Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:54:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

Troll response removed.

Can`t answer if you can`t explain the question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:02:46 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:54:36?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

Troll response removed.

Can`t answer if you can`t explain the question.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`t
have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,
seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but
they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`t

have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

Well said. Another point is that a single witness will get some things wrong and some things
right. To determine which is which we have to compare that to what you call context and to what
I have called the body of evidence. The other point to be made is that it is unreasonable to
expect witnesses to remember exact details precisely when at the time they made the
observation, they had no reason to think it was important or to take note of it. It is unreasonable
to think Carolyn Arnold would remember the precise time she left the TSBD because that
wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect
Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier to remember how long the package was that Oswald brought
to work that morning because they would have had no reason to think that would be important
nor make a mental note of it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:19:21 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

Well said. Another point is that a single witness will get some things wrong and some things
right. To determine which is which we have to compare that to what you call context and to what
I have called the body of evidence.

To me, the "context" is the way in which to view the information. When a witness says they thought the shots came from the knoll then the context would be that sound is invisible and bounces off surfaces. When Linnie Mae relates details about the bag,
the context would be viewing a mundane item briefly from a distance and then relating details about it much later. It is looking at the information for what it actually is. Conspiracy folks have no interest in doing this because it can only do harm to
their ideas.

What you call "the body of evidence" (and I would too) is the part I said about "in relation to any other information that might impact it ("context" does bleed into this concept, of course). But not only other evidence, but other real world
considerations. How plausible is it that the small amount of smoke a modern rifle emits could be seen from a distance? How plausible is it that the DPD could dummy up a photo in a short amount of time using 60s technology that could fool the photographic
experts of today?

The other point to be made is that it is unreasonable to
expect witnesses to remember exact details precisely when at the time they made the
observation, they had no reason to think it was important or to take note of it. It is unreasonable
to think Carolyn Arnold would remember the precise time she left the TSBD because that
wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect
Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier to remember how long the package was that Oswald brought
to work that morning because they would have had no reason to think that would be important
nor make a mental note of it.

You get impressions of the world around you. If pressed later, you can only offer what you can pull up. Conspiracy folk want witnesses to be good at this because they can pretend the information is more solid than it actually is. Clothing descriptions
come to mind.

With a witness like Carolyn Arnold, the context would not only be the conflicting reports, but also the time that elapsed between those reports. Oswald would have been a part of every conversation for weeks in the TSBD, so people wrack their brains
about when they crossed paths with him that day. This isn`t always good, it can also generate false memories that become stronger the more they are thought about. And another consideration might be how many people were in that vicinity and Oswald gets a
single sighting.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`t

have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

The truth is not based on "reason" ( speculation ) . It's based on EVIDENCE. All of the official documents are evidence.
I don't speculate, I refer to those documents.
The fact that you can't accept that, is your problem, not mine.

BTW, I stand corrected. You ARE that stupid.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:05:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

The truth is not based on "reason" ( speculation ) . It's based on EVIDENCE. All of the official documents are evidence.
I don't speculate, I refer to those documents.
The fact that you can't accept that, is your problem, not mine.

The fact that you are incapable of weighing the evidence is your problem. Evidence doesn't
explain itself. It requires analysis and reasoning to determine what we can learn from it. That
is not speculation. Speculation is something someone surmises in absence of evidence. It is
not at all surprising they you are incapable of understanding the difference between reasoning
and speculation or why reasoning is necessary to determine what we can learn from evidence.

If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground and when you wake up and the
ground is covered with snow, it is reasonable to conclude that it snowed overnight. That isn't
speculation. That's reasoning. If one is not willing to apply reasoning, one would be baffled
as to how the snow got there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 8:55:50 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:19:21 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it

couldn`t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that,

but they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

Well said. Another point is that a single witness will get some things wrong and some things
right. To determine which is which we have to compare that to what you call context and to what
I have called the body of evidence.

To me, the "context" is the way in which to view the information. When a witness says they thought the shots came from the knoll then the context would be that sound is invisible and bounces off surfaces. When Linnie Mae relates details about the bag,

the context would be viewing a mundane item briefly from a distance and then relating details about it much later. It is looking at the information for what it actually is. Conspiracy folks have no interest in doing this because it can only do harm to
their ideas.

What you call "the body of evidence" (and I would too) is the part I said about "in relation to any other information that might impact it ("context" does bleed into this concept, of course). But not only other evidence, but other real world

considerations. How plausible is it that the small amount of smoke a modern rifle emits could be seen from a distance? How plausible is it that the DPD could dummy up a photo in a short amount of time using 60s technology that could fool the photographic
experts of today?

The other point to be made is that it is unreasonable to
expect witnesses to remember exact details precisely when at the time they made the
observation, they had no reason to think it was important or to take note of it. It is unreasonable
to think Carolyn Arnold would remember the precise time she left the TSBD because that
wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect
Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier to remember how long the package was that Oswald brought
to work that morning because they would have had no reason to think that would be important
nor make a mental note of it.

