We learn nothing about a conspiracy to kill JFK from the above.
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that he could not identify the rifle in evidence, CE 139, as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
https://youtu.be/acRdJM25jwk
Time for the trolls to start crying again.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:13:19?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:07:04?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We learn nothing about a conspiracy to kill JFK from the above.Find that 43 inch bag yet ?
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:07:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We learn nothing about a conspiracy to kill JFK from the above.Find that 43 inch bag yet ?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:13:19?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:07:04?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We learn nothing about a conspiracy to kill JFK from the above.Find that 43 inch bag yet ?
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?Have you shown that Santa Claus isn't moonlighting as the Easter
Bunny?
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that he could not identify the rifle in evidence, CE 139, as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
https://youtu.be/acRdJM25jwk
Time for the trolls to start crying again.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:20:32?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that he could not identify the rifle in evidence, CE 139, as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
https://youtu.be/acRdJM25jwk
Time for the trolls to start crying again.
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:13:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:20:32?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:And indeed, Corbutt immediately did as as you suggested...
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that he could not identify the rifle in evidence, CE 139, as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"
https://youtu.be/acRdJM25jwk
Time for the trolls to start crying again.
Since Boone didn't take possession of the rifle, this doesn't matter.
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 2:13:42 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Since Boone didn't take possession of the rifle, this doesn't matter.Bullshit. How do you know that this is the same rifle he found if he never identified it ?
Especially with the ( according to you people ) misidentification of the rifle by three different deputies.
It's IMPERATIVE that he identify the rifle.
"This doesn't matter" is just another of your stupid comments that you can't back up.
Spanked again.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:31:19?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 2:13:42?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Since Boone didn't take possession of the rifle, this doesn't matter.Bullshit. How do you know that this is the same rifle he found if he never identified it ?
Because Lt. Day took possession of the rifle that Boone found. You
should know this because you made such a big deal of showing me Day
dusting the rifle for prints inside the TSBD.
Especially with the ( according to you people ) misidentification of the rifle by three different deputies.
It's IMPERATIVE that he identify the rifle.
Boone was never in the chain of custody. There is absolutely no reason he needs to be able to
say it was the same rifle.
"This doesn't matter" is just another of your stupid comments that you can't back up.
The fact that you think this matters shows your desperation to dismiss any and all evidence of
Oswald's guilt which would leave us with no evidence at all.
Spanked again.
You seem to have a very creepy fetish.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?
Absolutely
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/flap-fold.png
Can you cite the official document that describes the bag as being larger than 38 inches ?
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:54 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?Absolutely
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/flap-fold.png
Can you cite the official document that describes the bag as being larger than 38 inches ?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:27:31 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:43:54?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?
Absolutely
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/flap-fold.png
Can you cite the official document that describes the bag as being larger than 38 inches ?I'll answer for Chickenshit: "Of course not... there aren't any such documents."
You didn't address what Gil said.
You lose.
You didn't address what Gil said.
You lose.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You didn't address what Gil said.
You lose.He never does.
As usual, he hasn't refuted one single thing that I've said.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No photographs
No links
Time for another spanking.
During his testimony, Boone was shown the CE 139 rifle and asked if it was the rifle he found and he could not positively identify it.
The video corroborates his testimony.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol3_294-boone.gif
Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.
This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle.
None of these items were ever positively identified by the persons who found them.
Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found.items in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found.
And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by their finders imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that the
Positive identification by the persons who found the items would eliminate any possibility of evidence tampering by authorities.
And THAT'S why you have them mark the evidence for later identification.
How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ?
A coincidence ? Five coincidences ?
No. IMO, this is prima facie evidence of tampering by police.
"Don't believe the so-called evidence" ---- Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You didn't address what Gil said.
You lose.He never does.
As usual, he hasn't refuted one single thing that I've said.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No photographs
No links
Time for another spanking.
During his testimony, Boone was shown the CE 139 rifle and asked if it was the rifle he found and he could not positively identify it. The video corroborates his testimony.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol3_294-boone.gif
Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.
This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle.
None of these items were ever positively identified by the persons who found them.
Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found.
And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by their finders imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that theitems in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found.
Positive identification by the persons who found the evidence would eliminate any possibility of witness tampering by authorities.
And THAT'S why you have them mark the evidence for later identification.
How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ?
A coincidence ? Five coincidences ?
No. IMO, this is prima facie evidence of tampering by police.
"Don't believe the so-called evidence" ---- Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert.
Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.Damn, you're a dumbfuck.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 5:49:38 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:the items in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:57:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You didn't address what Gil said.
You're full of shit, Gil. I refuted everything you said. None of the below items was needed to doYou lose.He never does.
