevent that abuse. We have an independent judiciary, Congress, political parties, independent press, et cetera. All of this prevents the type of "deep state" you think exists. The idea that all of this - this bureaucracy and branches and people - could do what you think is absurd. It's a fantasy world. But you seem to like it since it's the only way you can understand the world.

Okay, so you understand what an analogy is, you just don't understand the analogy itself.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:11:48 -0800 (PST), David Drummond

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

I understood the usage which is why I, in turn, wrote that the ruling to you was some kind of "assassination by state supreme court rulings." It seems that the person having trouble understanding figures of speech is not me.
But I'll repeat again: the idea of yours that this ruling is indicative of some sort of act by the "deep state" to prevent Trump from being elected can only come from a conspiracy confused mind. That would be yours. One that can only understand events they don't like by ascribing them to powerful forces secretly acting behind the stage. That would be yours again.
The framers of the constitution understood that, as Madison said, "men are not angels." They can and will abuse power. So they created a government with checks and balances, different branches, "mechanisms" (as they called it) to prevent that abuse. We have an independent judiciary, Congress, political parties, independent press, et cetera. All of this prevents the type of "deep state" you think exists. The idea that all of this - this bureaucracy and branches and people - could do what you think is absurd. It's a fantasy world. But you seem to like it since it's the only way you can understand the world.

Okay, so you understand what an analogy is, you just don't understand the analogy itself.

Your goal is to force Steven to stop responding to you. I succeeded
quite easily. You just keep posting facts he can't answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond

Post by Steven Galbraith

Post by David Drummond
Only a conservative would understand that, metaphorically, the entire state of Colorado just became Dealey Plaza.

The Colorado Supreme Court is part of the "deep state"? Is this what you see? Then the phrase "deep state" has no meaning, it's just a slogan to cover your dislike of events. The only way you seem to be able to process information is through your conspiracy mind; things don't happen, events don't take place: no they must be part of some grand design. Hank's being paid, this place is a psyop. Colorado Supremes (four of them) are deep state agents.
Trump will, if this stands, be off the Colorado ballot. He had no chance of winning the state anyway (he lost it in 2020 by 55-40) so how disallowing him on the ballot is part of some "assassination by state supreme court rulings" act is mystifying. But that's what Langley tells me to write.
Second, the US Supreme Court will, I'll suggest, strike this down. And that will be the end of it. So where is the "deep state" then?

Steven chimes in to demonstrate that he doesn't understand the word "metaphorically."
Steven must have gone to one of Bud's aforementioned college courses.

I understood ...

No... you provably didn't.