On 18 Jan 2010 07:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes <admin@burningknife.com>
wrote:

25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own >>collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the >>HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical >>testimony... why??

Now, LNT'ers such as John McAdams will deny that any lie was told about the >>medical evidence, so it's necessary to document it here so that they cannot >>deny the truth.

From the HSCA Report: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland >>doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed >>who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds
as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Now, what is the major "disagreement" in observation are we talking about? >>I'm sure everyone will agree that it's the "occipital-parietal" avulsive >>wound described by Parkland, in contrast to the parietal-temporal, upper >>right side wound shown in the autopsy photographs.

You have trouble understanding that the real evidence of the nature of
the wounds was the photos and x-rays.

Notice that McAdams has simply replied with a logical fallacy, and not addressed the blatant lie told by the HSCA.

Note also that he's merely disregarding the HSCA's blatant lie, and
trying to change the topic to something else.

The portion that you quoted would imply DAVID LIFTON'S CONSPIRACY
THEORY!

This is the tactic believers use to avoid answering, they start
changing the topic to something else.

David Lifton isn't the topic. Nor was he even mentioned before
this...

Lifton, as with the ARRB, was around trying to influence the HSCA, and >somehow a Lifton piece of nonsense got into Volume 7.

Blaming Lifton and still refusing to address the outright lie pointed
out.

Lifton would have been completely unable to take depositions with the witnesses, or compare Bethesda with Parkland witnesses, as the HSCA
did, then classified.

Interesting that you left out:

<quote on>

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck, as
well as Dr. James H. Ebersole, the acting chief of radiology, and one
of the autopsy photographers, John Thomas Stringer, viewed the autopsy >photographs or x-rays, or both, and verfied them as accurately
portraying the wounds of President Kennedy.

<Quote off>

So it seems you like witness testimony until it contradicts your
theories.

Another logical fallacy on McAdam's part. This literally has NOTHING
to do with the topic.

The HSCA has just made it COMPLETELY CLEAR that no-one who was interviewed >>and had attended the Bethesda autopsy agreed that the wound was as >>described by Parkland. The BOH photo is an accurate depiction, in other >>words.

So let's see if the HSCA told the truth, or told a lie.

HMC Chester H. Boyers: Said the head wound was to the right side and towards >>the rear of the head. April 25, 1978; File #014462

HM3 Jan G. Rudnicki: Said "back-right quadrant of the head was missing"
May 8, 1978; File #014461

Sorry, but that doesn't put the wound in occipital bone.

Yes moron, it does. I DARE any believer here to show a "back-right
quandrant" of the skull that does not include occipital bone.

Can't be done. McAdams was simply a liar.

HM3 James E. Metzler: Described cranial wound located in the "right side of >>the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of >>the skull." April 21, 1978; File #014465

OK, I'll give you that one.

If you were honest, you'd accept all of them. The HSCA simply lied.

Indeed, "giving" me just *one* is all it takes to prove that "In
disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26
people present at the autopsy." is a lie.

LCDR Gregory H. Cross, MD: Said the head wound was posterior. April 24, 1978 >>File #014460(?)

Sorry, that's too vague to prove anything.

The wound the photos and x-rays show is posteior.

"posteior?" This from the moron who doesn't understand what
"temporal" is?

"In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the
26 people present at the autopsy."

You're arguing with the HSCA, not me.

HM2 Floyd A Riebe: Said cranial wound was in the rear of the head, near the >>top. April 30, 1978; File #014464

Consistent with the phtoos and x-rays.

Are you stupid, or what? You need to demonstrate this alleged
"disagreement." (and tell us what "phtoos" are.)

HM3 Edward F. Reed: Said Head wound located in the right hemisphere in the >>occipital region. April 21, 1978; File #014463

Simply told Lifton that the wound was "more posterior than anterior."

Are you sure he didn't say it was more "posteior?"

What you quoted proves nothing, since "occipital region" doesn't mean
"in occipital bone."

