On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 9:32:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT), chuckschuyler123@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>
Your desperate attempts to chase people around on your pet hobby horse on the BOH wound issue are now beyond comical.
You prove on an hourly basis that you're only here to recruit people to play Fetch the Stick.
Tell us what you're alleging or let's move along. Give us your theory on the BOH wound and tie it all together.
The moment you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the obvious damage to the back of JFK's head,
I acknowledge JFK had damage to the back of his head. He was shot by
a bullet in the back of his head.
It's more interesting to us what you REFUSE to acknowledge.
Tell us Chuckles, why can't you support your claim?
the case is made that you've invested your beliefs strictly in
faith alone, not in evidence or in expert opinion.
The autopsy report is a medical finding based on hard science. It
says JFK was struck by a bullet in the back of the head, so there's no
"faith" involved.
Yes there is... YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!
Therefore you are basing your beliefs on something else, AND CLAIMING
THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
But you're lying.
You made the claim that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head. Support your claim with evidence. Carry your burden!
Then my case is made.
Indeed it is. And Chuckles can't seem to figure that out.
I don't have a claim separate than what the autopsy concluded; one
shot struck JFK in the head, the bullet fired from above and behind.
Apparently you [ad hominem deleted] believe the Parkland medical
witnesses are correct about a separate head wound from the one
described in the autopsy report as the fatal blow.
But you're not willing to expound on this. So we're stuck on not
knowing what you think this means.
Since we all know each other's position on this, now, let's bury the
subject and move along.
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 9:32:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
Your desperate attempts to chase people around on your pet hobby horse on the BOH wound issue are now beyond comical.
You prove on an hourly basis that you're only here to recruit people to play Fetch the Stick.
Tell us what you're alleging or let's move along. Give us your theory on the BOH wound and tie it all together.
The moment you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the obvious damage to the back of JFK's head,
I acknowledge JFK had damage to the back of his head. He was shot by
a bullet in the back of his head.
It's more interesting to us what you REFUSE to acknowledge.
Tell us Chuckles, why can't you support your claim?
Chuckles was struck dumb. He can't answer!!!
the case is made that you've invested your beliefs strictly in
faith alone, not in evidence or in expert opinion.
The autopsy report is a medical finding based on hard science. It
says JFK was struck by a bullet in the back of the head, so there's no >>> "faith" involved.
Yes there is... YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!
Therefore you are basing your beliefs on something else, AND CLAIMING
THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
But you're lying.
You made the claim that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head. Support your claim with evidence. Carry your burden!
And again, Chuckles absolutely REFUSES to carry his burden.
He knows he doesn't believe the Autopsy Report, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES
TO REFUTE THAT FACT!
Then my case is made.
Indeed it is. And Chuckles can't seem to figure that out.
I don't have a claim separate than what the autopsy concluded; one
shot struck JFK in the head, the bullet fired from above and behind.
Yes stupid, you do. You've PROVABLY made a claim that the Autopsy
Report CONTRADICTS - that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head.
YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OF YOURS!
It **IS** a separate claim from the Autopsy Report - that's a FACT!
Own it!
Apparently you [ad hominem deleted] believe the Parkland medical
witnesses are correct about a separate head wound from the one
described in the autopsy report as the fatal blow.
Apparently you believe that the Parkland medical witnesses and the
Autopsy Report are all lying about the large wound in the "occipital-parietal" on the right side.
Apparently you're trying to claim that the Autopsy Report differs from
the Parkland witnesses. This was the same lie told by the HSCA... but
we now have the Bethesda witness testimony, and this proves both you
and the HSCA liars.
This is a claim you'll never support.
You're a gutless liar.
But you're not willing to expound on this. So we're stuck on not
knowing what you think this means.
Quite simple stupid. There was a large wound on the back of JFK's
head, and **YOU** must believe that a bullet both entered and exited
from the back of JFK's head.
If you don't, then you're a liar.
Come on Chuckles... tell us what you think. Prove yourself a liar!
[More ad hominem snipped]
Since we all know each other's position on this, now, let's bury the subject and move along.
Why?
*WE* can support our stance ... BASING IT ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You refuse to do so.
And until you can defend your claim, there's no reason to "bury the subject."
That's just you showing your cowardice again...
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:20:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 9:32:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
Your desperate attempts to chase people around on your pet hobby horse on the BOH wound issue are now beyond comical.
You prove on an hourly basis that you're only here to recruit people to play Fetch the Stick.
