On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.Of course not.
The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
Or are you that fucking stupid ?
The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
#1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )second negative ?
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the
#2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
#3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
#4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
#5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it" ever listed on the evidence list ?
#6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ? Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?
If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
Period.
The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.Of course not.
The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
Or are you that fucking stupid ?
The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
#1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )second negative ?
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to the
#2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
#3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
#4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
#5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it" ever listed on the evidence list ?
#6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ?
Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?
If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
Period.
The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-iiAccording to Inspector Kelley, the BYP was shown to Oswald at the 6 PM interview on Saturday, if that matters. https://postimg.cc/NKqrp6C0
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Of course not.
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
Or are you that fucking stupid ?
I'm smart enough...
Clearly not.
The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
You have done nothing ...
Yet you can't refute what Gil has pointed out. Using the very thing
that terrifies you - the evidence.
Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
Your questions...
Nope. These are FACTS that Gil is pointing out. That they take the
*FORM* of questions that you can't answer validates these facts as
true.
You lose!
Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.Chickenshit will run too.
And Huckster is too smart to get involved.the second negative ?
#1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to
Let us know when you find out the answer.It's your burden.
#2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
They didn't need him.That would be a lie. The photos could not have been admitted in
court.
Keep those questions coming that don't prove anything."to YOU"... they don't prove anything to YOU. Always remember to add
that.
#3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
What about this? What about this?
Is this really the best you can do?It's quite devastating. Who cares that you aren't honest enough to
see it.
#4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
What about this? What about this?Not devastating by itself, but the entirety of the evidence Gil is
showing is devastating indeed.
#5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it" ever listed on the evidence list ?
You're starting to sound desperate with your inane questions.You're starting to sound desperate with your denials...
#6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ? >> Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?
All you have are questions.No, all Gil has are FACTS. It's a FACT that the WC never established
chain of custody of the photos, as Gil has pointed out.
He points it
out in the *FORM* of a question - to which you have no answer - and
thus you've AGREED that these photos have no chain of custody, and
therefore wouldn't be admitted in a court of law.
You never bother trying to find answers.Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.
Questions prove nothing.
But *UNANSWERED* questions do.
Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there wasLet's rephrase that to be more accurate: "Because I DON'T KNOW the
some nefarious conduct going on.
answer to your questions, and I CANNOT offer any legitimate solutions,
the only remaining answer is that some nefarious conduct was going
on."
That's more accurate. Do try to be accurate in the future.
If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do betterDon't have to prove "malfeasance" - it's **YOUR BURDEN** to make your
than just raising questions.
case. Gil and I are showing why you're failing.
You have to find the answers and show how those answers proveYou're lying again, Corbutt. It's **YOU** that has the burden here,
a cover up was going on.
not critics.
If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
Period.
Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why doThe "silly assumption" is true for ordinary folk. But not for trolls, cowards, and liars.
you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?
The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.You have no idea how despicable you appear to the average person...
playing games with the killing of a President.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.I quite doubt if Corbutt bothered to read the cited text... he
certainly made no effort at all to refute it.
The complete lack of any chain of custody is a fairly big thing in
legal circles, and would *CERTAINLY* invalidate the photos as
evidence.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 06:28:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:12:59?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:36:29?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Of course not.
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
The fact that police had the photos in their possession on Friday night and PROVABLY lied about having found them on Saturday afternoon has nothing to do with
the credibility of police or the autheticity of their "evidence".
You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you ?
Or are you that fucking stupid ?
I'm smart enough...
Clearly not.
The credibility of the evidence is directly connected to the credibility of police.
You have done nothing ...
Yet you can't refute what Gil has pointed out. Using the very thing
that terrifies you - the evidence.
Your one sentence comment avoided answering any of the questions I raised.
Your questions...
Nope. These are FACTS that Gil is pointing out. That they take thethe second negative ?
*FORM* of questions that you can't answer validates these facts as
true.
You lose!
Maybe your butt buddy "Bud" will take a stab at them.
I'll let Bud speak for himself but I doubt he sees any point to humoring you either.Chickenshit will run too. And Huckster is too smart to get involved.