Here we see McAdams pretending that I argued something else... Lest
you've forgotten, "In disagreement with the observations of the
Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy."

And the description give by Reed is **NOT** in disagreement with
Parkland, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL WITH PARKLAND.

HM3 Paul K. O'Conner: Described head wound as occipital, parietal, and >>temporal; drew sketch. August 25, 1977; File #003272

This is Lifton's "body bag" fellow.

Another logical fallacy...

HM3 James C. Jenkins: Described head wound as occipital and temporal; drew >>sketch. August 24, 1977; File#002193

Temporal?

Yes. Temporal. I'm going to guess that you're related to the moron
who thought that "prosector" was misspelled.

All McAdams did here was demonstrate his ignorance...

And anyone familiar with the Parkland description of the location of
the large head wound knows the phrase "Occipital & Temporal"

LCDR John H. Ebersole, MD: Testified that "the back of the head was >>missing" and that large skull fragment brought to morgue was occipital bone. >>March 11, 1978; File#006551

See above. Ebersole verified the autopsy x-rays.

What part of "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy." did you not
understand?

FBI Agent Frank O'Neill: Drew sketch of large posterior head wound.
Jan 10, 1978; File # (Unknown)

This is the "surgery to the head area" fellow.

Another logical fallacy.

FBI Agent Jim Sibert: Drew sketch of occipital wound in skull. August 25, >>1977; File #002191

Ditto.

Another moronic fallacy...

U.S. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman: Drew sketch showing hole in rear >>of skull. August 24, 1977; File #002190.

Put *no* wound at the top of the hear, and put a large wound on the
*left side* of the head.

See attachment.

You really were stupid, weren't you McAdams... "In disagreement with
the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at
the autopsy."

*ALL* of the above testimony was sealed for 50 years by the HSCA.
They clearly figured that they would be dead by the time the proof of their >>lies was revealed, they didn't realize that the ARRB would roll on in and >>declassify all this testimony & evidence.

You people simply pretend that the witness testimony is consistent
(which it isn't), and that it somehow matters more than than the
photos and x-rays.

Notice folks, that McAdams simply ignored the issue again... and
failed to address it.

You can also go here: >>http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

For more citations and some of the sketches. Thanks also to Doug Horne's >>new 5 volume set from which the above data was copied.

Now that the facts are in front of everyone, can anyone explain why the >>HSCA felt the need to simply lie about the eyewitness testimony?

There is *NO DISPUTE POSSIBLE* on the fact that they lied.

Look . . . calling everybody a "liar" makes you look like a crackpot.

Look... trying to refute me with logical fallacies and evasions PROVE
that you were a crackpot.

Particularly since you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to show any
"disagreement" between the Parkland & Bethesda eyewitnesses.


NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!

The statement you quoted from the HSCA is odd, and appears to have
been influenced by Lifton.

ROTFLMAO!!! You can't even admit the obvious... IT'S NOT TRUE!!

Desperate to blame it on Lifton.

But the real evidence is the photos and x-rays.

No, actually in this case, it's not. But that's extraneous to the
topic at hand, which was the alleged "disagreement" of eyewitnesses.

But it's truly funny to see that McAdams - the leading believer before
his death, couldn't admit even the slightest of mistakes in the HSCA,
let alone this OBVIOUS and outright lie.

.John

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

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On 18 Jan 2010 07:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical >>testimony... why??

Now, LNT'ers such as John McAdams will deny that any lie was told about the
medical evidence, so it's necessary to document it here so that they cannot
deny the truth.

From the HSCA Report: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed >>who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds >>as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Now, what is the major "disagreement" in observation are we talking about? >>I'm sure everyone will agree that it's the "occipital-parietal" avulsive >>wound described by Parkland, in contrast to the parietal-temporal, upper >>right side wound shown in the autopsy photographs.

You have trouble understanding that the real evidence of the nature of
the wounds was the photos and x-rays.

Notice that McAdams has simply replied with a logical fallacy, and not addressed the blatant lie told by the HSCA.

