One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone 40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:are two of the things I hold most dear, and without which, no society will ever be good or sane.
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he thinkIt seems that Gil is just like pretty much all CT's. More interested in proving the WC false, or grossly mistaken, than actually determining what *did* happen if not that on 11-22-63. This shows a complete lack of concern for *TRUTH* or *JUSTICE* which
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve
since he insists a person must
be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent.
That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination >occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone >40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence,
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone 40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice.
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 8:09:20 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for livingOne wonders why you were hiding behind the door when they were handing out logic.
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
What you have said here is that because no one else can be brought to justice, Oswald is it.
Doesn't matter if he is innocent, someone has to bear the blame.
You might want to rethink that.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he thinkGil didn't throw out the evidence. The cops threw it out with their mishandling of it. Rules of evidence is serious shit. Without those rules. you could be the next Oswald.
they are going to be brought to justice.
Aren't these people going to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
No one has said otherwise, Dopey. People charged with a crime are presumed innocent under law until if and when convicted.
Just how does Gil propose to prove
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?The evidence you refer to is inadmissable against Oswald.
That does not rule it it out as evidence against anyone else. It does mean a new investigation as to how evidence against an innocent man came to be found.
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessary
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessary
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
ROFLMAO
Another stupid comment.
So if a person accused of a crime is in jail awaiting his trial and another inmate kills him, we can assume he was guilty ?
Fucking ridiculous.
It's just one stupid post after the next with you.
In the real world there's a big difference between a defendant who is accused and one who is convicted.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:26:40?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 8:09:20?AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must >>> be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for livingOne wonders why you were hiding behind the door when they were handing out logic.
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination
occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone >>> 40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
What you have said here is that because no one else can be brought to justice, Oswald is it.
Doesn't matter if he is innocent, someone has to bear the blame.
You might want to rethink that.
Not given the available evidence. It's conclusive.
In order to believe Oswald is innocent, one has
to convince themselves the evidence is all fraudulent.
Why would someone engage in that
practice instead of just following the evidence to its one and only logical conclusion.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if >>> miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice.
Gil didn't throw out the evidence. The cops threw it out with their mishandling of it. Rules of evidence is serious shit. Without those rules. you could be the next Oswald.
Rules of evidence apply at a trial and Gil has vastly overstated those rules in declaring so much
evidence invalid. We have the luxury of looking at the evidence and weighing it for probative
value without worrying about whether it would have been allowed at trial.
Aren't these people going to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
No one has said otherwise, Dopey. People charged with a crime are presumed innocent under law until if and when convicted.
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him.
At that point, it was no longer necessary
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
We could at that point objectively look at the
evidence against him and draw intelligent conclusions about what that evidence indicated. The
full extent of the evidence wasn't known to the public until the release of the WCR in 1964. At
that point, it became rather silly to doubt Oswald's guilt given the overwhelming amount of
evidence against him.
Just how does Gil propose to proveThe evidence you refer to is inadmissable against Oswald.
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
We are free to consider all of the evidence...
It is all admissible now.
That does not rule it it out as evidence against anyone else. It does mean a new investigation as to how evidence against an innocent man came to be found.
Just what would you expect a new investigation to uncover that we don't already know about?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:56:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessaryROFLMAO
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
Another stupid comment.
So if a person accused of a crime is in jail awaiting his trial and another inmate kills him, we can assume he was guilty ?
We shouldn't assume anything.
We should make a judgement based on the evidence
Fucking ridiculous.
It's just one stupid post after the next with you.
In the real world there's a big difference between a defendant who is accused and one who is convicted.
Our criminal justice system doesn't convict dead people.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessaryROFLMAO
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
Another stupid comment.
So if a person accused of a crime is in jail awaiting his trial and another inmate kills him, we can assume he was guilty ?
Fucking ridiculous.
It's just one stupid post after the next with you.
In the real world there's a big difference between a defendant who is accused and one who is convicted.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:are two of the things I hold most dear, and without which, no society will ever be good or sane.
