at 2:26+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOXunRYJIw
excluding the see through suppressor, the fire out the end of the suppressor may be what Lee Bowers meant when he said "there was a flash of light or smoke."
"Railroad Switchman Lee Bowers - Witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy"
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:38:56 PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
"Railroad Switchman Lee Bowers - Witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy"Bowers wasn't the only one who saw smoke. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:55:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:38:56?PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote:
Bowers wasn't the only one who saw smoke.
"Railroad Switchman Lee Bowers - Witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy"
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >> Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:55:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:38:56?PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote: >>>
"Railroad Switchman Lee Bowers - Witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy"Bowers wasn't the only one who saw smoke.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Most people would stop and think about what they said before they
opened their mouth and removed all doubt of their stupidity...
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:17:18?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 07:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 4:55:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:38:56?PM UTC-4, gggg gggg wrote: >>>>>
"Railroad Switchman Lee Bowers - Witness to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy"Bowers wasn't the only one who saw smoke.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Most people would stop and think about what they said before they
opened their mouth and removed all doubt of their stupidity...
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>> Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR
BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and
credible explanation for that smoke.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Bowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a >> rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain >> it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR
BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.Your claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable andYou may begin explaining at any time.
credible explanation for that smoke.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>>>Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a >>>> rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.
No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR
BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you
acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
Your claim, your burden.
What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations ...
rather than jump to the conclusion...
Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and
credible explanation for that smoke.
You may begin explaining at any time.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Bowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back -
from behind...
that means that Bower's account...
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the back from
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the >> existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain >> it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.Your claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
Bowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable andYou may begin explaining at any time.
credible explanation for that smoke.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:31:02 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke >> (even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey >> Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the >> existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.Your claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the back fromBowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and credible explanation for that smoke.You may begin explaining at any time.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
This is so brilliant that it warrants stating again: "And since we
know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind
that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the
TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot
JFK and/or JC in the back from [the] underpass; only from the TSBD. If
Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory."
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 09:26:57 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>>>Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a >>>> rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the >>>> existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain >>>> it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.
No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR
BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear you
acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
Your claim, your burden.The smoke is totally visible in the photo. The eyewitnesses are
completely credible.
I have no burden here.
What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations ...
You're still getting ahead of yourself.
Do you accept what your own eyes can see?
Do you accept what the eyewitnesses that were there said they saw?
Once you answer affirmatively, then we can continue.
rather than jump to the conclusion...
There you go, molesting your own mother again.
Can you QUOTE this "jump to conclusion" that happened in this thread?
Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and
credible explanation for that smoke.
You may begin explaining at any time.Nope... that would be jumping ahead. First, we need to establish that there's smoke.
Then we need *YOUR* explanation for that smoke.
This is how it works.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:from underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:31:02 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke >> (even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey >> Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear youYour claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the backBowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and credible explanation for that smoke.You may begin explaining at any time.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
This is so brilliant that it warrants stating again: "And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFKand JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the back from [the] underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory."
Bowers again:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:04:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll...
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:04:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll...
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:07:22 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:from underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:31:02 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear youYour claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the backBowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and credible explanation for that smoke.You may begin explaining at any time.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the back from [the] underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory."This is so brilliant that it warrants stating again: "And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK
Bowers again: "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there -um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He said in the Lane interview that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.The conspiracy believers *own* key witness here - Bowers - the man who viewed events taking place behind the fence during the assassination completely undermines their theory of a grassy knoll/fence shooter. He explicitly says he saw *no one* behind the
The men he saw, I would suggest, are the ones seen in the Moorman photo. Again, he said he saw no one *behind* the fence.
The conspiracy believers *own* key witness here - Bowers...
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:51?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:04:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll...
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Douchebag Chuckles refuses to click on the link and claims instead:
You haven't shown
You have no proof
You have no evidence
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
That's what cowards do: walk around with blinders on.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 1:07:22 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:from underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:31:02 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:31:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:25:57 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
Chuckles is clearly trying to argue that there can't be any smoke
(even though you can see it for yourself in a contemporary Dealey
Plaza photo) - because no self-respecting assassin would ever choose a
rifle that emitted smoke.
