"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. *****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and testimony.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >>>> responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound >>>>> in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.
What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally >>>> sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics. >>
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >>>> responses...)Selective quoting.
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound >>>>> in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 >>>
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
he's claiming...'
You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.No.
No need to.
You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! >>>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally >>>> sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But >>>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence >>>> proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the >>>> assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY >>>> WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance >>>> wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of >>>> what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t. >>
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >>>>>> responses...)
Selective quoting.
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound >>>>>>> in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 >>>>>
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another >>>> fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the >>>> single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's >>>> back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! >>>>>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally >>>>>> sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But >>>>>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence >>>>>> proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the >>>>>> assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY >>>>>> WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance >>>>>> wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theBut Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of >>>>>> what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t. >>>>
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
It fleshes out the idea.
Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)Selective quoting.
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound >>>>>>> in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 >>>>>
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...You're lying again, Chickenshit.
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another >>>> fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the >>>> single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's >>>> back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest toYou can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even >>>> quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.Yes coward, you did.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! >>>>>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But >>>>>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence >>>>>> proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the >>>>>> assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to sayYou can run, coward, but you can't hide.
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY >>>>>> WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance >>>>>> wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not. >> Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields. >> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of >>>>>> what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he >>>> believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and >>>> testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
It fleshes out the idea.What was the "idea?"
Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >>>>>>>> responses...)
Selective quoting.
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound >>>>>>>>> in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 >>>>>>>
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY >>>> WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another >>>>>> fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the >>>>>> single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's >>>>>> back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even >>>>>> quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! >>>>>>>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally >>>>>>>> sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But >>>>>>>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence >>>>>>>> proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the >>>>>>>> assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>>>>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY >>>>>>>> WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance >>>>>>>> wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>>>>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not. >>>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields. >>>> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>>>>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of >>>>>>>> what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t. >>>>>>
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he >>>>>> believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and >>>>>> testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what >>>> he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back >>>> up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY >>>> WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given >>>> above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the >>>> table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try >>> to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even >>>>>> quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a >>>> PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>>>>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's >>>> back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>>>>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the >>>> very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state. >>>But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony. >>>>>
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.It fleshes out the idea.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>>>>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated. >>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER... >>>> what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he >>>>>> believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and >>>>>> testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different. >>>But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)Selective quoting.
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463 >>>>>>>>>
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what >>>>>> he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back >>>>>> up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY >>>>>> WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another >>>>>>>> fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the >>>>>>>> single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's >>>>>>>> back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given >>>>>> above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the >>>>>> table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try >>>>> to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even >>>>>>>> quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a >>>>>> PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing! >>>>>>>>>> Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But >>>>>>>>>> Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone >>>>>>>>>> *BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you >>>>> changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's >>>>>> back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly >>>>>>>>>> downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the >>>>>> very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state. >>>>>But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields. >>>>>> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony. >>>>>>>
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.It fleshes out the idea.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts >>>>>>>>>> who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated. >>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER... >>>>>> what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he >>>>>>>> believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and >>>>>>>> testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different. >>>>>But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>>>>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what >>>>>> he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back >>>>>> up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given >>>>>> above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the >>>>>> table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try >>>>> to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a >>>>>> PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you >>>>> changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's >>>>>> back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the >>>>>> very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state. >>>>>But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony. >>>>>>>
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.It fleshes out the idea.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated. >>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER... >>>>>> what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different. >>>>>But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>>>>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what >>>>>>>> he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back >>>>>>>> up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY >>>>>>>> WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given >>>>>>>> above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the >>>>>>>> table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try >>>>>>> to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a >>>>>>>> PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper >>>>>>>>>>>> border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change >>>>>>>>>>>> just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval.
