… [deletia]…
HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one.
Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.
No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.
In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< the usual nonsense >
Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them, plenty of time to look up the answers and reply. And in spite of all that flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.
When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you don't know shit.
One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in your world, but in the real world it sucks.
You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.
You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your responses weren't given until the questions were closed.
Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.
Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than truthful.
Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.
== unquote ==Mr. JENNER. Is it secret or confidential work or classified work of any kind?
Mr. STOVALL. On occasion we do. Most of it is not…
A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.
Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.
You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.
In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.
So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 5:24:24 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:You have thus far been unwilling to debate any of the points I made.
… [deletia]…Straw man argument. I said I was more knowledgeable than you after NTF advanced the straw man argument that I was proclaiming myself an expert on chain of custody. See this exchange here, quoted below.
HANK finished a close third, destroying the myth that he is the "most knowledgeable" one.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/CuT27J6SqA0/m/sLvxmEqnAwAJ == quote ==
Hank, the true crime hobbyist is now an expert on chain of custody!No, but certainly more knowledgeable than Gil.
I quoted from an expert on chain of custody in a law journal: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1450&context=faculty_publications
== unquote ==
I see your threads properly label me as the “more knowledgeable” one, [See this thread title for one such example: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ZWs_87UM-3Y/m/w8IAmBNDAAAJ ]
but here you up the ante, and pretend I said “most knowledgeable”. Why is that, Gil?
I think I rattled your cage a bit when I claimed to be more knowledgeable about chain of custody than you. I certainly haven’t seen you respond to any of the points I made, or the quotes I provided concerning the actual law and how it is administered.
…
His 34 questions avoided tied him for second place with RECIP and behind the leader, Chuckles.This board is low on my priority list. As my wife constantly reminds me, “Kennedy is still going to be dead when you finish posting”. I get to what I get to.
I didn’t *avoid* any questions. I just don’t care to devote more time to your Gish Gallopor Ben’s trolling, or NTF’s asinine comments) than they deserve. The time devoted thus far has certainly been a waste, as you haven’t learned anythingabout what chain of custody truly is (your knowledge of this subject is gleaned from conspiracy books). Remember, Gil, chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of the evidence.the evidence is still admissible even if there is no proper
No troll was capable of answering more than 22 % of the questions correctly.According to a conspiracist seeking others to agree with his belief mythology.
…
In short, the test exposed how little the Lone Nut trolls really know about the case and their penchant for posting comments, insults and questions. IOW, there really were no surprises.
Hilarious! A conspiracist asks answers of non-conspiracists, and gets them, and then grades almost all the answers as wrong, because they don’t confirm his belief mythology.
Even where the law is patiently explained to him, and why testimony is sufficient to establish chain of custody, and even when the law is quoted to him that chain of custody goes to the weight, not the admissibility of evidence, he still insists/pretends that numerous items pointing to Oswald as the assassin would not be admissible. SMH.
Gil, go through all of my responses, and tell me specifically what you believe I got wrong. Let’s discuss, and iron out our differences. Unless you do that, your “grading system” has a serious flaw — it is meaningless. Start with chain ofcustody. Quote the law, not your opinion.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:11:05?AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
< the usual nonsense >
Here's a bulletin for you Hank:
At 5 % correct answers, you don't know shit.
I posted 5 questions at a time and gave you idiots 5 days to answer them, plenty of time to look up the answers and reply.
And in spite of all that flexibility, you could only respond to 6 questions out of 40.
When you can't outscore morons like Bud and Corbett on a simple test, you don't know shit.
One correct answer out of 19 might be borderline genius for WC supporters in your world, but in the real world it sucks.
You couldn't even answer simple "yes" or "no" questions.
You ran like a little bieotch from 34 of the 40 questions and most of your responses weren't given until the questions were closed.
Your problem is that you depend in your arguments too much on testimony you copy and paste from the St John of McAdams website.
Warren Commission testimony that has been shown at times to be less than truthful.
Like the testimony that Oswald had no access to sensitive material while he worked at Jaggers-Childs-Stovall, testimony that conflicts with the record.
A record that indicates Graef and Stovall lied about Oswald's access to sensitive work done for the US Army Map Service.
Anyway, we tested your knowledge and found out the truth.
You're not "more knowedgeable" than anybody.
In fact, you're not much smarter than Corbett and way dumber than Bud.
So go sit in the corner with your dunce cap on and lick your wounds, Hank. >And admit it, you were beaten for this year's "MACKEY" award by two idiots.
Congratulations on your THIRD place finish.
Better luck next year.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 104:18:19 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,170 |