Ben has strangely decided not to do what he�d said he do: ��match
in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.�

Here's the proof that Huckster's a liar and a coward:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ

Sadly, Huckster refuses to tell us the length of my response in
comparison to the length of his scenario.

He knows I didn't merely "match" it - but far exceeded it.

And although I've not asked him how many cites I gave in comparison to
his (zero) - he certainly won't publicly acknowledge this either.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:21:41 -0800 (PST), Bud <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:31:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Ben has strangely decided not to do what he�d said he do: ��match
in length, detail, and number of citations any scenario posted by a
believer.�

Here's the proof that Huckster's a liar and a coward:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ >>
Sadly, Huckster refuses to tell us the length of my response in
comparison to the length of his scenario.

He knows I didn't merely "match" it - but far exceeded it.

And although I've not asked him how many cites I gave in comparison to
his (zero) - he certainly won't publicly acknowledge this either.

Logical fallacy deleted.

Watch folks, as Huckster ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to point out this logical
fallacy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 03:06:13 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:31:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Here's the proof that Huckster's a liar and a coward:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ >>

Hanky's bought the Warren Commission lies hook, line and sinker.
The fact that he, or anyone else, would support a lie makes them liars as well.

Huckster has a tactic he often uses - when things get too hot for him
in this forum, he disappears for a few weeks. Then comes back and
pretends the posts he can't answer were never made...

Anyone care to bet whether Huckster's going to disappear?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:41:14 -0800 (PST), Bud <[email protected]>
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 15:25:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 6:06:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:31:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Here's the proof that Huckster's a liar and a coward:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/nCl9JI5ZS30/m/YFhGAy_mAgAJ >>>

Hanky's bought the Warren Commission lies hook, line and sinker.
The fact that he, or anyone else, would support a lie makes them liars as well.

So if someone honestly believes something, they are lying if they repeat it?

You honestly believe that the WCR accurately portrayed Mrs. Tice's
testimony?

Clearly you do - because this has been addressed before.

You're clearly a liar.

...

You're simply calling everyone you disagree with a liar.

Au Contraire... we're calling LIARS to be liars.

Here's more proof that you're a liar:

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)