*****************************************************
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you >>>>>>> changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's >>>>>>>> back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked... >>>>
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the >>>>>>>> very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state. >>>>>>>But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony. >>>>>>>>>
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.It fleshes out the idea.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated. >>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER... >>>>>>>> what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken - >>>>>>>>>>>> according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different. >>>>>>>But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK >>>>>>>>>> was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to backup your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aI lost interest when you said you were changing words.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>
PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you >>>>>>> changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked... >>>>
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theBut Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to backup your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Dead silence...
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of thetestimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep
proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what >>>>>>>>>> he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back >>>>>>>>>> up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear? >>>>>>>>>>>>Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try >>>>>>>>> to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied?
I didn`t deny it.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense.
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a >>>>>>>>>> PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you >>>>>>>>> changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's >>>>>>>>>> back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked... >>>>>>
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is >>>>>>>>>>>> "virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of the >>>>>>>>>> very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony. >>>>>>>>>>>
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated. >>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY >>>>>>>>>>>>>> REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to backup your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept?
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said
that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked... >>>>>>>>
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact.
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL!
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theHe isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is.
Non sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no >>>>>>>>>>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.Or you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep
proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Non answer deleted. What characteristics?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep
proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Spanked again!
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion >>>>>>>>>>>> quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to backup your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such aBugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say >>>>>>>>>>>>> and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT.
How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
Non answer deleted. What characteristics?
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep
proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEMANDS such a person... who was it?Chickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:13:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Read the whole passage for comprehension.On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
No, I'm not.If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs? >>>>>>>
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep >>>>>> proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so...
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...
Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ...
No, I'm not.
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up. >>>>>>>>>>>> Logical fallacy deleted.He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT?
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses...
But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs?
Read the whole passage for comprehension.
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep
proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:13:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
Read the whole passage for comprehension.On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed.
No.What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
No, I'm not.If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
Despite my asking numerous times, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.arguments any better than this???)
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs? >>>>>>>
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep >>>>>> proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:44:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:13:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Read the whole passage for comprehension.On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that you *STILL* haven't addressed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
No.
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dead silence...Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.PERFECT analogy that you can't refute it.Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to say
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
No, I'm not.If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact.
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all.
Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
I need to support...
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing?
Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.
How can I be when ...Despite my asking numerous times, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.
We look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What
characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs? >>>>>>>>>
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep >>>>>>>> proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:44:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:27:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:13:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:59:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:17:49?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:14:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:12:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Read the whole passage for comprehension.On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:38:23?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:26:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:24:07?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:What "characteristics?"
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 4:59:27?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Spanked again!
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 2:37:26?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:You're lying again, Chickenshit.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 1:31:05?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:25:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463
Selective quoting.
You're lying again. And the proof is simple... you'll ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to quote Bugs on this topic "not selectively." and
contradicting this statement of his.
Notice folks, my prediction was spot on. Chickenshit CAN'T show what
he's claiming...'
You did it for me...
You've **STILL** been unable to
quote anything Bugs said that contradicts or changes his assertion
quoted above.
Logical fallacy deleted.You will absolutely refuse to include all the relevant context.On the topic given above, I have. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to back
up your claim.
Nothing... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that Bugs went on to say changed in ANY
WAY WHATSOEVER his claim I've refuted.
If you can't quote to support your lie, then just admit it...
And that you *STILL* haven't addressed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did he say about the wound in Connally`s back being linear?
No.
Desperate to change the topic, are you denying that Bugs said "Another
fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the
single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in Governor Connally's
back was not circular, but oval?"
Did he go on to explain or flesh out the concept? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote all of number three.
No need to.
There is a need to address...
What I pointed out. You still refuse to do so... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And like the coward you are, you ran...You will COMPLETELY REFUSE to quote anything Bugs said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changes, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER - what he said in the quote given
above.
You can keep running like a coward, but you've already lost.If you have an argument... make it.
DEAL WITH THE TOPIC HERE... not some mythical topic that's not on the
table.
Deal with what you have isolated? Why? Is it more honest to
address the concept in it`s entirety or try to exploit wording to try
to score meaningless points?
Yes coward, you did.I didn`t deny it.You mean the expert testimony that you've already denied? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*THAT* statement is the topic. not some mythical quote you can't even
quote or cite...