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he thinkIt seems that Gil is just like pretty much all CT's. More interested in proving the WC false, or grossly mistaken, than actually determining what *did* happen if not that on 11-22-63. This shows a complete lack of concern for *TRUTH* or *JUSTICE* which
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:30:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:56:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessaryROFLMAO
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
Another stupid comment.
So if a person accused of a crime is in jail awaiting his trial and another inmate kills him, we can assume he was guilty ?
We shouldn't assume anything.But this is what *YOU* asserted. Gil merely pointed out how stupid
that is.
We should make a judgement based on the evidenceWe do, you provably don't.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Logical fallacy deleted.Fucking ridiculous.
It's just one stupid post after the next with you.
In the real world there's a big difference between a defendant who is accused and one who is convicted.
Our criminal justice system doesn't convict dead people.But *YOU* do.
I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so
they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the
Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they
used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:52:54?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:30:00 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:56:30?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:But this is what *YOU* asserted. Gil merely pointed out how stupid
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>> Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him. At that point, it was no longer necessary
to grant him a presumption of innocence.ROFLMAO
Another stupid comment.
So if a person accused of a crime is in jail awaiting his trial and another inmate kills him, we can assume he was guilty ?
We shouldn't assume anything.
that is.
We should make a judgement based on the evidenceWe do, you provably don't.
Logical fallacy deleted.
Logical fallacy deleted.Fucking ridiculous.
It's just one stupid post after the next with you.
But *YOU* do.In the real world there's a big difference between a defendant who is accused and one who is convicted.
Our criminal justice system doesn't convict dead people.
I deleted the rest of your logical fallacy.
Who killed JFK, Ben?
On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:18:28 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
I hadn't thought of it that way, but it certainly makes sense. The entire hobby for as long as I canNot needed. Most of America already agrees with us.
remember has been about trying (in vain) to disprove the WCR.
They don't want to tell us how it did happen.And no matter how many times we cite for this, you simply forget and
lie about it again.
This has been well covered in the five volume set by Douglas Horne.'
They only want to tell us what they believe didn't happen.This is PRECISELY what you're doing.
Which leads us back toProve that any WCR believer is either ignorant or a liar. (and perhaps both.)
the original question. What is their end game?
Do they think the history books are going to beWhy bother to molest your own mother? We critics are quite happy to
rewritten to say it's a mystery who killed JFK?
answer any question you can raise.
Do any of them think there is going to be a new
investigation...
Why?
and if so, what would they have to work with that the CTs haven't already declaredThe existing evidence is just fine.
to be "inadmissible"?
Do any of them seriously think anyone other than Oswald is going to be >identified as a perpetrator?Some have identified themselves. See "Someone Would Have Talked."
Only they can answer that and I doubt that they will.Keep lying... just don't expect anyone to believe you...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:26:40 AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 8:09:20 AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person mustOne wonders why you were hiding behind the door when they were handing out logic.
be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
What you have said here is that because no one else can be brought to justice, Oswald is it.Oswald is it because he did it.
Doesn't matter if he is innocent, someone has to bear the blame.Oswald is not innocent. We have conclusive evidence of that.
You might want to rethink that.Not given the available evidence. It's conclusive. In order to believe Oswald is innocent, one has
to convince themselves the evidence is all fraudulent. Why would someone engage in that
practice instead of just following the evidence to its one and only logical conclusion.
Rules of evidence apply at a trial and Gil has vastly overstated those rules in declaring so muchSince Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even ifGil didn't throw out the evidence. The cops threw it out with their mishandling of it. Rules of evidence is serious shit. Without those rules. you could be the next Oswald.
miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice.
evidence invalid. We have the luxury of looking at the evidence and weighing it for probative
value without worrying about whether it would have been allowed at trial.
Aren't these people going to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
No one has said otherwise, Dopey. People charged with a crime are presumed innocent under law until if and when convicted.Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him.
At that point, it was no longer necessary
to grant him a presumption of innocence. We could at that point objectively look at the
evidence against him and draw intelligent conclusions about what that evidence indicated. The
full extent of the evidence wasn't known to the public until the release of the WCR in 1964. At
that point, it became rather silly to doubt Oswald's guilt given the overwhelming amount of
evidence against him.