As usual, he hasn't refuted one single thing that I've said.
that because your problem is your illogical thinking and those items aren't needed to do that.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No photographs
No links
Time for another spanking.
During his testimony, Boone was shown the CE 139 rifle and asked if it was the rifle he found and he could not positively identify it. The video corroborates his testimony.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol3_294-boone.gif
Boone's identification of the rifle isn't needed to establish its authenticity because he never
handled the rifle. Day was the one who took possession of the rifle. Day establishes it was
the rifle found in the TSBD, not Boone. You are making a red herring argument by pointing out
Boone couldn't make a positive ID of the rifle.
Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.Damn, you're a dumbfuck.
This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle.
None of these items were ever positively identified by the persons who found them.
Keep those red herrings coming, Gil. You know nothing about the chain of custody rules.
Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found.You get stupider by the day, Gil. The world doesn't operate by Gil's Rules of Evidence.
And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by their finders imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that
Keep inventing excuses for disregarding the evidence that proves Oswald was the assassin. It'sand the method that was used to collect the evidence. The log should also include signatures of the people who were in possession of the evidence, the date and time the evidence was transferred, the manner in which the evidence was transferred, and the
all you're really good for.
Positive identification by the persons who found the evidence would eliminate any possibility of witness tampering by authorities.
Even that is illogical.
And THAT'S why you have them mark the evidence for later identification.
How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ?The key point in chain of custody is who took possession of them. You think you are an authority
on rules of evidence and you're not. You're just a dumbass pounding away at a keyboard.
A coincidence ? Five coincidences ?
No. IMO, this is prima facie evidence of tampering by police.That's because you have no idea what legally constitutes evidence. HINT: Your FUBAR figuring
is not evidence.
"Don't believe the so-called evidence" ---- Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert.And because you're a dumbass, you believe what the assassin said. Everybody else was lying.
Rather than going by Gil's Rules of Evidence, let's turn to a competent source.
https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/
The following excerpt briefly describes the chain of custody procedures:
[quote on]
What Is Included in an Evidence Log?
To prove chain of custody at trial, law enforcement must be able to identify, at all times in the chain of custody, a particular person who is in control of a piece of evidence. This is done through an evidence log.
A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence,
Any time evidence is examined by a forensic technician, the examiner must list everyone who came in contact with the evidence and everything that was done to the evidence.He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald *and* presiding judge over Oswald's trial. So as defense attorney he raises objections to the evidence and then rules in favor of the objection as the judge. Surprise, the judge rules in favor of Oswald's
[quote off]
Note there is nothing in that description that indicates the first person in the chain must be able to
identify the item in question. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if Gil's Rules of Evidence were
applied to a crime scene where blood splatter evidence was collected and tested for DNA. Are
we supposed to believe that the officer at the scene would have to be able to identify the drop of
blood as the one he collected at the scene? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. It is only
necessary to document who collected the evidence and everyone who took possession of the
evidence as it passed from one person to another and how the evidence was secured.
Of course all of this is moot as it pertains to Boone because Boone was never in the chain of
custody and therefore, his identification of the rifle is not necessary. It would only have been
necessary for Boone to testify that he found the rifle and who took possession of it at the scene.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 6:48:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
AND YOU'RE A GOD-DAMNED LIAR.Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.Damn, you're a dumbfuck.
That's all you do is lie.
You lie about the evidence, you lie about what people post.
You lie about EVERYTHING.
I've forgotten more about this case than you'll ever know.
You don't know shit.
You have no conception about what constitutes proper police procedure.
You have no conception about what constitutes the rule of law.
You have no conception of what constitutes evidence.
60 years and you're still here trying to close the case. You can't deal with the message. You have to attack the messenger.
That's why you're here. To attack the messenger. You don't give a shit about the evidence.
You come in here every day and get your ass kicked by the evidence and cry all the way home.
Save the drama for your mama.
Your personal attacks on me or anyone else here are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide your lack of knowledge in the case.
A dumbfuck ? No, I'm your worst enemy because I take official records and shove the Warren Commission's case right up your ass sideways.
And you seem to like it, because you keep coming back for more.
CONGRATULATIONS: YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST MOTHERFUCKER I'VE EVER MET ON LINE. And I have been on line for over 20 years.
And here's a bulletin for you, John:
NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS.
Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain quantum physics to a third grader.
YOU'RE JUST THAT FUCKING CLUELESS.
If you wanted to reason with me, a good place to start is with the points I made.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 5:49:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:57:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You didn't address what Gil said.He never does.
You lose.
As usual, he hasn't refuted one single thing that I've said.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
No photographs
No links
Time for another spanking.