Check the next sentence after the one you selectively quoted.
It does *NOT* support Bugs claim.
It fleshes out ...
No, it doesn't.
If Bugliosi`s premise...
Nope. I'm speaking of PRECISELY what he asserted. Quoted above.
Dead silence...The experts would be the first to point out this nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Silence, as usual...If it did, you'd have quoted it, and shown what you're desperately
trying to imply without saying it.
You can run, coward, but you can't hide.I glanced at it, couldn`t figure out what you were trying to sayPERFECT analogy that you can't refute it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chickenshit simply ran away (while pretending to refute me)...Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."
That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally
sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)
But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ***************************************************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I lost interest when you said you were changing words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nah, it's not that you lost interest, it's the fact that it's such a
and moved on. I never even made a effort to determine what words you
changed.
No, I'm not.If the oval shape of the wound on Connally's back is "virtually
conclusive evidence"... then so to is the oval shaped wound on JFK's
back.
Again, you are misrepresenting Bug`s argument ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What was the "virtually conclusive evidence?"
You can't debate with knowledgeable critics... you just get spanked...
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Logical fallacy deleted.And there's nothing you can say to refute that fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You lose!
He somehow missed this - because he didn't address it AT ALL!How does a downward trajectory harm the SBT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about the SHAPE of the wound... try to keep up.
But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.
This is simple science.
This is simple biological fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory."
How would this harm the SBT?
Moron, aren't you? I just DEVASTATED Bug's assertion that this is
"virtually conclusive" evidence for the SBT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm sure he doesn't expect anything at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And Chickenshit is clearly doing what he does best. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.It clearly isn't.
And you've not addressed what I said... AT ALL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Run coward... RUN!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit is still denying the expertise of theNon sequitur. Either he is a expert in the relevant fields or he is not.
He isn`t an expert in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics.
He's FAR MORE expert in this topic than Bugs is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
very experts he implies ("in the next sentence") refute what I state.
You refuse to show he is an expect in the relevant sciences.
I need to support...Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, noOr you.
That fact tells the tale...
Bugs (and you) are putting *YOUR* ideas ahead of expert testimony.
Being an expert in one filed does not make you an expert in all fields.
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you claim... that's all.
What was the "idea?"Only comments. We gain nothing from the above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes who exactly the fool?
Logical fallacy deleted.Not a refutation... indeed, you didn't even address what I stated.Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.
Do they have expertise in plumbing? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Despite my asking numerous times, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL ofWe look at the information correctly, for what it is and what it isn`t.
what they testified or spoke of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You're once again, provably, and by your OWN TERMS, lying.
How can I be when ...
You've refused to cite evidence? Or support, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER...
what you're claiming?
Logical fallacy deleted.Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
Notice folks, that Chickenshit couldn't name a *SINGLE* eyewitness he
believes completely in their contemporary statements, affidavits, and
testimony.
It contained the names of no eyewitnesses... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was too dishonest to simply acknowledge the truth.
Stop pretending that the rest of the writing said anything different.(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bugliosi's has failed with #3
Chickenshit failed too. He DID NOT EVEN ADDRESS the topic. Bugs'
argument is "virtually conclusive" evidence that someone behind JFK
was shot by the SBT bullet.
Stop selective quoting and quote the whole of number three.
It fleshes out the idea.
That the characteristics of the wound ...
What "characteristics?"
I think...
No "thinking" involved. He either said it or didn't. What >>>>>>>>>> characteristics of the wound support the SBT according to Bugs? >>>>>>>>>
Don't ask me to tell you what it said.
**YOU** read it, and tell us
what Bugs said were the "characteristics" of that wound.
I can keep pointing out your cowardice as long as you want to keep >>>>>>>> proving yourself a coward...
It's not a "strawman" It's Bugliosi's claim.Who was behind JFK and was shot by that same bullet? Your logicChickenshit simply ignored it...
Chickenshit's been spanked.
DEMANDS such a person... who was it?
You are still fighting that strawman.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:50:01?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Selective quoting removed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:34:43 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,620 |