You get impressions of the world around you. If pressed later, you can only offer what you can pull up. Conspiracy folk want witnesses to be good at this because they can pretend the information is more solid than it actually is. Clothing descriptions

come to mind.

The conspiracy crowd would have us believe the human brain has a built in DVR and will
perfectly record and time stamp every event. The reality is we tend to zero in on specific items
and everything else is in our periphery and our recollections of them are vague at best. As an
example, about 30 years ago, The Scandalous Sisters, a pair of strippers who were appearing
at a local men's club announced they were going to appear topless in downtown Columbus, OH
during the lunch hour. At the time I worked in the heart of downtown and thought it might be a
good day to eat my lunch outside. In no time, I saw a buxom young blonde walk by wearing very
short shorts and a baseball jersey for a top. My keen eye noticed she clearly had nothing on
under the baseball jersey so a took a stroll behind her. Almost right away she stopped on the
sidewalk right in front of the State House and took the jersey off. As you might expect, a crowd
of men quickly gathered around her and I was in the front row. What I didn't notice is on the
other side of the circle was a guy I used to play a lot of golf with. That weekend, one of us
brought this up and that's when we found out we had both been there and neither of us had
seen the other, even though we were right across the circle from each other, no more than
12 feet apart. Apparently, our eyes had zeroed in on something else.

With a witness like Carolyn Arnold, the context would not only be the conflicting reports, but also the time that elapsed between those reports. Oswald would have been a part of every conversation for weeks in the TSBD, so people wrack their brains

about when they crossed paths with him that day. This isn`t always good, it can also generate false memories that become stronger the more they are thought about. And another consideration might be how many people were in that vicinity and Oswald gets a
single sighting.

The other problem is that in a situation like that, people want to be helpful to investigators, so
rather than say they don't know or aren't sure, they try to fill in the blanks as best they can,
which as often as not can lead to misinformation. Neither Randle nor Frazier would have had
any reason to make a mental note of the length of the bag at the time they saw it, but when asked
about it later on, they tried to visualize it as best they could but their best just wasn't very
accurate. I'm sure what the told the cops was what they remembered but what they remembered
wasn't very accurate. No reason to expect it would be. If you asked somebody to estimate the
length of a package while they were looking at it, they could probably give a reasonably accurate
estimate. But when you ask them to estimate the package solely on their memory of an item
they had no reason to focus on at the time, what we could expect is little more than a guess.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 01:48:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Oh, it's just another excuse not to answer. If the wetness of water
was a factor in this case, you wouldn't be able to get him to admit
that water is wet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 03:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`t

have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 04:19:18 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

Well said. Another point is that a single witness will get some things wrong and some things
right. To determine which is which we have to compare that to what you call context and to what
I have called the body of evidence. The other point to be made is that it is unreasonable to
expect witnesses to remember exact details precisely when at the time they made the
observation, they had no reason to think it was important or to take note of it. It is unreasonable
to think Carolyn Arnold would remember the precise time she left the TSBD because that
wouldn't have seemed the least bit important at the time. Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect
Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier to remember how long the package was that Oswald brought
to work that morning because they would have had no reason to think that would be important
nor make a mental note of it.

Corbutt proves my case. He can't name so much as a SINGLE witness he
doesn't disagree with.

In other words, he has **NOTHING** to base his belief on.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 07:24:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:05:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

The truth is not based on "reason" ( speculation ) . It's based on EVIDENCE. >> All of the official documents are evidence.
I don't speculate, I refer to those documents.
The fact that you can't accept that, is your problem, not mine.

Logical fallacies deleted.

Corbutt has **NOTHING** on which to base his beliefs...

And that fact tells the tale...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:05:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /bəˈlēv/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

The truth is not based on "reason" ( speculation ) .

You are just showing you are unteachable, I provided this to you before...

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reasoning

The red offerings are closest in meaning, the orange and yellowish less synonymous.

You`ll see in the red words like "thinking" and "analysis". When you are against reasoning, you are against these things.

"speculation" in nowhere to be found.

It's based on EVIDENCE.

You are unbelievably obtuse.

Oswald is seen on the 6th floor. Oswald is seen on the first floor. Reasoning tells us that him using the stairs (or an elevator) or that he repelled down the side of the building are not equal propositions.

All of the official documents are evidence.

Which can you you absolutely nothing if you have no ability to reason. Everything stays exactly as it is on the printed page, no conclusions are possible when you nullify the application of reason to information.

I don't speculate, I refer to those documents.

Aren`t they available online? If you are merely repeating the information that is readily available without adding anything to the process, what is the point?

The fact that you can't accept that, is your problem, not mine.

You seem totally unaware that you are using evidence to make arguments and support propositions of your own making.

BTW, I stand corrected. You ARE that stupid.

You don`t even seem to be aware of what *you* are doing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:43:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 03:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

"So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 08:37:27 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 9:05:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:51:54?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

The truth is not based on "reason" ( speculation ) .

You are just showing you are unteachable, I provided this to you before...