An honest man would acknowlege the eyewitnesses (and photo) for the
existence of the smoke, admit it actually existed, and try to explain
it.
Shifting the burden, one of your favorites.No moron, it's **NOT** shifting the burden - THIS IS FACTUAL HISTORY
of things that happened in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 - this is YOUR BURDEN to explain.
The WCR failed to do so.
You haven't shown an assassin was firing from the grassy knoll.
Tut tut tut, stupid. You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's hear youYour claim, your burden. What have you done to eliminate more mundane explanations rather than jump to the conclusion that a grassy knoll sniper/hit squad/kill team was employing a smoke emitting musket or something?
acknowledge the evidence for smoke - and explain it.
And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the backBowers: "The sounds [of shots] came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass."Because if you cannot, then criitics have a very reasonable and credible explanation for that smoke.You may begin explaining at any time.
Not deny it, as Chuckles is doing...
Nothing from behind the fence, a place that he said he could directly see/watch.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
and JC. You cannot shoot JFK and/or JC in the back from [the] underpass; only from the TSBD. If Bowers is correct, he destroys the grassy knoll shooter theory."This is so brilliant that it warrants stating again: "And since we know that both JFK and Connally were shot in the back - from behind - that means that Bower's account is evidence the shots came from the TSBD since the underpass was in front of JFK
Bowers again: "Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there -um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He said in the Lane interview that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.
The men he saw, I would suggest, are the ones seen in the Moorman photo. Again, he said he saw no one *behind* the fence.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:14:59 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knollhttps://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:04:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke.
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll...
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
With, according to Bowers,
Did I miss the link to the photo of the smoke I asked for and you posted?
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@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?
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:06:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@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 repeats stuff he knows is false, and avoids responding to the topic!
Ben also pretends a link to the supposed photo showing smoke was produced:
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!Did I miss the link to the photo of the smoke I asked for and you posted?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:06:25?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@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 repeats stuff he knows is false, and avoids responding to the topic!
Ben also pretends...
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Did I miss the link to the photo of the smoke I asked for and you posted?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 19:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 3:04:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:25:59?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 10:48:31?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Why would your assassins use rifles that emit smoke?
Who said they saw a rifle ? The witnesses all said they saw smoke. >>>
Try to keep up, Chuckles.
SO the smoke wasn't from a rifle?
Stop asking stupid questions and start anwering them.
My answer is that you haven't even shown there was any smoke coming from the knoll...
So you don't even believe your own eyes.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Of course... you can't. You're a coward.
And cowards run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Douchebag Chuckles refuses to click on the link and claims instead:
You haven't shown
You have no proof
You have no evidence
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-_Puff-of-Smoke.mp4
That's what cowards do: walk around with blinders on.
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknownWhat inconsistencies ?
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
And you expect me to explain the smoke, smoke you say never existed ?
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
smoke you say never existed ?
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >> > You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff of
smoke.
And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of another
shot
why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinion
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state it
without challenge
and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and
associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on Team
Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?
That's the assumption...
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundane
explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
YES!!!!!!!!
smoke you say never existed ?
You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE,
Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????
You don't get to just stand on third base and pretend you hit a
triple. RESEARCH the issue, INVITE criticism from your online sparring partners, and so on. That's how research works, that's how things get resolved. You don't just issue blurtations that the witnesses saw
"smoke" with the insinuations that a rifle was responsible and expect
an automatic buy-in.
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Your logical fallacy here is called an either/or fallacy. Could it
be a simple explanation of people in a stressful moment honestly
mistaken or associating something more ordinary with shots that we
know were fired at the motorcade?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
Or a phenomena similar to apophenia which is a general term for
interpreting patterns or meaning? Pareidolia is subset within this
known phenomenon.
This stuff is nearly SIXTY years old, yet you guys can't get off
your asses and run any tests or offer up any research of the issue?
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff of
smoke.
Were they asked?
This desperate attempt to deny the evidence shows just how poorly it's
going for the WCR believers...