Just how does Gil propose to proveWe are free to consider all of the evidence without Gil's our your silly ideas about what would or
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?The evidence you refer to is inadmissable against Oswald.
would not have been admissible. It is all admissible now.
That does not rule it it out as evidence against anyone else. It does mean a new investigation as to how evidence against an innocent man came to be found.Just what would you expect a new investigation to uncover that we don't already know about?
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:which are two of the things I hold most dear, and without which, no society will ever be good or sane.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must
be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even ifIt seems that Gil is just like pretty much all CT's. More interested in proving the WC false, or grossly mistaken, than actually determining what *did* happen if not that on 11-22-63. This shows a complete lack of concern for *TRUTH* or *JUSTICE*
miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help are suitable replacements for the long departed WCstaff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer. We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 08:34:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:26:40?AM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 8:09:20?AM UTC+10, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person mustOne wonders why you were hiding behind the door when they were handing out logic.
be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination >>> occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
What you have said here is that because no one else can be brought to justice, Oswald is it.
Logical fallacy deleted.Doesn't matter if he is innocent, someone has to bear the blame.
You might want to rethink that.
Not given the available evidence. It's conclusive.Yet you're TERRIFIED of citing it. What can lurkers conclude from
that fact?
In order to believe Oswald is innocent, one hasSome of it PROVABLY is. Was the paper sack identical to the paper in
to convince themselves the evidence is all fraudulent.
the TSBD or not?
https://maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html
Why would someone engage in thatBecause it was a coverup. You *DO* understand the basic thesis of a
practice instead of just following the evidence to its one and only logical conclusion.
coverup, right?
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if
miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice.
Gil didn't throw out the evidence. The cops threw it out with their mishandling of it. Rules of evidence is serious shit. Without those rules. you could be the next Oswald.
Rules of evidence apply at a trial and Gil has vastly overstated those rules in declaring so much
evidence invalid. We have the luxury of looking at the evidence and weighing it for probative
value without worrying about whether it would have been allowed at trial. You can't even *define* evidence.
Aren't these people going to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty?
No one has said otherwise, Dopey. People charged with a crime are presumed innocent under law until if and when convicted.
Oswald was presumed innocent until Ruby killed him.This is BEYOND wacky!
We can clear up all the unsolved crimes... just saddle anyone who died
with the crimes.
At that point, it was no longer necessaryAgain... simply wacky!
to grant him a presumption of innocence.
We could at that point objectively look at theAnd since you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite any of this evidence -
evidence against him and draw intelligent conclusions about what that evidence indicated. The
full extent of the evidence wasn't known to the public until the release of the WCR in 1964. At
that point, it became rather silly to doubt Oswald's guilt given the overwhelming amount of
evidence against him.
what
can lurkers presume? As Chickenshit points out, it's a lie. You
refuse to support your empty claim with citations, so it's clearly a
lie.
Just how does Gil propose to proveThe evidence you refer to is inadmissable against Oswald.
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
We are free to consider all of the evidence...
No you aren't. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to consider the NAA evidence,
for example.
You also refuse to consider the medical evidence...
It is all admissible now.Cite for that claim.
But you won't.
That does not rule it it out as evidence against anyone else. It does mean a new investigation as to how evidence against an innocent man came to be found.
Just what would you expect a new investigation to uncover that we don't already know about?You could *start* with the facts of evidence intentionally
destroyed... and who did it. Such as Oswald's military intelligence
files, or the Secret Service files on previous motorcade security.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided.
You refuse to provide
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with theNo you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they
used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:his body/coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted. Tell us when it occurred and provide tests--either your own tests or the work of others-- that show how this could even be feasible.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?No.
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided....to your satisfaction.
You refuse to provideNa.
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.And back it up? You've never done this and never will.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.You've alleged JFK's body or coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted for a sort of "secret" pre-autopsy to alter the path of the bullets that you claim were actually fired into JFK from various locations. Please provide the back story behind how and when
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.Run Ben! Run!
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:when his body/coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted. Tell us when it occurred and provide tests--either your own tests or the work of others-- that show how this could even be feasible.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?No.
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided....to your satisfaction.
