When the government releases more files....
https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
When the government releases more files....
https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYoLOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL
Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
When the government releases more files....
https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYoLOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL
Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.
This isn't about evidence with you.
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.
This thread proves it.
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.LOL.......you're so dumb you think the Mexican border pays rent.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:29:03?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 4:18:33?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
When the government releases more files....LOL.....the guy who refuses to look at other people's links is posting links....LOL
https://youtu.be/DNKfucd0HYo
Here's another one that will send him screaming from the room like the little bitch he is:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/f7509c1cdc169d03.jpg
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.
This isn't about evidence with you.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas about
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didnt change.
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitelyidentify OSWALD as the individual.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:exactly that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.
This isn't about evidence with you.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas about
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantabout the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
identify OSWALD as the individual.”You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely
exactly that.Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >>>> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
identify OSWALD as the individual.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didnt change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely
exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantabout the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >>>> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
Pointing out the facts you hate.
Don't you just HATE that?
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantabout the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?
Or will you dodge and run away again?
identify OSWALD as the individual.”Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely
exactly that.Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce?
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online?
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >>>> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didnt change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
I can name both of them. You...
identify OSWALD as the individual.Warren Reynolds FBI statement: REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely
exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is doing
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:18:11?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>>>
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here. >>>>>>> ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >>>>>> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
identify OSWALD as the individual.Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didnt change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
Pointing out the facts you hate.
Don't you just HATE that?
... Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:18:11 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here. >>>>> ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.
This isn't about evidence with you.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however, >> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
Pointing out the facts you hate.
Don't you just HATE that?As always, and copying his hero Mark Lane, Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:
Here's what Ben deleted:
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ignoring the fact that Reynolds said essentially the same thing twice:
First, Reynolds thought it was Oswald:
FBI:
“he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963…”
COMMISSION:
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Second, Reynolds qualified it both times, stopping short of certainty:
FBI:
“… he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.” COMMISSION:
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
You will continue to pretend there is some logical fallacy in there, but that is your pretense only.
CTs have mischaracterized his statements as having changed after his shooting, they are[sic - did] not.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantabout the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links. >>>> This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
This isn't about evidence with you.
Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem.
This thread proves it.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
I can name both of them. You...
Quite the coward, aren't you?
definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
Logical fallacies deleted.
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however,
it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Focus, man, Focus. We are discussing...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 8:37:56 AM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:ideas about the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:18:11 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here. >>>>> ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.
This isn't about evidence with you.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your
definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem. >>>>> This thread proves it.
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however, >> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
Pointing out the facts you hate.
Don't you just HATE that?As always, and copying his hero Mark Lane, Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:
Here's what Ben deleted:Not always true: On 11/22, Reynolds was telling the cops that he last saw the suspect entering an old house.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ignoring the fact that Reynolds said essentially the same thing twice:
(Check the text & photos in "With Malice" showing Reynolds with a cop in front of that house!)
For the Commission, he said that he last saw the suspect headed towards the parking lot.
First, Reynolds thought it was Oswald:
FBI:
“he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963…”
COMMISSION:
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Second, Reynolds qualified it both times, stopping short of certainty: FBI:
“… he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”
COMMISSION:
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
You will continue to pretend there is some logical fallacy in there, but that is your pretense only.
CTs have mischaracterized his statements as having changed after his shooting, they are[sic - did] not.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzantabout the evidence. You are just so fucking stupid.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:18:11?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 12:39:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 10:57:10?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 07:48:51 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:00:33?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
So you are saying you have no ideas about the evidence you produce? >>>>>>You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here. >>>>>>> ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
So what is the point of posting evidence when it available online? >>>>>>> YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
Of the two of us, I`m the one who can think.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.This is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. Make your conspiracy arguments here.
This isn't about evidence with you.It is about whether the *ideas* about the evidence are valid. You are so fucking stupid you don`t even know you are expressing ideas about the evidence. You are so fucking stupid you can`t tell the difference between the evidence and your ideas
definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.”Are you honest enough to corrrectly label this logical fallacy?You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.I don`t recall a conspiracy theorist ever causing me a problem. >>>>>>> This thread proves it.