#1. According to the Warren Commission's Report, two photographs ( CE 133-A & B ) and one negative ( CE 133-B ) were found in the Paine garage during the Saturday search. ( pg. 592 )
But Dallas Police detective Gus Rose testified that police found two photos and two negatives. He testified that he found one photo and two negatives and the other photograph was found by Irving detective John McCabe. ( 7 H 231 ) What happened to
Let us know when you find out the answer.It's your burden.
#2 Why did the Commission fail to call Irving Detective John McCabe as a witness to give testimony regarding the discovery of these photos ?
They didn't need him.That would be a lie. The photos could not have been admitted in
court.
Keep those questions coming that don't prove anything."to YOU"... they don't prove anything to YOU. Always remember to add
that.
#3 Why did the Commission fail to show the photos currently in evidence to Dets. Rose and Stovall for identification purposes ?
What about this? What about this?
Is this really the best you can do?It's quite devastating. Who cares that you aren't honest enough to
see it.
#4 Why weren't the photos and negatives ever specifically listed on inventory sheets of Oswald's possessions recovered from the Paine garage on Saturday ?
What about this? What about this?Not devastating by itself, but the entirety of the evidence Gil is
showing is devastating indeed.
#5 Why weren't the the blank Selective Service cards police claimed to have found, "which appeared to be the same that he had on him at the time, on the 22nd of November, that had the name 'A.Hidell' in on it" ever listed on the evidence list ?
You're starting to sound desperate with your inane questions.You're starting to sound desperate with your denials...
#6 Why wasn't the "cut out portion of a magazine advertisement from Kline (sic ) Department Store in Chicago, showing an advertisement of the murder weapon" that police claimed they found, listed on the evidence list ?
Why are these crucial pieces of evidence missing from the evidence list ? >> Were they or were they not among the items found during the Saturday search ?
All you have are questions.No, all Gil has are FACTS. It's a FACT that the WC never established
chain of custody of the photos, as Gil has pointed out. He points it
out in the *FORM* of a question - to which you have no answer - and
thus you've AGREED that these photos have no chain of custody, and
therefore wouldn't be admitted in a court of law.
You never bother trying to find answers.Au contraire... I sure Gil knows, as I do, what the explanation for
these facts are. All you need do is compare what was sent to the FBI
with what was returned from the FBI, and you'll know too.
Questions prove nothing.
But *UNANSWERED* questions do.
Because you don't know the answer to your questions, you assume the answer is there wasLet's rephrase that to be more accurate: "Because I DON'T KNOW the
some nefarious conduct going on.
answer to your questions, and I CANNOT offer any legitimate solutions,
the only remaining answer is that some nefarious conduct was going
on."
That's more accurate. Do try to be accurate in the future.
If you want to prove malfeasance, you have to do betterDon't have to prove "malfeasance" - it's **YOUR BURDEN** to make your
than just raising questions.
case. Gil and I are showing why you're failing.
You have to find the answers and show how those answers proveYou're lying again, Corbutt. It's **YOU** that has the burden here,
a cover up was going on.
not critics.
If you assholes really believed Oswald was guilty you wouldn't waste your lives here.
Period.
Another of your silly assumptions. But I'll take this opportunity to you ask a question. Why doThe "silly assumption" is true for ordinary folk. But not for trolls, cowards, and liars.
you waste your life here and in the other discussion groups you participate in?
The only ones being entertained by your ignorance and stupidity are Ben and myself ( and maybe Greg Parker ).
You have no idea how entertaining your antics are.You have no idea how despicable you appear to the average person...
playing games with the killing of a President.
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph? Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
— unquote —
Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph? >> Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
unquote
Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.
I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.
Rose and Stovall testified before the Warren Commission.
Did either of them ever identify CE 133-A and 133-B as the photos they found in the Paine garage ?
Did either of them ever identify the negative of 133-B as the negative they found ?
Yes or No ?
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:I quite doubt if Corbutt bothered to read the cited text... he
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence.
certainly made no effort at all to refute it.
The complete lack of any chain of custody is a fairly big thing in
legal circles, and would *CERTAINLY* invalidate the photos as
evidence.
Youre echoing...
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots? Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph? Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
— unquote —
Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.
Rose and Stovall testified before the Warren Commission.
Did either of them ever identify CE 133-A and 133-B as the photos they found in the Paine garage ?