You refuse to provideNa.
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.And back it up? You've never done this and never will.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.You've alleged JFK's body or coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted for a sort of "secret" pre-autopsy to alter the path of the bullets that you claim were actually fired into JFK from various locations. Please provide the back story behind how and
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up.
<snicker> He`ll do neither.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.Run Ben! Run!
With them, it's all about nullifying the WCR, never offering anything to replace it. If they got their
way, the history books would state that nobody killed JFK.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?
No.
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so
they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided.
...to your satisfaction.
You refuse to provide
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Na.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?
Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point
nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.
And back it up? You've never done this and never will.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.
You've alleged...
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...
The challenge is above...
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a
non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the
Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they
used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be
determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.
Run Ben! Run!
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
The little guy is like the greased piglet people try to catch at the county fair.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:his body/coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted. Tell us when it occurred and provide tests--either your own tests or the work of others-- that show how this could even be feasible.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?No.
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided....to your satisfaction.
You refuse to provideNa.
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.And back it up? You've never done this and never will.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.You've alleged JFK's body or coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted for a sort of "secret" pre-autopsy to alter the path of the bullets that you claim were actually fired into JFK from various locations. Please provide the back story behind how and when
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends. He was interviewed by the FBI. He said all of the "noises" sounded like they came from behind him, from the rear. None from the side of front.We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.Run Ben! Run!
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?
No.Coward, aren't you?
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help
are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so >>> they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided.
...to your satisfaction.At all. And the proof is a simple one... where's the answers to my questions?
You refuse to provide
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Na.Notice folks, no citation. Chuckles proves me right...
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?
Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .And again you prove yourself a liar. What happened to your claim that
the answers are provided?
Clearly, they aren't.
You're simply a liar.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point >>> nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.
And back it up? You've never done this and never will.There you go, lying again.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.
You've alleged...
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to
where it's found.
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...
The challenge is above...
Indeed it was... you failed.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a
non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the
Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they
used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be
determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.
Run Ben! Run!I can't hear you... all I see is your yellow back as you run away...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to
where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 2:11:30 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:when his body/coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted. Tell us when it occurred and provide tests--either your own tests or the work of others-- that show how this could even be feasible.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?No.
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided....to your satisfaction.
You refuse to provideNa.
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.And back it up? You've never done this and never will.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.You've alleged JFK's body or coffin was swiped/kidnapped/diverted for a sort of "secret" pre-autopsy to alter the path of the bullets that you claim were actually fired into JFK from various locations. Please provide the back story behind how and
As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of the interview is with the document.We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends. He was interviewed by the FBI. He said all of the "noises" sounded like they came from behind him, from the rear. None from the side of front.And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.Run Ben! Run!
"Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62475#relPageId=170&search=James_Chaney
I know, why even try?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith ><stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with
lies?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to
where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!!
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to
where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.
YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!!
Liar.
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith ><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people withSteven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to >>>> where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.
YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!!
Liar.
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."A QUOTE OF MY QUESTION, MORON!!!
The topic is the ability to answer a question. You cannot show such
by anything OTHER than a question.
You've failed COMPLETELY ... and it's understandable why... you really
don't *want* to provide any of my questions... because you're not
stupid enough to think I can't answer it.
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
Still a failure, moron.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with
lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to
where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.I stated...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:43:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to >>>>>> where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
A QUOTE OF MY QUESTION, MORON!!!I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.
YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!!
Liar.
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."
The topic is the ability to answer a question. You cannot show such
by anything OTHER than a question.
You've failed COMPLETELY ... and it's understandable why... you really
don't *want* to provide any of my questions... because you're not
stupid enough to think I can't answer it.
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
Still a failure, moron.
Why don't you answer it? Why wasn't Chaney questioned by the WC?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:43:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to >>>>>> where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
A QUOTE OF MY QUESTION, MORON!!!Liar.YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!! >>>
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop. >>>> I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."
The topic is the ability to answer a question. You cannot show such
by anything OTHER than a question.
You've failed COMPLETELY ... and it's understandable why... you really
don't *want* to provide any of my questions... because you're not
stupid enough to think I can't answer it.
