On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
You refuse to even discuss the conflict in the evidence.
So you go ahead and do what cowards and liars do, you know, what you do best----avoid the issue and keep running.
Every time you post, you prove to the world what a useless piece of dog shit you really are and how you bring NOTHING to the table.
While you see yourself as "Sir Slick", the world sees you as a coward and a liar who avoids issue after issue.
Your "body of work" over the years is proof of it. You've already established your reputation.
But I guess as long as there are ball suckers like BT George to feed your inflated ego, you'll be around.
Because you need the admiration of clueless assholes to validate your useless existence.
IOW, the idiots leading the idiots.
And when you're finally dead, you and your LN buddies will have NOTHING to show for the hours and hours of your lives you've wasted here.
Lives without any accomplishments or contributions that were wasted on line commenting and insulting people you don't even know.
Hours and hours cowardly running from the conflicts in the evidence.
Conflicts that should not be, if the case against Oswald was authentic.
Now, will you address the link, or will you continue to run from it ?
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:34:25?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
Folks can hit the link...
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 10:34:35?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
That's an easy one... Chickenshit will continue to run from it.
He's not the only one. None of the Nutters at the EF want to touch it either.
I`ve already addressed it.
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:25:58?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< his usual useless stupid comments and insults >
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
Done.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:ignored that testimony, and repeated the lies you told.
On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 3:37:43?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <[email protected]>No, he never explained anything. He never addressed the subject matter.
wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 4:53:15?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:Never done:
Explain it to ANYBODY'S satisfaction.
Done.
All his first did was to insult me.
I went to where the problem lies. I ignored it`s many manifestations.
I asked him what the link was in reference to and he ran.
I addressed it.
He's too "chickenshit" to look at the link because he's afraid of the truth.
I told the truth.
It shows you how closed-minded these Lone Nutters really are.
There you go, writing reality to suit yourself. It is all you ever do.
These are not reasonable people.
We aren`t the ones playing silly, childish games with the deaths of these men.
These are not people who think for themselves.
I post my original thoughts all the time. They bounce off you.
They're phonies.
https://memeshappen.com/meme/26412/I-cant-hear-you
Reasonable people would see the conflicts in the evidence and ask questions why that was.
Reasonable people wouldn`t immerse themselves in the case evidence looking for difficulties to exploit.
The default for any difficulty is something not explained well, something not seen as a difficulty by the investigators because it really isn`t, a mistake, ect.
You scoff at these, you jump right over them in your desperation to (as Chuck puts it) play spooky music.
You can`t put your collection of gripes into a cohesive package and present them, you can only try to shift that burden to someone else. Pretty soon there will be no one here to play that role for you.
Not these people. They see a conflict and run for the hills.
Ironic. Every time I`ve seen someone address your ideas, you disappear. A few months later you bring up the same things, never touching the points that were raised. In the last couple days I produced testimony that directly refuted what you said. You
information.They have "their truth" and they're secure in it.
Yes, I have confidence in my ability to reason. I`ve never seen someone as bad at it as you are, so why would I defer to you on these things?
Just look at the people who have posted over the years in this forum on both sides of the issue. I have the reasonable people on my side, you have the crackpots. This is no accident.
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
If your ideas are kooky, you will be labeled a kook. Your ideas are so bad, you refuse to string them together with your other bad ideas. Because if you did, your ideas would immediately collapse under the weight you are putting on the available
And neither you or Ben can discuss ideas to save your lives.of gas. Meanwhile we are at the finish line.
You go off road into the weeds, convincing yourself you`ve found a shortcut, despite a clear road available. You`re going in circles in the weeds, but you delude yourself you are making progress. You will be doing donuts in the weeds until you run out
Brewer say he saw Oswald acting squirrelly outside his store. All sorts of things you contrive reasons to disregard so you can make pretend this is some sort of mystery.Ironically, these people are the real "kooks". They're the "sheeple" who believe whatever the government tells them and whatever they see on TV. ( Orwell's "newspeak" )
That is what you are comfortable believing. But we didn`t make Oswald pose with the murder weapon and we don`t make excuses to disregard this. We didn`t make Oswald leave work directly after the assassination to go home and get a gun. We didn`t make
https://www.redbubble.com/i/poster/Sheeple-Its-on-the-TV-so-it-must-be-true-Sheep-by-ArtOfRebellion/78764259.LVTDI
They completely ignore the conflicts in the Commission's own evidence, the negative results of its own tests and the testimony of its own witnesses.