He opted to look at the right things, correctly.

You can`t do this because you are against using reason.

Note also that he's merely disregarding the HSCA's blatant lie, and
trying to change the topic to something else.

The portion that you quoted would imply DAVID LIFTON'S CONSPIRACY
THEORY!

This is the tactic believers use to avoid answering, they start
changing the topic to something else.

David Lifton isn't the topic. Nor was he even mentioned before
this...

Lifton, as with the ARRB, was around trying to influence the HSCA, and >somehow a Lifton piece of nonsense got into Volume 7.

Blaming Lifton and still refusing to address the outright lie pointed
out.

Lifton would have been completely unable to take depositions with the witnesses, or compare Bethesda with Parkland witnesses, as the HSCA
did, then classified.

Interesting that you left out:

<quote on>

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck, as
well as Dr. James H. Ebersole, the acting chief of radiology, and one
of the autopsy photographers, John Thomas Stringer, viewed the autopsy >photographs or x-rays, or both, and verfied them as accurately
portraying the wounds of President Kennedy.

<Quote off>

So it seems you like witness testimony until it contradicts your
theories.

Another logical fallacy on McAdam's part. This literally has NOTHING
to do with the topic.

The HSCA has just made it COMPLETELY CLEAR that no-one who was interviewed >>and had attended the Bethesda autopsy agreed that the wound was as >>described by Parkland. The BOH photo is an accurate depiction, in other >>words.

So let's see if the HSCA told the truth, or told a lie.

HMC Chester H. Boyers: Said the head wound was to the right side and towards
the rear of the head. April 25, 1978; File #014462

HM3 Jan G. Rudnicki: Said "back-right quadrant of the head was missing" >>May 8, 1978; File #014461

Sorry, but that doesn't put the wound in occipital bone.

Yes moron, it does. I DARE any believer here to show a "back-right quandrant" of the skull that does not include occipital bone.

Can't be done. McAdams was simply a liar.

HM3 James E. Metzler: Described cranial wound located in the "right side of
the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of >>the skull." April 21, 1978; File #014465

OK, I'll give you that one.

If you were honest, you'd accept all of them. The HSCA simply lied.

Indeed, "giving" me just *one* is all it takes to prove that "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26
people present at the autopsy." is a lie.

LCDR Gregory H. Cross, MD: Said the head wound was posterior. April 24, 1978
File #014460(?)

Sorry, that's too vague to prove anything.

The wound the photos and x-rays show is posteior.

"posteior?" This from the moron who doesn't understand what
"temporal" is?

"In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the
26 people present at the autopsy."

You're arguing with the HSCA, not me.

HM2 Floyd A Riebe: Said cranial wound was in the rear of the head, near the
top. April 30, 1978; File #014464

Consistent with the phtoos and x-rays.

Are you stupid, or what? You need to demonstrate this alleged "disagreement." (and tell us what "phtoos" are.)

HM3 Edward F. Reed: Said Head wound located in the right hemisphere in the >>occipital region. April 21, 1978; File #014463

Simply told Lifton that the wound was "more posterior than anterior."

Are you sure he didn't say it was more "posteior?"

What you quoted proves nothing, since "occipital region" doesn't mean
"in occipital bone."

Here we see McAdams pretending that I argued something else... Lest
you've forgotten, "In disagreement with the observations of the
Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy."

And the description give by Reed is **NOT** in disagreement with
Parkland, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL WITH PARKLAND.

HM3 Paul K. O'Conner: Described head wound as occipital, parietal, and >>temporal; drew sketch. August 25, 1977; File #003272

This is Lifton's "body bag" fellow.

Another logical fallacy...

HM3 James C. Jenkins: Described head wound as occipital and temporal; drew >>sketch. August 24, 1977; File#002193

Temporal?

Yes. Temporal. I'm going to guess that you're related to the moron
who thought that "prosector" was misspelled.

All McAdams did here was demonstrate his ignorance...