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
Still a failure, moron.
Why don't you answer it? Why wasn't Chaney questioned by the WC?What... third time's a charm???
Notice folks, that after failing twice, he's finally posted a question
that I've asked.
And he's JUST STUPID ENOUGH to think I can't answer it.
James Chaney was never questioned by ANYONE in an official position
about what he saw on 11/22/63 for the WC because they were well aware
of what he would testify *to*.
They had it on video.
His testimony would DIRECTLY conflict with their SBT hypothesis - and
they didn't want a HIGHLY credible and close witness to testify to
what they knew he'd say.
There is **NO OTHER CREDIBLE EXPLANATION* for the refusal to ask James Chaney a *SINGLE QUESTION* about what he saw that day. And Chuckles
can't refute me by providing one.
Steven was willing to lie about it - but it's not a new lie -
Chickenshit tried the same lie a few years back.
Back in your court, Chuckles - but don't worry, I'm not going to ask
you a question you'll evade... it's quite well established already
that believers can't answer questions.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:43:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to >>>>>> where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
A QUOTE OF MY QUESTION, MORON!!!Liar.YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!! >>>
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop. >>>> I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."
The topic is the ability to answer a question. You cannot show such
by anything OTHER than a question.
You've failed COMPLETELY ... and it's understandable why... you really
don't *want* to provide any of my questions... because you're not
stupid enough to think I can't answer it.
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
Still a failure, moron.
Why don't you answer it? Why wasn't Chaney questioned by the WC?What... third time's a charm???
Notice folks, that after failing twice, he's finally posted a question
that I've asked.
And he's JUST STUPID ENOUGH to think I can't answer it.
James Chaney was never questioned by ANYONE in an official position
about what he saw on 11/22/63 for the WC because they were well aware
of what he would testify *to*.
They had it on video.
His testimony would DIRECTLY conflict with their SBT hypothesis - and
they didn't want a HIGHLY credible and close witness to testify to
what they knew he'd say.
There is **NO OTHER CREDIBLE EXPLANATION* for the refusal to ask James Chaney a *SINGLE QUESTION* about what he saw that day. And Chuckles
can't refute me by providing one.
Steven was willing to lie about it - but it's not a new lie -
Chickenshit tried the same lie a few years back.
Back in your court, Chuckles - but don't worry, I'm not going to ask
you a question you'll evade... it's quite well established already
that believers can't answer questions.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:57:39?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:historians don't take them seriously."
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:43:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:59:17?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>
ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to >>>>>>>> where it's found.
Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
What... third time's a charm???A QUOTE OF MY QUESTION, MORON!!!Liar.YOU'RE STILL SO STUPID THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUESTION IS!!! >>>>>
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop. >>>>>> I stated that I could answer any question that I've raised - and
You wrote this, above:
"I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found."
The topic is the ability to answer a question. You cannot show such
by anything OTHER than a question.
You've failed COMPLETELY ... and it's understandable why... you really >>>> don't *want* to provide any of my questions... because you're not
stupid enough to think I can't answer it.
I provided the quotation. I provided the citation.
Still a failure, moron.
Why don't you answer it? Why wasn't Chaney questioned by the WC?
Notice folks, that after failing twice, he's finally posted a question
that I've asked.
And he's JUST STUPID ENOUGH to think I can't answer it.
James Chaney was never questioned by ANYONE in an official position
about what he saw on 11/22/63 for the WC because they were well aware
of what he would testify *to*.
They had it on video.
His testimony would DIRECTLY conflict with their SBT hypothesis - and
they didn't want a HIGHLY credible and close witness to testify to
what they knew he'd say.
There is **NO OTHER CREDIBLE EXPLANATION* for the refusal to ask James
Chaney a *SINGLE QUESTION* about what he saw that day. And Chuckles
can't refute me by providing one.
Steven was willing to lie about it - but it's not a new lie -
Chickenshit tried the same lie a few years back.
Back in your court, Chuckles - but don't worry, I'm not going to ask
you a question you'll evade... it's quite well established already
that believers can't answer questions.
Yes, I've seen the video. We've discussed it here before. There's
nothing in the video that would "overturn" the WCR findings.