We look at the available information correctly.
They completely ignore witnesses whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses or by the physical evidence.
We look at the available information correctly.
They completely ignore how the prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt,
Oswald never made it to trial.
how the authorities handled Oswald,
You are correct here, they would have never left Oswald have such access to the media as they did with any normal murder. Some sort of misplaced attempt at transparency.
how they handled the evidence,
You refuse to show that they handled chain of possession in a manner that differed from the way they always did. Same with the interrogation. Same with the line-ups.
Until conspiracy hobbyists came along the DPD were handling chain of possession in a flawed manner and none of the defense attorneys in thousands of cases ever thought to make an issue of it.
Dunning Kruger much?
and how they handled the witnesses.
And this is what you need to believe to think Oswald is innocent. All the witnesses who gave evidence implicating Oswald were coerced, and all physical evidence that implicates Oswald was planted, switched, manufactured, ect.
What you do is exactly what a child would do if given the challenge to make an obviously guilty person seem innocent.
https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/
These people really are the "kooky" ones.
You`re delusional. And nobody is ever going to make headway against those delusions, you are too comfortable with them. In your world you fight for Oswald on behalf of Jesus Christ, or whateverthefuck you think you are doing.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought...
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:49:13?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?
No one wants to explain the info in the link.
They all want to talk about something else or cast insults.
These are the people who claim to "know the truth", but can't seem to deal with it.
I'm ignoring any posts from these idiots that doesn't deal with the evidence.
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:44:04?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10:23:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Did you notice, Gil - that if you delete all the logical fallacies, there's nothing that actually addresses what you stated?Anyone who thinks they'll get a straight answer from the idiot posting as "Bud" will surely be disappointed.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7eFTmGHhnw8/m/FslI4ZmyAAAJ
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 5:10:03?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Don't threaten their "truth" or you will be labelled a "kook" or a "conspiracy nut".
Just a thought...
On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 4:53:12?PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
Nah. I have enough CT spam just coming to this place!
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
SMH
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:29:56?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.
They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 11:22:48?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:54:04 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 9:29:56?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
Indeed! But again, this troll was killfiled long ago because he wasn't interested in discussing case evidence... only logical fallacies...
I just set up my new newsreader so I won't be seeing anymore of their foolishness after the 22nd.
They're all killfiled.
I don't have time to waste arguing with people who don't know WTF they're talking about
and are so terrified of the truth that they won't even look at their own evidence.
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence. >https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:45:09?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:31:46 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>> On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
Another coward afraid to look at the evidence. >>>https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075
SMH
Chuckles doesn't know what city or state Dealey Plaza is located in...
Not only do I know what city and state Dealey Plaza is located in...
I even know the difference between a Commission Exhibit and Commission Document.
Ouch.
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to
point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the
years, eh Yellowpants? Remember that gaffe?
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:21:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>> This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied >>>>> about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of >>>>> this case that isn't the evidence itself.Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to >>>>> the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies >>>>> told by the WCR or HSCA.
Maybe because it doesn�t say that. It puts the defect �chiefly in the
parietal�, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage �extends somewhat�into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it�s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
So you simply lie about it. >>>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm >>>
Note that the report references the �more or less intact scalp�, which is what the photo you reference shows.YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!
The statement you refer to is this:
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
answering this post:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Of course it is.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provablyNot one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied
about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of
this case that isn't the evidence itself.
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to
the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies
told by the WCR or HSCA.
Maybe because it doesn�t say that. It puts the defect �chiefly in the parietal�, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage �extends somewhat�into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it�s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
Note that the report references the �more or less intact scalp�, which is what the photo you reference shows.
The fact that Huckster Sienzant ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to support your
wacky understanding prove that either you don't know what you're
talking about, or Huckster doesn't know.
So all you're doing is calling Huckster ignorant.