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 08:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:43:34?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 03:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:34?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Okay, one definition of "true" is "accurate or exact".

So, by using such a high bar and knowing human beings to be fallible, is it wise to "believe" witnesses on face value? If a witness says they saw someone at a particular time, say "noon", we must accept that it was that exact time, and that it couldn`

t have been 11:50 or 12:15 (or the sighting didn`t occur at all)?

The correct way is to weigh all witness supplied information is in context, for what it is and what it isn`t and in relation to any other information that might impact it. This is called "reasoning", which you and Ben have come out firmly against,

seeing it as some great evil rather than the only real way to come to reasonable conclusions.

So Ben`s loaded question is meaningless, the correct question is "What witness or witnesses should we believe on which particular issues?"

Well, a witness who said the assassination occurred at 12:30 should be believed, as that information has the required amount of support to consider that fact (a lot of things CTers consider "fact" do not have the support needed to call them that, but

they do anyway). Note also that I believe the witnesses who said they thought the shots came from the knoll, I do believe they thought that.

So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

"So cue Ben to declare what I wrote a fallacy and remove it, or add some non sequitur to the end.

What he won`t do is try to argue against the ideas I`ve expressed, because he can`t argue ideas to save his life, crooked games is all he wants to play."

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:18:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:28?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 01:48:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Oh, it's just another excuse not to answer.

You just don`t like it when things are looked at correctly.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

If the wetness of water was a factor in this case, you wouldn't be
able to get him to admit that water is wet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 01:48:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Oh, it's just another excuse not to answer.

You just don`t like it when things are looked at correctly.

If the wetness of water
was a factor in this case, you wouldn't be able to get him to admit
that water is wet.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:18:55 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 01:48:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in
everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Oh, it's just another excuse not to answer.

You just don`t like it when things are looked at correctly.

I like how Yellowpanties posted an LA Times article that gives an excellent summation of the
evidence against Oswald in both murders, just 3 days after the fact. It shows how quickly and
certainly the investigators were able to build an unshakeable case against Oswald. There is no
doubt he would have been convicted, even with crack defense attorney Gil Jesus defending him.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:48:15 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 2:18:55 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 01:48:32 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 1:31:52?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 12:50:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>> Can you name any and all witnesses that you believe COMPLETELY in >>> everything they said contemporaneously and in sworn testimony?

What do you mean by "believe"?

I can't believe you're that stupid to not know the meaning of the word "believe".
be·lieve /b??l?v/
verb

to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Oh, it's just another excuse not to answer.

You just don`t like it when things are looked at correctly.

I like how Yellowpanties posted an LA Times article that gives an excellent summation of the
evidence against Oswald in both murders, just 3 days after the fact. It shows how quickly and
certainly the investigators were able to build an unshakeable case against Oswald. There is no
doubt he would have been convicted, even with crack defense attorney Gil Jesus defending him.

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:48:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

I like how Yellowpanties posted an LA Times article that gives an excellent summation of the
evidence against Oswald in both murders, just 3 days after the fact. It shows how quickly and
certainly the investigators were able to build an unshakeable case against Oswald. There is no
doubt he would have been convicted, even with crack defense attorney Gil Jesus defending him.

Corbutt was so anxious to address this issue, that he couldn't wait
for somone else to run from it.

So he put his response in another question thread that he has ALSO run
from.

Needless to say, he couldn't find a single error in that newpaper
article, despite the many that are there.

Corbutt's a coward.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said: So, according to Bugliosi, it
was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an
SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less." >> But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so... So,
according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually
conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:43:24 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so...

I just did.

So,
according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less." But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

So, according to Bugliosi, it
was this "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an
SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:43:24?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so...

I just did.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

"I`m fine with what he said." doesn't answer the question.

Run coward... RUN!!!

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually
conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:01:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:43:24?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so...

I just did.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
"I`m fine with what he said." doesn't answer the question.

You claimed I didn`t like what he said. I explained to you I was fine with it.

Run coward... RUN!!!

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually >> conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:01:43?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:43:24?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so...

I just did.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
"I`m fine with what he said." doesn't answer the question.

You claimed I didn`t like what he said. I explained to you I was fine with it.

How can you like what you refuse to acknowledge he said?

You just can't stop lying, can you?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Run coward... RUN!!!

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually >>>> conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:24:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 16:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 7:01:43?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:44:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 6:43:24?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 15:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:09:41?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net> >>>>>> wrote:

I like what Wade said... "I`ve sent people to the electric chair with less."

But you don't like what Bugliosi said:

I`m fine with what he said. I look at it correctly.

Yet you refuse vehemently to publicly AND SPECIFICALLY say so...

I just did.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
"I`m fine with what he said." doesn't answer the question.

You claimed I didn`t like what he said. I explained to you I was fine with it.

How can you like what you refuse to acknowledge he said?

This has been explained to you. I look at it correctly.

You just can't stop lying, can you?
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Run coward... RUN!!!

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was "virtually >>>> conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)