Now what?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who calledSure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be good for laughs.
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.
Did the historians at JFK's Presidential Library and Museum ever get back to you about your history altering Magnum Opus I sent to them? You were too lazy to do anything with your blockbuster work so I sent it there months ago. No response?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've
posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be
good for laughs.
You never will, though. You're too lazy.
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
I can pretty much guess their response.
"Oh, God. Not another."
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can pretty much guess their response.
"Oh, God. Not another."Doesn't it just piss you off that the American people have come down
on the side of conspiracy?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should beHow much money are you willing to wager?
good for laughs.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting
in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:20:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would >> think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should beHow much money are you willing to wager?
good for laughs.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no postingCan I phrase the question?
in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would >>>> think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different
assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've
posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be
good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting
in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to
answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be
good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting
in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben HolmesAlready did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles >>>> refuses to do so...
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would >>>> think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different
assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've >>> posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be
good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.I'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just
that simple.
You lose.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting
in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to
answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben HolmesAlready did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles >>>> refuses to do so...
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different
assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've >>> posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.I'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just
that simple.
You lose.Chuck: "The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up."
Me: "<snicker> He`ll do neither."
Wish picking Powerball numbers was that easy.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting >> in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to >> answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends
that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR.
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was
published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:are two of the things I hold most dear, and without which, no society will ever be good or sane.
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even if miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he thinkIt seems that Gil is just like pretty much all CT's. More interested in proving the WC false, or grossly mistaken, than actually determining what *did* happen if not that on 11-22-63. This shows a complete lack of concern for *TRUTH* or *JUSTICE* which
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:05:08 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:which are two of the things I hold most dear, and without which, no society will ever be good or sane.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 1:04:29 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:09:20 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
One has to wonder what Gil hopes to achieve since he insists a person must
be convicted in a court of law or be presumed innocent. That is true for living
people, but unless Gil's conspirators were young when the assassination
occurred they are likely all dead and can never be brought to trial. Anyone
40 years old in 1963 is now 100 years old.
Since Gil has chosen to throw out pretty much all of the evidence, even ifIt seems that Gil is just like pretty much all CT's. More interested in proving the WC false, or grossly mistaken, than actually determining what *did* happen if not that on 11-22-63. This shows a complete lack of concern for *TRUTH* or *JUSTICE*
miraculously some of the conspirators are still alive, just how does he think
they are going to be brought to justice. Aren't these people going to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty? Just how does Gil propose to prove
them to be guilty after cancelling all evidence?
staff attorneys) so they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help are suitable replacements for the long departed WC
Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point nit-picks they ask us to answer. We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the Warren
They will never provide any answers. Ever.With them, it's all about nullifying the WCR, never offering anything to replace it. If they got their
way, the history books would state that nobody killed JFK.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:09:08 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who calledSure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be good for laughs.
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest
police eyewitness to the crime?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.
Did the historians at JFK's Presidential Library and Museum ever get back to you about your history altering Magnum Opus I sent to them? You were too lazy to do anything with your blockbuster work so I sent it there months ago. No response?I can pretty much guess their response.
"Oh, God. Not another."
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?
No.Coward, aren't you?
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help >>> are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so >>> they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided.
...to your satisfaction.At all. And the proof is a simple one... where's the answers to my questions?
You refuse to provide
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Na.Notice folks, no citation. Chuckles proves me right...
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?
Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .And again you prove yourself a liar. What happened to your claim that
the answers are provided?
Clearly, they aren't.
You're simply a liar.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it
will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point >>> nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.
And back it up? You've never done this and never will.There you go, lying again.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.
You've alleged...
historians don't take them seriously."ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation toOkay.
where it's found.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to
find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...
The challenge is above...
Indeed it was... you failed.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a
non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the >>> Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they >>> used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be >>> determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.
Run Ben! Run!I can't hear you... all I see is your yellow back as you run away...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:29:36 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben HolmesAlready did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different
assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've
posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.I'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just that simple.
You lose.Chuck: "The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up."