And anyone familiar with the Parkland description of the location of
the large head wound knows the phrase "Occipital & Temporal"

LCDR John H. Ebersole, MD: Testified that "the back of the head was >>missing" and that large skull fragment brought to morgue was occipital bone.
March 11, 1978; File#006551

See above. Ebersole verified the autopsy x-rays.

What part of "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy." did you not
understand?

FBI Agent Frank O'Neill: Drew sketch of large posterior head wound.
Jan 10, 1978; File # (Unknown)

This is the "surgery to the head area" fellow.

Another logical fallacy.

FBI Agent Jim Sibert: Drew sketch of occipital wound in skull. August 25, >>1977; File #002191

Ditto.

Another moronic fallacy...

U.S. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman: Drew sketch showing hole in rear >>of skull. August 24, 1977; File #002190.

Put *no* wound at the top of the hear, and put a large wound on the
*left side* of the head.

See attachment.

You really were stupid, weren't you McAdams... "In disagreement with
the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at
the autopsy."

*ALL* of the above testimony was sealed for 50 years by the HSCA.
They clearly figured that they would be dead by the time the proof of their
lies was revealed, they didn't realize that the ARRB would roll on in and >>declassify all this testimony & evidence.

You people simply pretend that the witness testimony is consistent
(which it isn't), and that it somehow matters more than than the
photos and x-rays.

Notice folks, that McAdams simply ignored the issue again... and
failed to address it.

You can also go here: >>http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

For more citations and some of the sketches. Thanks also to Doug Horne's >>new 5 volume set from which the above data was copied.

Now that the facts are in front of everyone, can anyone explain why the >>HSCA felt the need to simply lie about the eyewitness testimony?

There is *NO DISPUTE POSSIBLE* on the fact that they lied.

Look . . . calling everybody a "liar" makes you look like a crackpot.

Look... trying to refute me with logical fallacies and evasions PROVE
that you were a crackpot.

Particularly since you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to show any
"disagreement" between the Parkland & Bethesda eyewitnesses.

NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!

The statement you quoted from the HSCA is odd, and appears to have
been influenced by Lifton.

ROTFLMAO!!! You can't even admit the obvious... IT'S NOT TRUE!!

Desperate to blame it on Lifton.

But the real evidence is the photos and x-rays.

No, actually in this case, it's not. But that's extraneous to the
topic at hand, which was the alleged "disagreement" of eyewitnesses.

But it's truly funny to see that McAdams - the leading believer before
his death, couldn't admit even the slightest of mistakes in the HSCA,
let alone this OBVIOUS and outright lie.

.John

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

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

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)

Top Post:

Just so people understand what is going on here, you have a person who is able to reason and a person who is against reasoning looking at the same evidence. Ben thinks like a child, so his conclusions are always going to be towards the childish, while
McAdams was a person able to reason, so his conclusion ran towards the reasonable. When you start from a fantasy world, all your conclusions are going to be fantastic. The way to get around this is to ignore that the things you are suggesting and
implying are fantastic. You just ignore how ridiculous it is to believe the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, the z-film, the shell fragments in the limo, the shells at the Tippit scene, the bullet found at Parkland, the BY photo, the bag found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD, even JFK`s body itself have been tampered with, switched, manufactured, ect. Complications and the fantastic are heaped on with abandon, with no regard for real world reasoning. The difference between us an them is that we think
like adults and they think like children. Plus Ben is short.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 4:59:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On 18 Jan 2010 07:08:22 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical >>testimony... why??

Now, LNT'ers such as John McAdams will deny that any lie was told about the
medical evidence, so it's necessary to document it here so that they cannot
deny the truth.

From the HSCA Report: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed >>who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds >>as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

Now, what is the major "disagreement" in observation are we talking about? >>I'm sure everyone will agree that it's the "occipital-parietal" avulsive >>wound described by Parkland, in contrast to the parietal-temporal, upper >>right side wound shown in the autopsy photographs.

You have trouble understanding that the real evidence of the nature of
the wounds was the photos and x-rays.