Tell us what you're alleging or let's move along. Give us your theory on the BOH wound and tie it all together.
The moment you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the obvious damage to the back of JFK's head,
I acknowledge JFK had damage to the back of his head. He was shot by >>>>> a bullet in the back of his head.
It's more interesting to us what you REFUSE to acknowledge.
Tell us Chuckles, why can't you support your claim?
Chuckles was struck dumb. He can't answer!!!
Fringe reset.
the case is made that you've invested your beliefs strictly in
faith alone, not in evidence or in expert opinion.
The autopsy report is a medical finding based on hard science. It
says JFK was struck by a bullet in the back of the head, so there's no >>>>> "faith" involved.
Yes there is... YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!
Therefore you are basing your beliefs on something else, AND CLAIMING
THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
But you're lying.
You made the claim that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head. Support your claim with evidence. Carry your burden!
And again, Chuckles absolutely REFUSES to carry his burden.
He knows he doesn't believe the Autopsy Report, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES
TO REFUTE THAT FACT!
Then my case is made.
Indeed it is. And Chuckles can't seem to figure that out.
I don't have a claim separate than what the autopsy concluded; one
shot struck JFK in the head, the bullet fired from above and behind.
Yes stupid, you do. You've PROVABLY made a claim that the Autopsy
Report CONTRADICTS - that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head.
YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OF YOURS!
It **IS** a separate claim from the Autopsy Report - that's a FACT!
Own it!
Apparently you [ad hominem deleted] believe the Parkland medical
witnesses are correct about a separate head wound from the one
described in the autopsy report as the fatal blow.
Apparently you believe that the Parkland medical witnesses and the
Autopsy Report are all lying about the large wound in the
"occipital-parietal" on the right side.
Apparently you're trying to claim that the Autopsy Report differs from
the Parkland witnesses. This was the same lie told by the HSCA... but
we now have the Bethesda witness testimony, and this proves both you
and the HSCA liars.
This is a claim you'll never support.
You're a gutless liar.
But you're not willing to expound on this. So we're stuck on not
knowing what you think this means.
Quite simple stupid. There was a large wound on the back of JFK's
head, and **YOU** must believe that a bullet both entered and exited
from the back of JFK's head.
If you don't, then you're a liar.
Come on Chuckles... tell us what you think. Prove yourself a liar!
[More ad hominem snipped]
Since we all know each other's position on this, now, let's bury the
subject and move along.
Why?
*WE* can support our stance ... BASING IT ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You refuse to do so.
And until you can defend your claim, there's no reason to "bury the
subject."
That's just you showing your cowardice again...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:20:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 9:32:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
Your desperate attempts to chase people around on your pet hobby horse on the BOH wound issue are now beyond comical.
You prove on an hourly basis that you're only here to recruit people to play Fetch the Stick.
Tell us what you're alleging or let's move along. Give us your theory on the BOH wound and tie it all together.
The moment you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the obvious damage to the back of JFK's head,
I acknowledge JFK had damage to the back of his head. He was shot by >>>>> a bullet in the back of his head.
It's more interesting to us what you REFUSE to acknowledge.
Tell us Chuckles, why can't you support your claim?
Chuckles was struck dumb. He can't answer!!!
Fringe reset.A "reset" implies that it was a post previously answered. Why can't
you cite the previous answer?
Could it be that you're simply lying again?
Dead silence again... not a *SINGLE* point addressed.the case is made that you've invested your beliefs strictly in
faith alone, not in evidence or in expert opinion.
The autopsy report is a medical finding based on hard science. It >>>>> says JFK was struck by a bullet in the back of the head, so there's no >>>>> "faith" involved.
Yes there is... YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!
Therefore you are basing your beliefs on something else, AND CLAIMING >>>> THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
But you're lying.
You made the claim that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's >>>> head. Support your claim with evidence. Carry your burden!
And again, Chuckles absolutely REFUSES to carry his burden.
He knows he doesn't believe the Autopsy Report, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES
TO REFUTE THAT FACT!
Then my case is made.
Indeed it is. And Chuckles can't seem to figure that out.
I don't have a claim separate than what the autopsy concluded; one
shot struck JFK in the head, the bullet fired from above and behind.
Yes stupid, you do. You've PROVABLY made a claim that the Autopsy
Report CONTRADICTS - that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head.
YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OF YOURS!
It **IS** a separate claim from the Autopsy Report - that's a FACT!
Own it!