Did either of them ever identify the negative of 133-B as the negative they found ?
Yes or No ?
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:44:35 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Mr. BALL. Now, at that time did you find any snapshots that appeared to be Oswald in the photograph?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; Rose did, and when he looked at them, he said, "Look at this." At the time he said that--he showed us the snapshots and the negatives to me.
Mr. BALL. Did they show you what appeared to be Oswald in the snapshots? Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. He had the negatives and snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And he showed Oswald--what was significant about the photograph? Mr. STOVALL. He was in a standing position just outside of the house holding a rifle in one hand and he was wearing a pistol in a holster on his right hip and he was holding two papers in the other hand.
Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.
— unquote —
Gil already conceded this point, he merely argued, based in nothing at all, that it shouldn't have been done that way.I didn't concede anything. I reported what they said.
Rose and Stovall testified before the Warren Commission.
Did either of them ever identify CE 133-A and 133-B as the photos they found in the Paine garage ?
Did either of them ever identify the negative of 133-B as the negative they found ?
Yes or No ?
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:20:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:01?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 04:36:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:03:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:certainly made no effort at all to refute it.
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1680/another-backyard-photographs-ii
Does nothing to invalidate the photos and negatives that are in evidence. >> I quite doubt if Corbutt bothered to read the cited text... he
The complete lack of any chain of custody is a fairly big thing in
legal circles, and would *CERTAINLY* invalidate the photos as
evidence.
You’re echoing...
And you 're crying.
And proving your STUPIDITY by denying that chain of custody is quite
an established rule of law.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:11:22 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:20:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:41:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was takenfrom the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
As are your opinions.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:from the Paine home lists miscellaneous photos as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was taken
As are your opinions.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:11:22?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:taken from the Paine home lists miscellaneous photos as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
As are your opinions.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?
What's your proof?
It's one thing to allege the photos wouldn't be allowed to be used
as evidence in a trial (silly, but whatever)
and it's entirely another thing to allege the cops were involved in
framing Oswald with faked or altered photos of him handling the rifle
and pistol.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
The people who worked the case in 1963/1964 were experts in the field, too.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
Your logical fallacy here is called an Argument from Authority.
You're asking people to rely on your status as a former cop as a
substitute
You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?
What's your proof?
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesustaken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
As are your opinions.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote: >> You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
You actually think the police actively "framed" Oswald with these photos?
What's your proof?The police lineups weren't fair. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png
Witnesses were harassed and threatened. https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
19 "patsies" were convicted on the watch of your EXPERT DA, Henry Wade. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791
Your EXPERT DA Wade also convinced a jury to send an innocent man to the electric chair in 1954.
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
Yeah, they were real experts, Chuck.
They couldn't tell a white jacket from a tannish grey one.
They couldn't tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 special.
They couldn't find a rapist inside a state prison.
Speaking of the photos, where are the negatives for CE 133-A and the Geneva Dees photos ?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what was
Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.I've been saying this for years... Chuckles doesn't know enough about
You don't know shit about this case.
the evidence in this case.
Huckster does... this is why Huckster runs more frequently than
Chuckles does.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what
Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he is indeed an expert.
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>> Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
I do understand who has the burden of proof here..
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on what
Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training. >That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training. >That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical fallacy Ijust committed!
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training. >That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
I just committed!Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical fallacy
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?Ben responds to my points by attempting to change the subject five more times (four in succession, then another after another post of mine).
You can't make this up, folks!
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:04:31?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training. >That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical fallacy Ijust committed!
