It looks like your questions have been answered, but none of them have been answered TO YOUR SATISFACTION, correct? Some of the answers are snarky, some of the answers are detailed, with links to WC testimony, but no doubt the answers are not to yoursatisfaction.
Let's start with the basic understanding that there are no answers to your hobby point gotchas which will ever satisfy you.conspiracy drama production, and to answer the questions to your satisfaction puts the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. of business, and let's face it: you're not going to put yourself
I can answer all of your hobby point gotchas quite easily, but they won't be answered to your satisfaction because YOU are the director, producer, actor, ticket taker, script writer, projectionist, concession stand operator, etc. for your very own JFK
Anyways, here are the answers to your hobby points that you're going to get from me. I'm not going to answer you as you demand, but that's tough luck for you.ENDLESSLY (although as I noted, not addressed to your satisfaction) and re-presented over and over, decade after decade, as if the questions are fresh or new. They're not. You RESET the argument from the FRINGE.
ALL of your questions revolve around a few things, repeated ad nauseam by you and your fellow JFK conspiracy hobbyists over the decades.
1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.
2.) Your questions are based on trivia. Concerning Oswald's jacket, what would it matter about where he purchased it or if he got it used or found it somewhere?
3.) Your questions revolve around what conspiracy-smasher Jay Utah at the International Skeptics Forum calls a "Fringe Reset," which refers to the constant repetition by JFK conspiracy hobbyists of questions and charges that have been addressed
4.) Your questions are straw man arguments.this lazy if this is a question so important to you. Work. Pick up a phone. Write an email.
5.) Your questions shift the burden. Research your own questions and present your findings and your critics will weigh in. Have you ever reached out to any 1960s era retired Dallas cops to ask about those evidence forms? No? Ask yourself why you are
There are more logical fallacies you use when constructing your hobby points, but those are the main ones I see. If you want better answers, ask better questions. To ask better questions, remove the fallacies I noted above.ever satisfy you. Ever.
I have now answered all of your question in one fell swoop and with just a few paragraphs. Did I answer them individually as you wished? No. Did you learn anything? No. Did I answer any of them TO YOUR SATISFACTION? No. That's because no answers will
You asked, I answered. But not to your satisfaction.Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass Nutter
Now what? Shelve the questions and haul them out a few days/weeks/months later?
Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass NutterHypocrite.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:51:52 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:Hypocrite.
Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass Nutter
Bud responded to only 33 of the 40 questions.
Corbett responded to only 32 of the 40 questions.
Hank responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Recip responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Chuckles responded to only 1 of the 40 questions.
No one even responded to question 39, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/lwxPWxvZNKQ
but Chuckles says, 'it looks like your questions have been answered."
Chuckles is a liar. And a coward.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:51:52 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:Hypocrite.
Nutter Hobbyist Chucky the Schu is never satisfied with any explanation which does not confirm his bias, so naturally he sits back in his easy chair and accuses others of having his own faults. That's why everybody knows him as The Lazy Ass Nutter
Bud responded to only 33 of the 40 questions.
Corbett responded to only 32 of the 40 questions.
Hank responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Recip responded to only 6 of the 40 questions.
Chuckles responded to only 1 of the 40 questions.
No one even responded to question 39,
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/lwxPWxvZNKQ
but Chuckles says, 'it looks like your questions have been answered."
Chuckles is a liar. And a coward.
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 22:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like your questions have been answered...
When you start with a lie, it's not going to get any better...
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:30:51?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 22:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
It looks like your questions have been answered...
When you start with a lie, it's not going to get any better...
Chuck Schuyler is a coward for avoiding the questions and a goddamned liar for saying they were all answered when they weren't.
Who would buy real estate from a proven liar ?
A real internet piece-of-shit.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:11:20?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49?AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.
Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning,
So I was correct. Thank you.
It looks like your questions have been answered...
Hank answered it...
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 11:11:20 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:answers will ever satisfy you. Ever.”
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:He answered it before I did. Here it is again:
Hank answered it, BUT NOT TO YOUR SATISFACTION. Don't lie and say it wasn't answered. It was answered.Hank answered the question at 9:33 am this morning, 8 hours AFTER you said the questions were all answered.
“1.) Your questions are begged. You embed assumptions that haven't been established into the questions.”
I responded later with essentially the same answer:
“Absurd begged Question logical fallacy. … Your imbedded assumption is he built that bag using only his left index finger and right palm. Why do you assume he used only his left index finger and right palm?”
When you made the statement at 1:47 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.He had: “I have now answered all of your question in one fell swoop and with just a few paragraphs. Did I answer them individually as you wished? No. Did you learn anything? No. Did I answer any of them TO YOUR SATISFACTION? No. That's because no
When I pointed out your lie at 5:30 am this morning, no one had yet responded to that question.
That makes your original post a lie and you a goddamned liar.He responded. You just don’t accept his answer.
On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:00:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:57:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
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 Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:18:58?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:57:45 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Huckster has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
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?
Ben cannot ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 106:24:27 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,407 |