And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of another
shot
If this, if that... you can't deal with what critics ACTUALLY say - so
you have to deflect to nonsense.
why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinion
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
Why did some report more?
This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state it
without challenge
Smoke was seen in Dealey Plaza during and immediately after the
shooting. Go ahead and "challenge" it.
and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on Team
Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.
No need. Believers themselves have offered Youtube videos showing
rifles emitting smoke
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?
You did. When you refused to offer ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGIN of the
smoke.
That's the assumption...
No, it's not. Use the same term that believers use. Call it
"reasoning," or call it "common sense," or even call it simple
"logic."
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundaneSo "mundane" that not a single believer has been able to provide it?
explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?
Where's *YOUR* tests? Get yourself over to Dealey Plaza and find that
source of the smoke. Surely it wasn't limited to 11/22/63 ???
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
YES!!!!!!!!Let's do some competing hypothesis, shall we? I say the PROVEN AND
ADMITTED EVIDENCE FOR SMOKE was caused by a rifle.
Your hypothesis is.....
My hypothesis wins by default.
You lose
smoke you say never existed ?
You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE, Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????You refuse to provide any, so no, there are no other explanations for
the smoke in Dealey Plaza.
You don't get to just stand on third base and pretend you hit aSaid the moron standing on third base and claiming that the WCR ends
triple. RESEARCH the issue, INVITE criticism from your online sparring partners, and so on. That's how research works, that's how things get resolved. You don't just issue blurtations that the witnesses saw
"smoke" with the insinuations that a rifle was responsible and expect
an automatic buy-in.
all debates...
We don't have to "convince" you... water is wet, it's simply a fact.
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Your logical fallacy here is called an either/or fallacy. Could itSomething so ordinary that you can't state what it is... ROTFLMAO!!!
be a simple explanation of people in a stressful moment honestly
mistaken or associating something more ordinary with shots that we
know were fired at the motorcade?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
Or a phenomena similar to apophenia which is a general term for interpreting patterns or meaning? Pareidolia is subset within thisMake your case... present evidence, do tests... Stop shifting the
known phenomenon.
burden.
This stuff is nearly SIXTY years old, yet you guys can't get offAmusingly enough, it's *ONLY* critics who are bringing up the evidence
your asses and run any tests or offer up any research of the issue?
here.
Chuckles can't cite a **SINGLE** believer who has brought this up,
only believers who are attempting to refute what they can't refute.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff ofWere they asked?
smoke.
This desperate attempt to deny the evidence shows just how poorly it's
going for the WCR believers...
And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of anotherIf this, if that... you can't deal with what critics ACTUALLY say - so
shot
you have to deflect to nonsense.
why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinionWhy did some report more?
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state itSmoke was seen in Dealey Plaza during and immediately after the
without challenge
shooting. Go ahead and "challenge" it.
and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on TeamNo need. Believers themselves have offered Youtube videos showing
Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.
rifles emitting smoke
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?You did. When you refused to offer ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGIN of the
smoke.
That's the assumption...
No, it's not. Use the same term that believers use. Call it
"reasoning," or call it "common sense," or even call it simple
"logic."
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundaneSo "mundane" that not a single believer has been able to provide it?
explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?
Where's *YOUR* tests? Get yourself over to Dealey Plaza and find that
source of the smoke. Surely it wasn't limited to 11/22/63 ???
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
YES!!!!!!!!Let's do some competing hypothesis, shall we? I say the PROVEN AND
ADMITTED EVIDENCE FOR SMOKE was caused by a rifle.
Your hypothesis is.....
My hypothesis wins by default.
You lose
smoke you say never existed ?
You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE, Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????You refuse to provide any, so no, there are no other explanations for
the smoke in Dealey Plaza.
You don't get to just stand on third base and pretend you hit aSaid the moron standing on third base and claiming that the WCR ends
triple. RESEARCH the issue, INVITE criticism from your online sparring partners, and so on. That's how research works, that's how things get resolved. You don't just issue blurtations that the witnesses saw
"smoke" with the insinuations that a rifle was responsible and expect
an automatic buy-in.
all debates...
We don't have to "convince" you...
water is wet, it's simply a fact.