Apparently you [ad hominem deleted] believe the Parkland medical
witnesses are correct about a separate head wound from the one
described in the autopsy report as the fatal blow.
Apparently you believe that the Parkland medical witnesses and the
Autopsy Report are all lying about the large wound in the
"occipital-parietal" on the right side.
Apparently you're trying to claim that the Autopsy Report differs from
the Parkland witnesses. This was the same lie told by the HSCA... but
we now have the Bethesda witness testimony, and this proves both you
and the HSCA liars.
This is a claim you'll never support.
You're a gutless liar.
But you're not willing to expound on this. So we're stuck on not
knowing what you think this means.
Quite simple stupid. There was a large wound on the back of JFK's
head, and **YOU** must believe that a bullet both entered and exited
from the back of JFK's head.
If you don't, then you're a liar.
Come on Chuckles... tell us what you think. Prove yourself a liar!
[More ad hominem snipped]
Since we all know each other's position on this, now, let's bury the
subject and move along.
Why?
*WE* can support our stance ... BASING IT ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You refuse to do so.
And until you can defend your claim, there's no reason to "bury the
subject."
That's just you showing your cowardice again...
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 8:15:21?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 4:20:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:A "reset" implies that it was a post previously answered. Why can't
On Fri, 24 May 2019 08:12:35 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 9:32:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 07:15:38 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
Your desperate attempts to chase people around on your pet hobby horse on the BOH wound issue are now beyond comical.
You prove on an hourly basis that you're only here to recruit people to play Fetch the Stick.
Tell us what you're alleging or let's move along. Give us your theory on the BOH wound and tie it all together.
The moment you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the obvious damage to the back of JFK's head,
I acknowledge JFK had damage to the back of his head. He was shot by >>>>>>> a bullet in the back of his head.
It's more interesting to us what you REFUSE to acknowledge.
Tell us Chuckles, why can't you support your claim?
Chuckles was struck dumb. He can't answer!!!
Fringe reset.
you cite the previous answer?
Could it be that you're simply lying again?
Dead silence again... not a *SINGLE* point addressed.the case is made that you've invested your beliefs strictly in >>>>>>>> faith alone, not in evidence or in expert opinion.
The autopsy report is a medical finding based on hard science. It >>>>>>> says JFK was struck by a bullet in the back of the head, so there's no >>>>>>> "faith" involved.
Yes there is... YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!
Therefore you are basing your beliefs on something else, AND CLAIMING >>>>>> THE AUTHORITY OF THE AUTOPSY REPORT.
But you're lying.
You made the claim that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's >>>>>> head. Support your claim with evidence. Carry your burden!
And again, Chuckles absolutely REFUSES to carry his burden.
He knows he doesn't believe the Autopsy Report, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSES >>>> TO REFUTE THAT FACT!
Then my case is made.
Indeed it is. And Chuckles can't seem to figure that out.
I don't have a claim separate than what the autopsy concluded; one
shot struck JFK in the head, the bullet fired from above and behind.
Yes stupid, you do. You've PROVABLY made a claim that the Autopsy
Report CONTRADICTS - that there's no large wound on the back of JFK's
head.
YOU NEED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OF YOURS!
It **IS** a separate claim from the Autopsy Report - that's a FACT!
Own it!
Apparently you [ad hominem deleted] believe the Parkland medical
witnesses are correct about a separate head wound from the one
described in the autopsy report as the fatal blow.
Apparently you believe that the Parkland medical witnesses and the
Autopsy Report are all lying about the large wound in the
"occipital-parietal" on the right side.
Apparently you're trying to claim that the Autopsy Report differs from >>>> the Parkland witnesses. This was the same lie told by the HSCA... but
we now have the Bethesda witness testimony, and this proves both you
and the HSCA liars.
This is a claim you'll never support.
You're a gutless liar.
But you're not willing to expound on this. So we're stuck on not
knowing what you think this means.
Quite simple stupid. There was a large wound on the back of JFK's
head, and **YOU** must believe that a bullet both entered and exited
from the back of JFK's head.
If you don't, then you're a liar.
Come on Chuckles... tell us what you think. Prove yourself a liar!
[More ad hominem snipped]
Since we all know each other's position on this, now, let's bury the >>>>> subject and move along.
Why?
*WE* can support our stance ... BASING IT ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.
You refuse to do so.
And until you can defend your claim, there's no reason to "bury the
subject."
That's just you showing your cowardice again...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:49:58 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,363 |