Notice that McAdams has simply replied with a logical fallacy, and not addressed the blatant lie told by the HSCA.

Note also that he's merely disregarding the HSCA's blatant lie, and
trying to change the topic to something else.

The portion that you quoted would imply DAVID LIFTON'S CONSPIRACY
THEORY!

This is the tactic believers use to avoid answering, they start
changing the topic to something else.

David Lifton isn't the topic. Nor was he even mentioned before
this...

Lifton, as with the ARRB, was around trying to influence the HSCA, and >somehow a Lifton piece of nonsense got into Volume 7.

Blaming Lifton and still refusing to address the outright lie pointed
out.

Lifton would have been completely unable to take depositions with the witnesses, or compare Bethesda with Parkland witnesses, as the HSCA
did, then classified.

Interesting that you left out:

<quote on>

In 1967 the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck, as
well as Dr. James H. Ebersole, the acting chief of radiology, and one
of the autopsy photographers, John Thomas Stringer, viewed the autopsy >photographs or x-rays, or both, and verfied them as accurately
portraying the wounds of President Kennedy.

<Quote off>

So it seems you like witness testimony until it contradicts your
theories.

Another logical fallacy on McAdam's part. This literally has NOTHING
to do with the topic.

The HSCA has just made it COMPLETELY CLEAR that no-one who was interviewed >>and had attended the Bethesda autopsy agreed that the wound was as >>described by Parkland. The BOH photo is an accurate depiction, in other >>words.

So let's see if the HSCA told the truth, or told a lie.

HMC Chester H. Boyers: Said the head wound was to the right side and towards
the rear of the head. April 25, 1978; File #014462

HM3 Jan G. Rudnicki: Said "back-right quadrant of the head was missing" >>May 8, 1978; File #014461

Sorry, but that doesn't put the wound in occipital bone.

Yes moron, it does. I DARE any believer here to show a "back-right quandrant" of the skull that does not include occipital bone.

Can't be done. McAdams was simply a liar.

HM3 James E. Metzler: Described cranial wound located in the "right side of
the head behind the right ear, extending down to the center of the back of >>the skull." April 21, 1978; File #014465

OK, I'll give you that one.

If you were honest, you'd accept all of them. The HSCA simply lied.

Indeed, "giving" me just *one* is all it takes to prove that "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26
people present at the autopsy." is a lie.

LCDR Gregory H. Cross, MD: Said the head wound was posterior. April 24, 1978
File #014460(?)

Sorry, that's too vague to prove anything.

The wound the photos and x-rays show is posteior.

"posteior?" This from the moron who doesn't understand what
"temporal" is?

"In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the
26 people present at the autopsy."

You're arguing with the HSCA, not me.

HM2 Floyd A Riebe: Said cranial wound was in the rear of the head, near the
top. April 30, 1978; File #014464

Consistent with the phtoos and x-rays.

Are you stupid, or what? You need to demonstrate this alleged "disagreement." (and tell us what "phtoos" are.)

HM3 Edward F. Reed: Said Head wound located in the right hemisphere in the >>occipital region. April 21, 1978; File #014463

Simply told Lifton that the wound was "more posterior than anterior."

Are you sure he didn't say it was more "posteior?"

What you quoted proves nothing, since "occipital region" doesn't mean
"in occipital bone."

Here we see McAdams pretending that I argued something else... Lest
you've forgotten, "In disagreement with the observations of the
Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy."

And the description give by Reed is **NOT** in disagreement with
Parkland, IT IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL WITH PARKLAND.

HM3 Paul K. O'Conner: Described head wound as occipital, parietal, and >>temporal; drew sketch. August 25, 1977; File #003272

This is Lifton's "body bag" fellow.

Another logical fallacy...

HM3 James C. Jenkins: Described head wound as occipital and temporal; drew >>sketch. August 24, 1977; File#002193

Temporal?

Yes. Temporal. I'm going to guess that you're related to the moron
who thought that "prosector" was misspelled.