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
fallacy I just committed!Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
What exactly did you mean by “mirror images”, if not the differences I listed?That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?LOL! I think I said what I mean. But, as usual, you twist it into meaning something else.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum on
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training. >That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
I just committed!Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical fallacy
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?LOL! I think I said what I mean. But, as usual, you twist it into meaning something else.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:05:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:04:31?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Huckster responds to Huckster to run from this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:27 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first memorandum
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
fallacy I just committed!Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
You taught me not to answer questions.What exactly did you mean by “mirror images”, if not the differences I listed?That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?LOL! I think I said what I mean. But, as usual, you twist it into meaning something else.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:28:12 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:memorandum on what was taken from the Paine home lists “miscellaneous photos” as among the items recovered. Your objections are meaningless.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:21:27 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:08:03 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:01:57 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:46:04 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:40:39 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:26:09 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 02:11:21 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:20:45?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
You weren't in charge, and your unsupported objections carry no weight here. The police testified to the finding of the photos, and even described them, which is sufficient to get them admitted into evidence, and the first
probably more than a hundred times each). He makes up derogatory names for posters (Hank becomes “Huckster”, Charles becomes “Chuckles”, et.al.)Even if true, how does that prevent Ben from putting forward a valid, well-reasoned argument supporting Gil’s argument that the photos would not be admissible?Well, you are an obnoxious shit bag, and a cowardly liar, too.Ben cant discuss the evidence so he is stuck calling me names.As are your opinions.The only experience Huckster has is in cowardice... In that field, he
I was a cop, Hank. I know how to do evidence lists. I have a degree in criminal justice.
I'm expressing an opinion based on my experience and training.
That experience and training allows me to look at the case from a legal standpoint.
Having put together cases against defendants myself, I know the difference between a case where police are framing a defendant and a solid case.
And that carries a LOT of weight.
In fact, next to you and the other LN idiots in this newsgroup, that makes me an EXPERT in the field.
Or do you as well have experience and training in the field of criminal justice ?
is indeed an expert.
It doesn't. But all he’s doing of late is attempting to change the subject and call me names.
Two logical fallacies.
By mirror image, you mean, apparently, that I cite the evidence and use it to build a well-reasoned argument. And Ben doesn't.No evidence Ben can discuss the evidence whatsoever, and this isn't just in this thread, or just in responses to me. This is true going back years, to a multitude of different posters.Ben is your mirror image. The only good he does here is to savage you and your pals. You both play the same game in order to make the Nut House unappealing to the rare and furtive Lurker.
You must also mean that I treat fellow posters with respect and don't generally call them names. I call them by their names they post by. Ben issues ad hominems by the truckload (everyone on the other side, Ben has called a liar and coward, and
fallacy I just committed!Ben utilizes a multitude of logical fallacies like changing the subject, begging the question, shifting the burden of proof. Ben even labels my points logical fallacies and then shifts the burden of proof and asks me to tell him what logical
Ben deletes my points, mostly leaving only the first word of two behind. I respond to his points with evidence and reasoned arguments, which Ben then deletes.
Yeah, we are mirror images.
Right, it's my fault you can't explain what you meant by ‘mirror image’ when you claimed “Ben is your mirror image”.You taught me not to answer questions.What exactly did you mean by “mirror images”, if not the differences I listed?That’s what you meant by mirror images, right?LOL! I think I said what I mean. But, as usual, you twist it into meaning something else.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
I do understand who has the burden of proof here..
No you don't. You PROVABLY don't.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
Aldous Huxley died?
I do understand who has the burden of proof here..
No you don't. You PROVABLY don't.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
Aldous Huxley died?
Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
I do understand who has the burden of proof here..
No you don't. You PROVABLY don't.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:25:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
Aldous Huxley died?
Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
Make a stupid claim...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:25:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
Aldous Huxley died?
Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
Make a stupid claim...
It's your claim.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:53:13?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:25:51?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 12:01:55?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:24:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 10:36:38?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Okay Gil, you sprayed your conspiracy rounds. Now that someone has returned fire, hurry back to your basement hideaway until the coast is clear.
Having a battle of wits with you is like fighting a war against an unarmed opponent.
You don't know shit about this case.
I don't hold myself out as an expert in JFK assassination trivia.
You don't even know what happened that day...
Aldous Huxley died?
Auditioning to be the fool? Don't need one.
Make a stupid claim...
It's your claim.
You claimed ...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:43:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?Tenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion — the bonafides of the back yard photos.
Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:21:55?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:43:14?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank SienzantTenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion the bonafides of the back yard photos.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.
Why do you think I stopped responding to him.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:21:55 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:43:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?Tenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion — the bonafides of the back yard photos.
Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.Why do you think I stopped responding to him. He never discusses substance. All he wants to
do is play his chickenshit games. It's futile to try to get him to address the points you make. He's
never going to do that. He is the epitome of an internet troll.
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:32:39 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:21:55 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:43:14 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:21:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?Tenth time in the past few hours Ben has attempted to change the subject and avoided posting anything related to the topic under discussion — the bonafides of the back yard photos.