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.You don`t even know when you are expressing an idea. You recently you wrote...
"I didn't even mention the case of Warren Reynolds, who was shot in the head in the basement of his brother's used car lot
the day after he told the FBI that, " he would definitely hesitate to identify Oswald as the individual" he followed. ( 25 H 731 )
No one was ever charged in that shooting. A suspect was arrested and then released.
They wanted him to know the guy was still out there.
Not only was Reynolds being targeted, his family and his property it seems was being targeted as well.
Less than a month after his shooting, a man tried to lure his 10 year old daughter into his car with the promise of candy. ( 11 H 441 )
Someone also unscrewed the light bulb in his porch light so it wouldn't go on when he threw the switch. ( ibid. pg. 442 )
The porch light was rendered useless during any attack on his property after dark .
Five months later he testified that he identified Oswald ,"in my mind" after seeing him on televison and in the newspapers.
Such an identification is not considered positive.
He never came forward to identify Oswald officially until his Warren Commission testimony.
The harrassment worked. Reynolds changed his mind and went on the record as identifying Oswald."
Now, it appears to me that *someone* is expressing the idea that Warren Reynolds was intimidated into changing the information he related. If it wasn`t you, who else has access to your computer?
So Gil is simply repeating conspiracy mythology, as Warren Reynolds ID of Oswald didn’t change.
Or will you dodge and run away again?
Warren Reynolds FBI statement: “ REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to
doing exactly that.
Warren Reynolds Commission Testimony:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You later identified that man as Lee Harvey Oswald? >>>>>Mr.REYNOLDS. In my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your mind, that is what I mean.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you saw his picture in the newspaper and on television? Is that right?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes; unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.
In BOTH cases, Reynolds said he thought the guy was Oswald, in BOTH cases he qualified it somewhat. Critics have always falsely summarized his statements, stressing the qualification in the FBI statement, ignoring it in his WC testimony. Gil is
It's good that you're honest enough to provide the quotes... however, >>>> it's clear that Gil has a point... and you're simply using logical
fallacies to argue.
Gil, and numerous critics before him, and now you, are ...
Pointing out the facts you hate.
Don't you just HATE that?
... Ben simply ignores the statements he can't rebut:
Irony alert!!!
ANSWER THE QUESTION, COWARD!!!
Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
Yes, it's true folks, that Huckster Sienzant is so stupid that he
actually believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
And runs away, and refuses to address these facts.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:00:56?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Yes, it's true folks, that Huckster Sienzant is so stupid that he
actually believes:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
And runs away, and refuses to address these facts.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME.
Ben still ...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:59:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
What unsupported claims...
You're the one making the unsupported claims. You claimed I was
terrified of quoting the sentence ... yada, yada, but you don't
document how you know that.
You claim I made "the baseless and lying claim that JFK's neck wound
was dissected", but don't cite for me making that claim either.
You then follow up by calling me names below:
But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
I need not chase you down every rabbit hole. I already established
in the thread above you wouldn't attempt to discuss the evidence. And
are in fact attempting to change the subject from the evidence I cited.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:59:17?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Huckster Sienzant is not only dumb enough to believe the following:
That the "A.B.C.D" description in the Autopsy Report refers to the
location of the bullet wound in the back of JFK's head.
Yet is TERRIFIED of quoting the sentence that precedes that in the
Autopsy Report.
And why do you make the baseless and lyiing claim that JFK's neck
wound was dissected?
Watch, as Huckster simply runs away from his unsupported claims.
But also a proven coward who refuses to address this.
Asked and answered here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg/m/bkcygnhyAwAJ
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:41:35?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 6:14:24?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
You hide behind links because you can`t defend your ideas here.ROFLMAO
I don't post ideas.
I post testimony.
I post documents.
I post exhibits.
I post videos of witnesses describing in their OWN words what they saw and said.
YOU'RE the one who posts ideas.
YOU'RE the one who hides HERE because you're scared shitless of links.
This isn't about evidence with you.
You only come in here to trash the conspiracy theorists, with whom you obviously have a problem.
This thread proves it.
You're a troll and not a very smart one at that.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 125:35:07 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,854 |