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Your logical fallacy here is called an either/or fallacy. Could itSomething so ordinary that you can't state what it is... ROTFLMAO!!!
be a simple explanation of people in a stressful moment honestly
mistaken or associating something more ordinary with shots that we
know were fired at the motorcade?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
Or a phenomena similar to apophenia which is a general term for interpreting patterns or meaning? Pareidolia is subset within thisMake your case... present evidence, do tests... Stop shifting the
known phenomenon.
burden.
This stuff is nearly SIXTY years old, yet you guys can't get offAmusingly enough, it's *ONLY* critics who are bringing up the evidence
your asses and run any tests or offer up any research of the issue?
here.
Chuckles can't cite a **SINGLE** believer who has brought this up,
only believers who are attempting to refute what they can't refute.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:02:23?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff of
smoke.
Were they asked?
This desperate attempt to deny the evidence shows just how poorly it's
going for the WCR believers...
And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of another
shot
If this, if that... you can't deal with what critics ACTUALLY say - so
you have to deflect to nonsense.
why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinion
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
Why did some report more?
Or less?
This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state it
without challenge
Smoke was seen in Dealey Plaza during and immediately after the
shooting. Go ahead and "challenge" it.
I officially challenge you to make a case for a rifle emitting smoke.
and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and
associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on Team
Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.
No need. Believers themselves have offered Youtube videos showing
rifles emitting smoke
A wisp or a musket-like bellow of smoke that lingers around for many moments?
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?
You did. When you refused to offer ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGIN of the
smoke.
Except I did, liar. And it's not even my burden.
That's the assumption...
No, it's not. Use the same term that believers use. Call it
"reasoning," or call it "common sense," or even call it simple
"logic."
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundane
explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?
So "mundane" that not a single believer has been able to provide it?
Where's *YOUR* tests? Get yourself over to Dealey Plaza and find that
source of the smoke. Surely it wasn't limited to 11/22/63 ???
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
YES!!!!!!!!
Let's do some competing hypothesis, shall we? I say the PROVEN AND
ADMITTED EVIDENCE FOR SMOKE was caused by a rifle.
Then show your tests, etc.
Your hypothesis is.....
My hypothesis wins by default.
You lose
You refuse to provide any, so no, there are no other explanations forsmoke you say never existed ?
You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE,
Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????
the smoke in Dealey Plaza.
You don't get to just stand on third base and pretend you hit a
triple. RESEARCH the issue, INVITE criticism from your online sparring
partners, and so on. That's how research works, that's how things get
resolved. You don't just issue blurtations that the witnesses saw
"smoke" with the insinuations that a rifle was responsible and expect
an automatic buy-in.
Said the moron standing on third base and claiming that the WCR ends
all debates...
We don't have to "convince" you... water is wet, it's simply a fact.
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
Your logical fallacy here is called an either/or fallacy. Could it
be a simple explanation of people in a stressful moment honestly
mistaken or associating something more ordinary with shots that we
know were fired at the motorcade?
Something so ordinary that you can't state what it is... ROTFLMAO!!!
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
Or a phenomena similar to apophenia which is a general term for
interpreting patterns or meaning? Pareidolia is subset within this
known phenomenon.
Make your case... present evidence, do tests... Stop shifting the
burden.
This stuff is nearly SIXTY years old, yet you guys can't get off
your asses and run any tests or offer up any research of the issue?
Amusingly enough, it's *ONLY* critics who are bringing up the evidence
here.
Chuckles can't cite a **SINGLE** believer who has brought this up,
only believers who are attempting to refute what they can't refute.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:02:23 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Yes. Where do you think those witness statements came from, stupid?Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff ofWere they asked?
smoke.
This desperate attempt to deny the evidence shows just how poorly it's going for the WCR believers...Whatever is in evidence is in evidence. Doesn`t make it what conspiracy hobbyists claim it is.
The really just make a lot of noise, but say nothing, like yourself.And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of anotherIf this, if that... you can't deal with what critics ACTUALLY say - so
shot
you have to deflect to nonsense.
They refuse to show that is possible for the smoke people said they saw to be gunsmoke.