I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time, even in topics he himself started.Ben avoids this topic like it was radioactive.Why do you think I stopped responding to him. He never discusses substance. All he wants to
do is play his chickenshit games. It's futile to try to get him to address the points you make. He's
never going to do that. He is the epitome of an internet troll.
And how, when challenged to support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..
And how, when challenged to support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..
It's a dirty job but I guess somebody has to do it. I'm glad it's not me.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support his
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support his
It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support his
It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support
his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing out
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support
his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing out
Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to support
his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing out
Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 12:56:17 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to
out his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing
Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.Ad hominem logical fallacies.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:43:41 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 12:56:17 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to
out his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm pointing
I'm just critiquing your methodology.Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.Ad hominem logical fallacies.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:16:27 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:43:41 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 12:56:17 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to
pointing out his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm
supporting your claims.Then you don't understand the difference between a critique of a methodology and an ad hominem attack. Point out the supposed lies, point out the supposed weaseling. Show how you know they are lies, which are deliberate untruths. Cite the evidenceI'm just critiquing your methodology.Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.Ad hominem logical fallacies.
Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination...
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:06:52 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:16:27 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:43:41 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 12:56:17 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:00:03 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:24:57 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 5:48:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
support his claims, he turns around and tries to change the subject..”You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?As noted here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/quU-jAIMgCM/m/Ne71WC5DAAAJ
All you’re attempting to do is change the subject:
“I get that, but the lurkers (if any) and his fellow CTs need to see Ben in action for themselves, and how he avoids discussing the assassination at every time [sic - turn], even in topics he himself started. And how, when challenged to
pointing out his methodology.It's always ad hominem with Hank Sienzant.Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination, seldom cites evidence, and invokes logical fallacies like changing the subject at every turn (at least a dozen examples above) isn't a personal attack. I'm not attacking Ben, I'm
supporting your claims.Then you don't understand the difference between a critique of a methodology and an ad hominem attack. Point out the supposed lies, point out the supposed weaseling. Show how you know they are lies, which are deliberate untruths. Cite the evidenceI'm just critiquing your methodology.Yeah, sure. And your methodology is to weasel and lie.Ad hominem logical fallacies.
It is useless to discuss anything with a weaseling liar.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:00:01 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Pointing out that Ben avoids discussing the assassination...
Not convincing coming from the coward who keeps running from this:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
Not convincing coming from the same guy who consistently runs away from any discussion of the evidence in this case.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Not convincing coming from the same guy who consistently runs away from any discussion of the evidence in this case.
The Irony of Sienzant, the most cowardly sprinter of all!
Please explain why CTs failure to respond with a reasoned rebuttal makes my points either hilarious or sad, or both.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:56:31 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Desperate and unable to reason,
Sienzant throws up even more links and claims that they will speak for him!
Absolutely hilarious! But at the same time, so sad. But hilarious!
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:59:32 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 7:56:31 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Desperate and unable to reason,You hadn’t established either.
Sienzant throws up even more links and claims that they will speak for him!I linked back to two earlier posts in this thread that went unanswered. They are still unanswered.
Absolutely hilarious! But at the same time, so sad. But hilarious!Please explain why CTs failure to respond with a reasoned rebuttal makes my points either hilarious or sad, or both.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:44:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Link to my post where I said that?
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Link to my post where I said that?
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why do you fail to cite for the two claims above that you attribute to me?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Who is running?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
No, that was Googles BARD.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
It was clearly attributed to BARD. You misunderstood that or pretended to.
Are you proud of yourself?
Caused you to make a fool of yourself...
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:44:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Link to my post where I said that? https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
Now answer the question.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Link to my post where I said that? https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
Now answer the question.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why do you fail to cite for the two claims above that you attribute to me?I provably didn't. I cited THE FIRST TIME YOU ASKED. Now, retract
your lie.
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Who is running?You.
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
No, that was Google’s BARD.No, that was *YOUR* response to my posted question. When you quoted
it, absent any disclaimer, they became your words, your argument.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
It was clearly attributed to BARD. You misunderstood that or pretended to. Running from your own post now, Huckster?
Embarrassed at what you posted?