You are making noise and not addressing a single point I made shows I`m correct.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:21:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 15:52:18 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 3:47:39?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:You're creating a separation that doesn't exist.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 12:22:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>> This is why I'm so interested in the evidence that the WCR provably
lied about - because if you can show that the WCR (and the HSCA) lied >>>>> about their own evidence, there's *NO* foundation for the solution of >>>>> this case that isn't the evidence itself.Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm
When it's proven (as it has been) that the government agencies and
investigations lied about this case - then you have to go straight to >>>>> the evidence and make your *OWN* conclusions... you can't rely on lies >>>>> told by the WCR or HSCA.
Maybe because it doesn�t say that. It puts the defect �chiefly in the
parietal�, which is on top and side of the head. It merely adds that
the damage �extends somewhat�into other areas (occipital and temporal)
but at that point, it�s unclear if the report means the skull bone,
the scalp, or both.
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
The English is blazingly clear... the description of the defect:
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions.
Chiefly in the parietal� which is what the photo shows.
Then a description (and no, it's not "unclear" at all) of *THAT
REGION* just described in the previous sentence:
"In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing
a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
In the region chiefly of the parietal, extending *somewhat* in other areas.
And that�s what the photo shows.
And much is *somewhat*, Ben? Define it for us.
Gil lied and pretended the wound was exclusively in the occipital:
�Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head.�
The autopsy report and the photo puts the wound chiefly in the parietal� the top and side of the head.
You're simply lying about the plain meaning of those two sentences.
What part of �chiefly in the parietal� don�t you and Gil understand?
You know quite well that the BOH photo IS IN OBVIOUS AND DISTINCT
CONTRADICTION to those two sentences in the Autopsy Report.
No, it�s not. The photo shows a head wound chiefly in the parietal...
and the autopsy report says exactly that.
So you simply lie about it. >>>https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm >>>
Note that the report references the �more or less intact scalp�, which is what the photo you reference shows.YOU'RE A DAMNED LIAR!!!
The statement you refer to is this:
"From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:"
From where???
FROM THE APPROXIMATELY 13cm HOLE IN THE SCALP.
The "more or less intact scalp IS SPECIFIED AS *OUTSIDE* OF THE 13cm
HOLE IN JFK'S SCALP (and bone.)
And the hole is visible.
And the �more or less� intact scalp is visible outside of the hole. Exactly as the autopsy report said.
Tell us Huckster - do you really expect anyone capable of reading to
believe your lies?
What lies?
The one Gil told about the large defect being in the back of the head here:
�Not one of the Lone Nutters have accepted my challenge and explained why the autopsy report says there was a 13cm ( 5" ) defect ( hole ) in the back of the President's head�.
That lie?
The evidence of the photo and the autopsy report agree with each other, and with me. The wound was chiefly in the parietal.
In rebuttal, you call me a liar, and below, change the subject. Those are logical fallacies of ad hominem and a red herring.
When you have no evidence, you must resort to that kind of argument to make your case.
Perhaps this explains why you've been ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED of
answering this post:
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?
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 10:28:53?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
No moron, you're lying again. The Autopsy Report makes it clear that
there's a roughly 13cm HOLE in the back of JFK's head... devoid of
scalp and bone. You can't point to any such thing in the BOH photo.
They're faced with a conundrum. Either the autopsy report is wrong, or the BOH photo doesn't represent the President's real wounds.
The only damage to the head in the BOH photo is an open "flap" in the parietal and sphenoid regions, in front of the ear.
There's no defect without scalp in ANY part of the temporal or occipital regions in the BOH photo.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WH_Vol16_980-autopsy-report-3.jpg
And of course, the Dallas doctors said that the BOH photo does NOT represent what they saw that day.
Hanky can cry all he wants, but the evidence is the evidence.
Let him post the evidence that the scalp and bone at the back of the head was intact.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 4:51:58?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Lucky you that your critics will no longer be here after 02/22/24 to point out the endless embarrassing moments you've had here over the years
Another asshole who's only here to insult people.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 5:39:54?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:32:07?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Ben and Gil's conclusions?
On 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza, some people did something.
You've swallowed so many children that everything that comes out of your mouth sounds childish.
What's childish?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 156:47:43 |
| Calls: | 12,093 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,739 |