Non sequitur.why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinionWhy did some report more?
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
How about we just look at it correctly?This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state itSmoke was seen in Dealey Plaza during and immediately after the
without challenge
shooting. Go ahead and "challenge" it.
How does it help your ideas when the characteristics your ideas require are not supported by the videos?and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on Team Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.No need. Believers themselves have offered Youtube videos showing
rifles emitting smoke
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
It hasn`t been shown that it is possible it was gunsmoke.Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?You did. When you refused to offer ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGIN of the
smoke.
You have to do that first before pretending it is the default.
That's the assumption...
No, it's not. Use the same term that believers use. Call itIt is logical to require a demonstration showing the idea that it was gunsmoke is a valid one.
"reasoning," or call it "common sense," or even call it simple
"logic."
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
At least one of the witnesses said they thought it was from a police motorcycle.So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundaneSo "mundane" that not a single believer has been able to provide it?
explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?
Where's *YOUR* tests? Get yourself over to Dealey Plaza and find that source of the smoke. Surely it wasn't limited to 11/22/63 ???You assume all the witnesses were reporting the same smoke. You assume, but you never show
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
You can blow hot air, but you`ll never support the hot air you blow.YES!!!!!!!!Let's do some competing hypothesis, shall we? I say the PROVEN AND ADMITTED EVIDENCE FOR SMOKE was caused by a rifle.
Your hypothesis is.....
My hypothesis wins by default.I have no ideas that require the smoke to be identified.
You lose
smoke you say never existed ?
Cigars.You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE, Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????You refuse to provide any, so no, there are no other explanations for
the smoke in Dealey Plaza.
Motorcycles. Other vehicles.
You can bitch forever about the WC, it matters little.You don't get to just stand on third base and pretend you hit aSaid the moron standing on third base and claiming that the WCR ends
triple. RESEARCH the issue, INVITE criticism from your online sparring partners, and so on. That's how research works, that's how things get resolved. You don't just issue blurtations that the witnesses saw "smoke" with the insinuations that a rifle was responsible and expect
an automatic buy-in.
all debates...
We don't have to "convince" you...And we don`t need to convince you. Which is good, because you`re delusional anyway.
water is wet, it's simply a fact.It is also a fact that it has not been established that the smoke seen in Dealey Plaza was gunsmoke.
Smoke the witnesses ( according to you ) never saw ?
Was it some mass hallucination ? Or a conspiracy to lie ?
You refuse to critically examine the information the witnesses supplied.Your logical fallacy here is called an either/or fallacy. Could itSomething so ordinary that you can't state what it is... ROTFLMAO!!!
be a simple explanation of people in a stressful moment honestly mistaken or associating something more ordinary with shots that we
know were fired at the motorcade?
Not only did they not smell smoke, but I suppose other witnesses at street level never smelled gunpowder either.
ROFLMAO
We have no burden to explain the smoke.Or a phenomena similar to apophenia which is a general term for interpreting patterns or meaning? Pareidolia is subset within thisMake your case... present evidence, do tests... Stop shifting the
known phenomenon.
burden.
Some witnesses said they saw some smoke. Now what?This stuff is nearly SIXTY years old, yet you guys can't get offAmusingly enough, it's *ONLY* critics who are bringing up the evidence here.
your asses and run any tests or offer up any research of the issue?
The issue is right where it was the last time it was brought up, and every time before that. Nowhere.
Chuckles can't cite a **SINGLE** believer who has brought this up,There is nothing here that needs refuting.
only believers who are attempting to refute what they can't refute.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:25:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:02:23 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 07:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 6:20:11?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:17:03?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You refuse to offer up more mundane explanations for the "smoke" nor do you consider the inconsistencies buried in this claim and instead turn this hobby point into a speculative adventure involving unknown
snipers using smoke-emitting rifles of an unknown model firing bullets of an unknown caliber doing unspecified damage.
What inconsistencies ?
Yes. Where do you think those witness statements came from, stupid?Well for starters, there were plenty who didn't report a puff of smoke.Were they asked?