All McAdams did here was demonstrate his ignorance...

And anyone familiar with the Parkland description of the location of
the large head wound knows the phrase "Occipital & Temporal"

LCDR John H. Ebersole, MD: Testified that "the back of the head was >>missing" and that large skull fragment brought to morgue was occipital bone.
March 11, 1978; File#006551

See above. Ebersole verified the autopsy x-rays.

What part of "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy." did you not
understand?

FBI Agent Frank O'Neill: Drew sketch of large posterior head wound.
Jan 10, 1978; File # (Unknown)

This is the "surgery to the head area" fellow.

Another logical fallacy.

FBI Agent Jim Sibert: Drew sketch of occipital wound in skull. August 25, >>1977; File #002191

Ditto.

Another moronic fallacy...

U.S. Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman: Drew sketch showing hole in rear >>of skull. August 24, 1977; File #002190.

Put *no* wound at the top of the hear, and put a large wound on the
*left side* of the head.

See attachment.

You really were stupid, weren't you McAdams... "In disagreement with
the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at
the autopsy."

*ALL* of the above testimony was sealed for 50 years by the HSCA.
They clearly figured that they would be dead by the time the proof of their
lies was revealed, they didn't realize that the ARRB would roll on in and >>declassify all this testimony & evidence.

You people simply pretend that the witness testimony is consistent
(which it isn't), and that it somehow matters more than than the
photos and x-rays.

Notice folks, that McAdams simply ignored the issue again... and
failed to address it.

You can also go here: >>http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

For more citations and some of the sketches. Thanks also to Doug Horne's >>new 5 volume set from which the above data was copied.

Now that the facts are in front of everyone, can anyone explain why the >>HSCA felt the need to simply lie about the eyewitness testimony?

There is *NO DISPUTE POSSIBLE* on the fact that they lied.

Look . . . calling everybody a "liar" makes you look like a crackpot.

Look... trying to refute me with logical fallacies and evasions PROVE
that you were a crackpot.

Particularly since you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to show any
"disagreement" between the Parkland & Bethesda eyewitnesses.

NOT A SINGLE ONE!!!

The statement you quoted from the HSCA is odd, and appears to have
been influenced by Lifton.

ROTFLMAO!!! You can't even admit the obvious... IT'S NOT TRUE!!

Desperate to blame it on Lifton.

But the real evidence is the photos and x-rays.

No, actually in this case, it's not. But that's extraneous to the
topic at hand, which was the alleged "disagreement" of eyewitnesses.

But it's truly funny to see that McAdams - the leading believer before
his death, couldn't admit even the slightest of mistakes in the HSCA,
let alone this OBVIOUS and outright lie.

.John

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

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 6:43:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Top Post:

Chickenshit clearly prefers logical fallacies over the truth...

What did I write here that isn`t true?

"Just so people understand what is going on here, you have a person who is able to reason and a person who is against reasoning looking at the same evidence. Ben thinks like a child, so his conclusions are always going to be towards the childish, while
McAdams was a person able to reason, so his conclusion ran towards the reasonable. When you start from a fantasy world, all your conclusions are going to be fantastic. The way to get around this is to ignore that the things you are suggesting and
implying are fantastic. You just ignore how ridiculous it is to believe the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, the z-film, the shell fragments in the limo, the shells at the Tippit scene, the bullet found at Parkland, the BY photo, the bag found on the
sixth floor of the TSBD, even JFK`s body itself have been tampered with, switched, manufactured, ect. Complications and the fantastic are heaped on with abandon, with no regard for real world reasoning. The difference between us an them is that we think
like adults and they think like children."

and
the truth is, he's a coward who can't anwer this:
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 Wed, 16 Aug 2023 15:37:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

Top Post:

Chickenshit clearly prefers logical fallacies over the truth... and
the truth is, he's a coward who can't anwer this:

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 Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:04:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

It is really good that Gil and Ben came out of the closet with their "anti-reasoning" stance, it must have been very informative for our lurker.

--- 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)