Me: "<snicker> He`ll do neither."True. Betting Ben will run from something is easy money. He's earned the nickname, Yellow Pants.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:23:05?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:29:36?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:True. Betting Ben will run from something is easy money. He's earned the nickname, Yellow Pants.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerChuck: "The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up."
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick. >>>>>>>> Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles >>>>>>>> refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would >>>>>>>> think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called >>>>>>>> hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>>>>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different >>>>>>> assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've >>>>>>> posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>>>>>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.
that simple.
You lose.
Me: "<snicker> He`ll do neither."
Yeah, but who in their right mind would bet that Ben wouldn't run?
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:29:36?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben HolmesAlready did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles >>>>>>> refuses to do so...
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of >>>>>>>>> the interview is with the document."
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because >>>>>>>>>>the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>>>>lies?
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick.
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would >>>>>>> think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called
hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>>>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different
assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've >>>>>> posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>>>>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.
that simple.
You lose.
Wish picking Powerball numbers was that easy.
I'll make it cheap for you - how many days/weeks/months of no posting >>>>> in this forum will you wager?
You never will, though. You're too lazy.Just got through answering a question you never thought I'd be able to >>>>> answer... your track record simply isn't there...
And rather than ANSWER that question, Steven simply lies and pretends >>>>>>>>> that Chaney *WAS* questioned.
AND LIES BY IMPLYING THAT CHANEY WAS QUESTIONED FOR THE WCR. >>>>>>>>>
Knowing all along that this didn't happen before the WCR was >>>>>>>>> published.
So Steven is not just a coward, he's a proven liar.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 02:44:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:23:05?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:29:36?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:True. Betting Ben will run from something is easy money. He's earned the nickname, Yellow Pants.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerChuck: "The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up."
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerI'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just >>>> that simple.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmesrefuses to do so...
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could
ready it in context - and the context is a simple one:
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick. >>>>>>>> Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called >>>>>>>> hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>>>>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different >>>>>>> assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've
posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>>>>>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.
You lose.
Me: "<snicker> He`ll do neither."
Yeah, but who in their right mind would bet that Ben wouldn't run?Everyone. This is why you CONSTANTLY refuse to put your money where
your mouth is.
Chuckles lost. I easily met the challenge. And you're simply too
dishonest to admit it.
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:56:52?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 02:44:46 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:23:05?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Everyone. This is why you CONSTANTLY refuse to put your money where
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 6:29:36?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:11:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:True. Betting Ben will run from something is easy money. He's earned the nickname, Yellow Pants.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 16:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerChuck: "The challenge is above, little fella. Put up or shut up."
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:20:28?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:09:07 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerI'm willing to pay the price if proven wrong, you aren't... It's just >>>>>> that simple.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 5:01:10?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:12:30?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:49:19 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith >>>>>>>>>>>>><stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:Steven replied:"As anyone can see in the link I included, the date of
The Cheney nonsense again. This never ends.
The facts haven't changed, and your lies continue.
He was interviewed by the FBI...
You're too slimy to publicly state WHEN he was interviewed... because
the truth doesn't help you.
Tell us Steven - do you really think you can convince people with >>>>>>>>>>>>>lies?
the interview is with the document."
He was too much a coward to respond to my post - so everyone could >>>>>>>>>>>> ready it in context - and the context is a simple one: >>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked " Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?"
What's your explanation? Answer your own hobby point nit-pick. >>>>>>>>>> Already did. Notice folks, that Steven can't answer it, and Chuckles >>>>>>>>>> refuses to do so...
And would you like to put it to a poll - and see how many people would
think it's a "nit-pick" that the Warren Commission, who called >>>>>>>>>> hundreds of witnesses, refused to take testimony from the closest >>>>>>>>>> police eyewitness to the crime?
Sure. Put it to a poll. You've been threatening to put different >>>>>>>>> assassination-related things to some sort of poll for as long as I've >>>>>>>>> posted here. Go ahead and create a poll of some sorts. It should be >>>>>>>>> good for laughs.
How much money are you willing to wager?
A wager so you can "prove" you're not too lazy to develop some sort of poll about Chaney and the WC?