You should be.
Are you proud of yourself?
Caused you to make a fool of yourself...
Is that what you think happened?
Believers run.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!!
You *still* havn't answered the questions.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:58:18 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Get to your basement, Shit Head Sienzant, and support your your half-assed allegation. Or at least post a whimsical link in the meantime, if you're up to it, old man.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:41:14 PM UTC-4, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:58:18 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Get to your basement, Shit Head Sienzant, and support your your half-assed allegation. Or at least post a whimsical link in the meantime, if you're up to it, old man.I asked this of Google:
As an old man, should I get to my basement, and support my allegation? Or should I at least post a whimsical link in the meantime, if I am up to it?
BARD’s response:
—quote —
Whether or not you should go to your basement and support your allegation, or post a whimsical link in the meantime, is up to you. It depends on your priorities, your energy level, and your sense of humor.
If you're passionate about supporting your allegation, and you have the evidence to back it up, then by all means, go for it. But if you're not sure, or if you don't have the energy, then it's okay to skip it.
And if you're looking for a whimsical link, here's one:
A video of a cat playing with a balloon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHKfrz65KSU
I hope you have a pleasant evening.
Personally, I would recommend posting the whimsical link. It's a great way to spread joy and make people smile. And who knows, it might even inspire someone to do something creative or whimsical themselves.
— unquote —
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:17:18?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:44:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ >>
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Link to my post where I said that?
Now answer the question.
That doesnt link to the assertion you attribute to me above. It links to a whimsical response to a CT poster that was avoiding responding to the points I made.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
Are you proud of yourself?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:49 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the description of the *location* of the large head wound.Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?Answered above. Keep repeating the falsehood, maybe you'll begin to believe it.
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.You didn't specify on whose part.
May I be so bold as to suggest here you may be the guilty party?
See the above.
Are you proud of yourself?Asked and answered.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:58:16 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 11:17:18?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:44:16?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzanthttps://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-CUVS3Ytluw/m/zfiyumYXAgAJ
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Link to my post where I said that?
Now answer the question.
That doesn’t link to the assertion you attribute to me above. It links to a whimsical response to a CT poster that was avoiding responding to the points I made."Whimsical" isn't going to save you, Huckster... You said it, and now
that you have to stand by your own words, you don't want to.
It was a talking point for you - but now that you're going to have to
defend your own words, you want to claim you were lying without
actually saying so.
So now you're claiming that you lied, and that Chickenshit doesn't
speak for you?
Good... then simply MAKE IT EXPLICIT, and state that you lied, and
that Chickenshit does *NOT* speak for you.
You either stand by your words, or you admit publicly that you lied.
Otherwise, we're simply back to your proven cowardice...
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
Answered above. Keep repeating the falsehood, maybe you'll begin to believe it.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
You didn't specify on whose part.
May I be so bold...
Are you proud of yourself?
Asked and answered.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:59:39?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank SienzantBen attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?Answered above. Keep repeating the falsehood, maybe you'll begin to believe it.
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it. You're lying again, Huckster.
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it. Still lying.
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.
Answered above. Keep repeating the falsehood, maybe you'll begin to believe it.Still lying and running from your words...
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
You didn't specify on whose part.It's quite obvious from the context.
May I be so bold...
A coward rarely has that quality.
Are you proud of yourself?
Asked and answered.Nope.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 6:30:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:59:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:50:49?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
You're lying again, Huckster.
Quote me saying what you claim I said. Provide the link.
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Ben attributes something to me I never said, and asks me to explain it.
Still lying.
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back, >>>> and exited the back of his head.
Answered above. Keep repeating the falsehood, maybe you'll begin to believe it.
Still lying and running from your words...
Nope, I attributed those words clearly to Googles BARD AI. Not my opinion.
More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
You didn't specify on whose part.
It's quite obvious from the context.
So you admit ...
May I be so bold...
A coward rarely has that quality.
So you snipped my words?
Are you proud of yourself?
Asked and answered.
Nope.
What part of these answers do you need explained to you?
It caused you to falsely attribute to me something clearly labeled as written by BARD, so yeah.
You either misunderstood what was posted, or pretended to. Which was it, Ben?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 106:15:37 |
Calls: | 6,661 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,335,403 |