This desperate attempt to deny the evidence shows just how poorly it's going for the WCR believers...Whatever is in evidence is in evidence. Doesn`t make it what conspiracy hobbyists claim it is.
The really just make a lot of noise, but say nothing, like yourself.And if the smoke claim is being held out as proof of anotherIf this, if that... you can't deal with what critics ACTUALLY say - so you have to deflect to nonsense.
shot
They refuse to show that is possible for the smoke people said they saw to be gunsmoke.
Non sequitur.why did the vast majority of earwitnesses who offered an opinionWhy did some report more?
of the number of shots fired report only three shots?
How about we just look at it correctly?This doesn't falsify the claim, but you don't get to state itSmoke was seen in Dealey Plaza during and immediately after the shooting. Go ahead and "challenge" it.
without challenge
How does it help your ideas when the characteristics your ideas require are not supported by the videos?and since you're making the claim there was a puff of "smoke" and associating this with a smoke-emitting rifle, the burden is on Team Oswald to offer the tests to strengthen the claim. Get busy.No need. Believers themselves have offered Youtube videos showing
rifles emitting smoke
Eight corroborating witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll and they're all mistaken because rifles don't emit smoke ?
Is that what you call inconsistencies ?
It hasn`t been shown that it is possible it was gunsmoke.Who established this was "smoke" as in smoke emitted from a rifle?You did. When you refused to offer ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ORIGIN of the smoke.
You have to do that first before pretending it is the default.
That's the assumption...
No, it's not. Use the same term that believers use. Call itIt is logical to require a demonstration showing the idea that it was gunsmoke is a valid one.
"reasoning," or call it "common sense," or even call it simple
"logic."
Which one of those witnesses said anything about rifles ?
What part of the word "smoke" don't you understand ?
Why do you keep sticking "rifles' in there, when none of the witnesses in the video said anything about seeing a rifle ?
They said they saw smoke, dumdum.
At least one of the witnesses said they thought it was from a police motorcycle.So you're leaving the door open that there is a more mundane explanation for the so-called smoke and that it wasn't from a rifle?So "mundane" that not a single believer has been able to provide it?
Where's *YOUR* tests? Get yourself over to Dealey Plaza and find that source of the smoke. Surely it wasn't limited to 11/22/63 ???You assume all the witnesses were reporting the same smoke. You assume, but you never show
And you expect me to explain the smoke,
You can blow hot air, but you`ll never support the hot air you blow.YES!!!!!!!!Let's do some competing hypothesis, shall we? I say the PROVEN AND ADMITTED EVIDENCE FOR SMOKE was caused by a rifle.
Your hypothesis is.....
My hypothesis wins by default.I have no ideas that require the smoke to be identified.
You lose
smoke you say never existed ?
Guy standing behind a picket fence smoking a cigar. Watch the smoke.Cigars.You haven't established it was smoke--especially as if from a RIFLE, Gil--and that's the rub. Are there OTHER explanations?????You refuse to provide any, so no, there are no other explanations for the smoke in Dealey Plaza.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/W0lKIBxvI-4
Cigar smoke will linger quite a while. So will cigarette smoke. Hence the proverbial term
"smoke filled room". It doesn't refer to smoke from gunfire which dissipates almost immediately.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cigar smoke will linger quite a while. So will cigarette smoke. Hence the proverbial termTrying to help Chuckles out? Everyone's still waiting for *HIS*
"smoke filled room". It doesn't refer to smoke from gunfire which dissipates almost immediately.
hypothesis that explains the smoke seen in Dealey Plaza.
And what tests have you conducted for your naked assertion that smoke
from gunfire "dissipates almost immediately?"
Can you cite any authority on this issue???
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:19:47 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett ><geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:
Cigar smoke will linger quite a while. So will cigarette smoke. Hence the proverbial term
"smoke filled room". It doesn't refer to smoke from gunfire which dissipates almost immediately.
Trying to help Chuckles out? Everyone's still waiting for *HIS*
hypothesis that explains the smoke seen in Dealey Plaza.
And what tests have you conducted for your naked assertion that smoke
from gunfire "dissipates almost immediately?"
Can you cite any authority on this issue???
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:41:41 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,410 |