On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:54:03?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.

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

Yes, exactly like that.

After running for dozens of times, Chickenshit has finally answered
the question. Lest anyone forget the topic because of Chickenshit's
long running cowardice, let's review:

*********************************************************
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)

"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463

Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."

That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)

But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But
Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:

*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence
proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. *****************************************************

Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the
assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...

But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.

This is simple science.

This is simple biological fact.

For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory." But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion &
testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.

Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC. Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.

Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.

EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!

(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)

Bugliosi's has failed with #3

***************************************************

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this
"oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT, the
next question will be even more difficult for Chickenshit.

Did Bugliosi ever state that Dr. Humes lied when he asserted that at
JFK's autopsy: "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just
above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval
wound." ???

Or, to put it another way, Did Bugliosi accept the Autopsy Report as a
truthful and accurate statement?

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

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 12:23:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:54:03?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.

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

Yes, exactly like that.

The example of your running was perfect.

After running for dozens of times, Chickenshit has finally answered
the question.

Lest anyone forget the topic because of Chickenshit's
long running cowardice, let's review:

*********************************************************
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)

"3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive
evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound
in Governor Connally's back was not circular, but oval. ..." Pg 463

Bugliosi has just proven that JFK had someone *BEHIND* him! Amazing!
Since the bullet that entered JFK's back left an oval wound, we
clearly have a "magic bullet" twice... not once.

He was talking about one specific wound.

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound."

So?

That makes JFK's at *least* as 'oval' as the entry wound that Connally sustained: (1.5 x .8mm)

Was Bugliosi making that argument that all oval wounds were caused by unstable bullets?

And you are providing measurements for Connally`s wound, who took those measurements?

But that (a -triple- body transit), is, of course, simply silly. But Bugliosi must believe it. Let's play a simple game... Let's change
just *two* words in Bugliosi's assertion:

*****************************************************
3. Another fact that, all by itself, is virtually conclusive evidence proving the single-bullet theory is that the entrance wound in
President Kennedy's back was not circular, but oval. *****************************************************

Again Ben refuses to include the entire passage so it can be viewed in context.

Hmmm... the underlying evidence is correct, isn't it? So based on the assertion that Bugliosi made, he *MUST* accept that JFK had someone
*BEHIND* him that took a bullet too...

If you look at he wrote correctly and in context and in it`s entirety it is clear that was never his argument.

But serious people will recognize that the hit on Connally was
tangential, and because of this - WOULD *HAVE* TO LEAVE AN OVAL ENTRY
WOUND.

You`ll never support this.

This is simple science.

This is simple biological fact.

For as Dr. Shaw himself noted to the HSCA: "The shape of the entrance
wound was consistent with a missile striking striking in a slightly
downward trajectory." But Bugliosi isn't interested in the opinion & testimony of the doctor who actually treated this wound.

An opinion outside of his area of expertise, as Shaw admitted...

"Dr. SHAW - No; Senator. I believe that my information about ballistics is just that of an average layman, no more."

Shaw knew he was a layman (a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject) in the relevant fields.

Indeed, no believer will accept the testimony of ANY of the experts
who testified before the WC.

You are simply lying.

Despite my asking numerous times, no
believer has been willing to state who they actually accept in ALL of
what they testified or spoke of.

We just look at the information correctly.

Every single witness, expert or otherwise, was lying or mistaken -
according to believers in the WCR.

EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!

I don`t know that that`s true.

But I do know the source of all the information from witnesses comes from fallible human beings.

(And to think, this is a famous prosecutor - and he can't make
arguments any better than this???)

Bugliosi's has failed with #3

***************************************************

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this
"oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

the
next question will be even more difficult for Chickenshit.

Did Bugliosi ever state that Dr. Humes lied when he asserted that at
JFK's autopsy: "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just
above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound." ???

How would I know?

Or, to put it another way, Did Bugliosi accept the Autopsy Report as a truthful and accurate statement?

Ask him if you see him.

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

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this
"oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

So you lied when you asserted "Yes, exactly like that."

I guess we'll have to go back to the original question... you're
clearly afraid to move on yet.


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 21, 2023 at 1:06:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this
"oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

So you lied when you asserted "Yes, exactly like that."

I agreed with the example you gave.

I guess we'll have to go back to the original question... you're
clearly afraid to move on yet.
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Keep running, you need the exercise.

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

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:06:47?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this
"oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

So you lied when you asserted "Yes, exactly like that."

I agreed with the example you gave.

Nope... you then denied it. I want your ANSWER to the question. One
that you'll not turn around and deny having stated.

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

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it.

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

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

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:23:19?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:06:47?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this >>>>>> "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

So you lied when you asserted "Yes, exactly like that."

I agreed with the example you gave.

Nope...

Yep. In context...

Me: "Your tactic is to run from every idea I express."

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

Me: "Yes, exactly like that."

Left out your denial... quoted below...

you then denied it. I want your ANSWER to the question. One
that you'll not turn around and deny having stated.

I stand by everything I write. You, not so much.

Including your denial: " That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go
along with your pretending that it was."


Now, answer 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 21, 2023 at 1:23:19 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 10:18:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 1:06:47?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Now that Chickenshit has admitted that Bugliosi said that it was this >> >> "oval" shape that was "virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT,

That wasn`t what I was doing, but I`ll go along with your pretending that it was.

So you lied when you asserted "Yes, exactly like that."

I agreed with the example you gave.

Nope...

Yep. In context...

Me: "Your tactic is to run from every idea I express."

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

Me: "Yes, exactly like that."

you then denied it. I want your ANSWER to the question. One
that you'll not turn around and deny having stated.

I stand by everything I write. You, not so much.

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it.

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

Keep running, you need the exercise.

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