Why would I need to bet on that? Are you saying you need the inducement of some sort of gambling contest to get you off your ass and follow through on your "put it to a poll" threats?
You're a hoot, little fella!!!!!!
Ben: Let's put the Chaney matter to a poll!
Me: You're too lazy.
Ben: Wanna bet???!!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Ben, you're not too bright, but you are amusing, or at least you are today. Thanks for the laughs, Yellow Pants.
You lose.
Me: "<snicker> He`ll do neither."
Yeah, but who in their right mind would bet that Ben wouldn't run?
your mouth is.
Chuckles lost. I easily met the challenge. And you're simply too
dishonest to admit it.
Quit while you're behind, Ben. Declare your victory in defeat and do
your little Snoopy dance. You're undefeated in your mind. Hooray!
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-7, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:36:46 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 12:21:15?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
What Gil and Ben and the other card-carrying members of Team Oswald
Can you name this logical fallacy?
No.Coward, aren't you?
want is proxy Warren Commission members (and those of us who
participate here and believe Oswald killed JFK and JDT with no help >>> are suitable replacements for the long departed WC staff attorneys) so
they can have their speculative hobby point nit-picks answered.
The answers are provided, but never to their satisfaction.
No coward, the answers are **NOT** provided.
...to your satisfaction.At all. And the proof is a simple one... where's the answers to my questions?
You refuse to provide
them, cannot cite where you have in the past, then lie about it.
Na.Notice folks, no citation. Chuckles proves me right...
Why was Chaney never questioned by the WC?
Answer your own hobby point nit-pick, Ben. Tell us why he wasn't questioned, and back up your accusation with a positive .And again you prove yourself a liar. What happened to your claim that the answers are provided?
Clearly, they aren't.
You're simply a liar.
What Team Oswald should do--and they never will do this because it >>> will kill their hobby--is PROVIDE THEIR OWN ANSWERS to the hobby point
nit-picks they ask us to answer.
I can answer **ANY** question I've ever asked.
And back it up? You've never done this and never will.There you go, lying again.
Cite any question from
me, and I'll be happy to prove you a liar.
You've alleged...
historians don't take them seriously."ARE YOU STUPID????
I told you to CITE any question from me.
I'll also accept a quotation, as long as you include the citation to where it's found.Okay.
From the Benny Tracker series:
"111.) At the thread, 'What happened to JFK's body between Parkland and Bethesda?' Ben was asked to explain what happened to JFK's body on this trip.(Ben think's JFK's corpse was kidnapped.) Ben can only reply, "It traveled." And they wonder why
So explain what you mean by "it traveled," Ben? Be specific, explain precisely what you think happened, etc. and back up your claim(s).
Or run, you little greased piglet at the county fair.
Or snip.
Or claim you'll answer me as soon as I jump through some other hoop.Sit Chuckles, you know the rules of the game, YOU defend the 1964 WCR conclusions... you've been found wanting in that area, also, where is your assassination case scenario, its been what, 8 years now?
I know, I know at this rate you'll be sitting around with .john for 1600 earth years in purgatory discussing the finer points of stationary sandbag shooting (at a 100 yards) with a MC long rifle, right?
We can even post *YOUR* answer next to mine, and put it to a poll to >> find out which one is more credible.
But you'll run, of course...
The challenge is above...
Indeed it was... you failed.
The purpose of asking questions is *NOT* because we don't know the
answer, it's to PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that *YOU* can't give a
non-conspiratorial explanation for the question.
We can then compare their "proof" of what they're alleging with the >>> Warren Commission findings and the tests, interviews, forensics they >>> used to reach their conclusion that Oswald--to the best as could be >>> determined--killed JFK and JDT, with no known help.
No you can't. You refuse... REPEATEDLY, to cite this alleged
evidence.
They will never provide any answers. Ever.
And you're a damned liar who's TERRIFIED of proving that.
Run Ben! Run!I can't hear you... all I see is your yellow back as you run away...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
Chuckles isn't intelligent enough to offer real debate...
On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:02:32?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
((!!**HICCUP**!!))
Chuckles isn't intelligent enough to offer real debate...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 101:05:39 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,859 |