During his testimony, Boone was shown the CE 139 rifle and asked if it was the rifle he found and he could not positively identify it. The video corroborates his testimony.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WC_Vol3_294-boone.gif
Boone's identification of the rifle...
Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.
This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle.
None of these items were ever positively identified by the persons who found them.
Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found.
the items in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found.And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by their finders imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that
Positive identification by the persons who found the evidence would eliminate any possibility of witness tampering by authorities.
And THAT'S why you have them mark the evidence for later identification.
How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ?
A coincidence ? Five coincidences ?
No. IMO, this is prima facie evidence of tampering by police.
"Don't believe the so-called evidence" ---- Lee Harvey Oswald to his brother Robert.
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate withBen`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
the defense counsel.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with
the defense counsel.
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 17.54.40 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
Could you imagine the idiot running a moderated board?As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate withBen`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
the defense counsel.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate withBen`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
the defense counsel.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:54:40?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with
the defense counsel.
Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
Then he wonders why I won't respond to him anymore. What's the point when all he does is
delete the points I have made.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:54:40?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with
the defense counsel.
Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
Then he wonders why I won't respond to him anymore. What's the point when all he does isYou can run, Corbutt - but you can't hide. It's a simple FACT that I
delete the points I have made.
simply delete logical fallacies.
If you cannot address what I post,
or use nonsense - I've no responsibility whatsoever to answer.
*YOU*, on the other hand, *DO* have a responsibility to defend
Bugliosi, to defend the WCR, to defend Posner, etc.
But you can't.
So you simply run away.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in this forum that has addressed all
of my refutations of Buglioisi's claims. And **NONE** of the
responses were credible.
Run coward... RUN!
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 2:31:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:54:40?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with >>> the defense counsel.
Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
No, it isn`t.Then he wonders why I won't respond to him anymore. What's the point when all he does isYou can run, Corbutt - but you can't hide. It's a simple FACT that I simply delete logical fallacies.
delete the points I have made.
If you cannot address what I post,
or use nonsense - I've no responsibility whatsoever to answer.
*YOU*, on the other hand, *DO* have a responsibility to defendNonsense.
Bugliosi, to defend the WCR, to defend Posner, etc.
But you can't.
So you simply run away.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in this forum that has addressed allBen plays crooked games them elects himself arbiter of the crooked games.
of my refutations of Buglioisi's claims. And **NONE** of the
responses were credible.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:02:19?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 2:31:03?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Kind of the acj version of Judge Roy Bean.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), John CorbettNo, it isn`t.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:54:40?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:You can run, Corbutt - but you can't hide. It's a simple FACT that I
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with >>>>>> the defense counsel.
Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
Then he wonders why I won't respond to him anymore. What's the point when all he does is
delete the points I have made.
simply delete logical fallacies.
If you cannot address what I post,Nonsense.
or use nonsense - I've no responsibility whatsoever to answer.
*YOU*, on the other hand, *DO* have a responsibility to defend
Bugliosi, to defend the WCR, to defend Posner, etc.
But you can't.Ben plays crooked games them elects himself arbiter of the crooked games.
So you simply run away.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in this forum that has addressed all
of my refutations of Buglioisi's claims. And **NONE** of the
responses were credible.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:20:01 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 5:02:19?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:As Huckster points out: Curiously, you posted no evidence. no
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 2:31:03?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Kind of the acj version of Judge Roy Bean.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT), John CorbettNo, it isn`t.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:54:40?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:You can run, Corbutt - but you can't hide. It's a simple FACT that I
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven GalbraithThen he wonders why I won't respond to him anymore. What's the point when all he does is
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with >>>>>> the defense counsel.
Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes. >>>>
delete the points I have made.
simply delete logical fallacies.
If you cannot address what I post,Nonsense.
or use nonsense - I've no responsibility whatsoever to answer.
*YOU*, on the other hand, *DO* have a responsibility to defend
Bugliosi, to defend the WCR, to defend Posner, etc.
But you can't.Ben plays crooked games them elects himself arbiter of the crooked games. >>
So you simply run away.
There isn't a *SINGLE* believer in this forum that has addressed all
of my refutations of Buglioisi's claims. And **NONE** of the
responses were credible.
citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:06:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 6:48:19 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
AND YOU'RE A GOD-DAMNED LIAR.Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it.Damn, you're a dumbfuck.
That's all you do is lie.
You lie about the evidence, you lie about what people post.
You lie about EVERYTHING.
I've forgotten more about this case than you'll ever know.
You don't know shit.
You have no conception about what constitutes proper police procedure.
You have no conception about what constitutes the rule of law.
