1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Pinpointing The Instant The Single Bullet Struck...

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 8 09:41:01 2023
    As Corbutt admitted: "It is difficult to pinpoint the exact instance
    the single bullet struck."

    But, of course, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
    You're *PRESUMING* what you need to prove. You merely ASSUME that a
    single bullet struck both men, yet you absolutely REFUSE to cite any
    evidence that supports this "conclusion."

    You can't.

    You know that anything you cite will simply not be the proof you need.

    You *KNOW* that you're contradicting what the WC said about this
    issue.

    So you simply run away...

    As believers do...

    EVERY

    SINGLE

    TIME!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Sep 8 10:53:56 2023
    On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:41:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    As Corbutt admitted: "It is difficult to pinpoint the exact instance
    the single bullet struck."

    But, of course, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
    You're *PRESUMING* what you need to prove. You merely ASSUME that a
    single bullet struck both men, yet you absolutely REFUSE to cite any evidence that supports this "conclusion."

    Again?

    You can't.

    You know that anything you cite will simply not be the proof you need.

    You set the requirement so high that stop action photography showing the bullet in flight is needed.

    But if you look at the right things correctly, and apply reasoning, the obviousness of the SBT is readily apparent.

    You *KNOW* that you're contradicting what the WC said about this
    issue.

    You refuse to say what this is.

    So you simply run away...

    As believers do...

    EVERY

    SINGLE

    TIME!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 8 11:38:17 2023
    On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    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. (Without immediately denying it.)

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com on Fri Sep 8 15:23:52 2023
    On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 09:41:01 -0700, Ben Holmes
    <Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

    As Corbutt admitted: "It is difficult to pinpoint the exact instance
    the single bullet struck."

    But, of course, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
    You're *PRESUMING* what you need to prove. You merely ASSUME that a
    single bullet struck both men, yet you absolutely REFUSE to cite any
    evidence that supports this "conclusion."

    You can't.

    You know that anything you cite will simply not be the proof you need.

    You *KNOW* that you're contradicting what the WC said about this
    issue.

    So you simply run away...

    As believers do...

    EVERY

    SINGLE

    TIME!

    Cprbutt read this, then ran away...

    Chuckles read it, and didn't understand it.

    Huckster doesn't dare get involved in debate.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Sep 8 17:00:05 2023
    On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:23:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 09:41:01 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

    As Corbutt admitted: "It is difficult to pinpoint the exact instance
    the single bullet struck."

    But, of course, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question. >You're *PRESUMING* what you need to prove. You merely ASSUME that a
    single bullet struck both men, yet you absolutely REFUSE to cite any >evidence that supports this "conclusion."

    You can't.

    You know that anything you cite will simply not be the proof you need.

    You *KNOW* that you're contradicting what the WC said about this
    issue.

    So you simply run away...

    As believers do...

    EVERY

    SINGLE

    TIME!
    Cprbutt read this, then ran away...

    Chuckles read it, and didn't understand it.

    Huckster doesn't dare get involved in debate.

    We have figured out that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet. Why should we care that you can`t figure this simple thing out?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 11 08:08:55 2023
    On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 17:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


    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. (Without immediately denying it.)

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

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