You have no conception of what constitutes evidence.
60 years and you're still here trying to close the case. You can't deal with the message. You have to attack the messenger.
That's why you're here. To attack the messenger. You don't give a shit about the evidence.
You come in here every day and get your ass kicked by the evidence and cry all the way home.
Save the drama for your mama.
Your personal attacks on me or anyone else here are nothing more than a smoke screen to hide your lack of knowledge in the case.
A dumbfuck ? No, I'm your worst enemy because I take official records and shove the Warren Commission's case right up your ass sideways.
And you seem to like it, because you keep coming back for more.
CONGRATULATIONS: YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST MOTHERFUCKER I'VE EVER MET ON LINE. And I have been on line for over 20 years.
And here's a bulletin for you, John:
NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS.
Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain quantum physics to a third grader.If you wanted to reason with me, a good place to start is with the points I made. Nowhere in
YOU'RE JUST THAT FUCKING CLUELESS.
this latest rant of yours do you even attempt to do that. I pointed out the fallacies of your
argument. Note I didn't delete them like Yellowpanties does. I leave them out for all to see.
You have committed two major fallacies in this thread. First and foremost, Boone was never
part of the chain of custody so it mattered not that he couldn't positively identify the rifle.
Second, chain of custody is established through documentation, not through marking of a
piece of evidence which isn't always practicable. In some cases that is done, but it is not a
necessary step.
You have a habit of getting very frustrated when someone pokes holes in your arguments.
That's when you go on rants like you have done here and usually you bail out of the thread
after doing that. It's your way of taking your ball and going home. Instead of throwing a
hissy fit, why don't you address the points I made instead.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 17.54.40 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
That went over like a lead balloon, didn`t it?Could you imagine the idiot running a moderated board?As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with the defense counsel.Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 20.15.45 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 17.54.40 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
Too many things go straight over the old head nowadays.That went over like a lead balloon, didn`t it?Could you imagine the idiot running a moderated board?As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate with the defense counsel.Ben`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
It's just ironic that it brings Ben so much pleasure to censor other people, considering how heavy-handed he found McAdams' moderation.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 20.15.45 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 17.54.40 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
I was referring to Ben`s attempt to run a moderated board. You were on there, and closed out your account.Too many things go straight over the old head nowadays.That went over like a lead balloon, didn`t it?Could you imagine the idiot running a moderated board?As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate withBen`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
the defense counsel.
I remember Bob Harris tried to run a moderated forum. Tried to dictate what could be discussed (his ideas, of course). Only LNers can really run a moderated board fairly, CTers are too delusional.other posters doesn`t leave Ben with much.
It's just ironic that it brings Ben so much pleasure to censor other people, considering how heavy-handed he found McAdams' moderation.They always tried to play the victim when it came to moderation there. I had a slew of posts rejected there, some I felt unfairly but most were fair. The thing that would get you rejected most often was insulting other posters. Not being able to insult
tirsdag den 8. august 2023 kl. 01.44.39 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:24:05 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 20.15.45 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:01:02 PM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
mandag den 7. august 2023 kl. 17.54.40 UTC+2 skrev Bud:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:27:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 06:34:59 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He likes to play both defense attorney for Oswald ...
Geez, I didn't think anyone would remember that. The environment was so toxic that even Healy refused to join.I was referring to Ben`s attempt to run a moderated board. You were on there, and closed out your account.Too many things go straight over the old head nowadays.That went over like a lead balloon, didn`t it?Could you imagine the idiot running a moderated board?As this moron enjoys being the prosecutor who DARES NOT debate withBen`s idea of "debate" is to remove everything his opponent writes.
the defense counsel.
insult other posters doesn`t leave Ben with much.I remember Bob Harris tried to run a moderated forum. Tried to dictate what could be discussed (his ideas, of course). Only LNers can really run a moderated board fairly, CTers are too delusional.
It's just ironic that it brings Ben so much pleasure to censor other people, considering how heavy-handed he found McAdams' moderation.They always tried to play the victim when it came to moderation there. I had a slew of posts rejected there, some I felt unfairly but most were fair. The thing that would get you rejected most often was insulting other posters. Not being able to
I didn't mind the moderation as such, but it took forever for my posts to clear because I was an infrequent poster and not part of the buddy system.
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:47:01?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:43:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:13:19?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:07:04?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We learn nothing about a conspiracy to kill JFK from the above.Find that 43 inch bag yet ?
Have you shown the bag in evidence wouldn`t be 43 inches long if the flap was extended?
Have you shown that Santa Claus isn't moonlighting as the Easter
Bunny?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:19:41 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,074 |
