It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
Everybody knows that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:Bud is even cuter when he PRETENDS to be stupid!
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is.That`s all there is. There is only one explanation on the table for consideration for this event available.
The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.Yes, everyone knows Oswald did it. Some people have trouble coming to grips with that, though.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is.
The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially.
They have "their own truth".
They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider the testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data". Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of thedefendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness oroutright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words. In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
Everybody knows that.
The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Only a judge or a jury can do that.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data". Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider the
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words. In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
You’re back to that nonsense. So Klebold and Harris aren’t historically guilty of being the Columbine killers.testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data".
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter.
You make no sense, because you admitted the converse here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/boQzueRdAAAJ “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
So according to you, Oswald is historically guilty.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?You dismissed Hitler’s guilt originally because he wasn’t guaranteed rights under the constitution of the United States:
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/qfMJIfFVAAAJ — quote —
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
— unquote —
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.Tell me what I got wrong, specifically. You won’t, of course.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider the
Not in my case. I read through the Warren Commission 26 volumes twice resolving the differences between the Commission’s case and what the first generation critics said about the Commission’s case. Everywhere I looked, the evidence supported whatthe commission said, and disagreed with what the critics were arguing. I spent many a night up until two or three in the morning reading through the testimony.
What a maroon! Hank focuses on stupid and irrelevant shit. He looks at the wrong things. This is the best that Nutters can do, because they certainly can't defend their insane theories.Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".You don’t understand the law, we’ve established that. You think evidence is inadmissible if it doesn’t have a proper chain of custody, but I’ve shown that your understanding is flawed.
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.Like Oswald being historically guilty?
Or evidence being admissible in the absence of a perfect chain of custody?
Or dead people having no rights?
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.This describes conspiracists to a T. Anything pointing to Oswald is dismissed with a “the evidence is fraudulent” claim. CTs find reasons to dismiss everything pointing to Oswald.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.Ahhah. So despite your earlier denials, you do know what ”historically guilty” means.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
Like here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/xnHo4ax6CwAJ
“ Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition. ”
“ I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE. ”
You apparently didn’t want to admit Oswald is historically guilty, so you feigned ignorance of the term and asked for a definition.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words.Funny how I cite the law and you call those who disagree with you names.
In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider thetestimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data".
Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words. In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:17:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
the testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data".You’re back to that nonsense. So Klebold and Harris aren’t historically guilty of being the Columbine killers.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter.
You make no sense, because you admitted the converse here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/boQzueRdAAAJ
“…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
So according to you, Oswald is historically guilty.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?You dismissed Hitler’s guilt originally because he wasn’t guaranteed rights under the constitution of the United States:
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/qfMJIfFVAAAJ
— quote —
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
— unquote —
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.Tell me what I got wrong, specifically. You won’t, of course.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider
the commission said, and disagreed with what the critics were arguing. I spent many a night up until two or three in the morning reading through the testimony.Not in my case. I read through the Warren Commission 26 volumes twice resolving the differences between the Commission’s case and what the first generation critics said about the Commission’s case. Everywhere I looked, the evidence supported what
Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".You don’t understand the law, we’ve established that. You think evidence is inadmissible if it doesn’t have a proper chain of custody, but I’ve shown that your understanding is flawed.
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.Like Oswald being historically guilty?
Or evidence being admissible in the absence of a perfect chain of custody?
Or dead people having no rights?
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.This describes conspiracists to a T. Anything pointing to Oswald is dismissed with a “the evidence is fraudulent” claim. CTs find reasons to dismiss everything pointing to Oswald.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.Ahhah. So despite your earlier denials, you do know what ”historically guilty” means.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
Like here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/xnHo4ax6CwAJ
“ Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition. ”
“ I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE. ”
You apparently didn’t want to admit Oswald is historically guilty, so you feigned ignorance of the term and asked for a definition.What a maroon! Hank focuses on stupid and irrelevant shit. He looks at the wrong things. This is the best that Nutters can do, because they certainly can't defend their insane theories.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words.Funny how I cite the law and you call those who disagree with you names.
In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:21:48 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:can invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:17:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot
Everybody knows that.
the testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data".You’re back to that nonsense. So Klebold and Harris aren’t historically guilty of being the Columbine killers.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter.
You make no sense, because you admitted the converse here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/boQzueRdAAAJ
“…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
So according to you, Oswald is historically guilty.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?You dismissed Hitler’s guilt originally because he wasn’t guaranteed rights under the constitution of the United States:
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/qfMJIfFVAAAJ
— quote —
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
— unquote —
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.Tell me what I got wrong, specifically. You won’t, of course.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to consider
what the commission said, and disagreed with what the critics were arguing. I spent many a night up until two or three in the morning reading through the testimony.Not in my case. I read through the Warren Commission 26 volumes twice resolving the differences between the Commission’s case and what the first generation critics said about the Commission’s case. Everywhere I looked, the evidence supported
The topic of "historically guilty" is stupid and irrelevant and you are arguing about it. That's what I said. You will twist it into something else because that is what you do, but this whole question of "historical" guilt is stupid and irrelevant. AndAny documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".You don’t understand the law, we’ve established that. You think evidence is inadmissible if it doesn’t have a proper chain of custody, but I’ve shown that your understanding is flawed.
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.Like Oswald being historically guilty?
Or evidence being admissible in the absence of a perfect chain of custody?
Or dead people having no rights?
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.This describes conspiracists to a T. Anything pointing to Oswald is dismissed with a “the evidence is fraudulent” claim. CTs find reasons to dismiss everything pointing to Oswald.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.Ahhah. So despite your earlier denials, you do know what ”historically guilty” means.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
Like here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/xnHo4ax6CwAJ
“ Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition. ”
“ I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE. ”
Be specific. What parts of my post was stupid and irrelevant? Spell out the errors in logic, reasoning, or my factual errors. Go ahead, we’ll await your enlightening us.You apparently didn’t want to admit Oswald is historically guilty, so you feigned ignorance of the term and asked for a definition.What a maroon! Hank focuses on stupid and irrelevant shit. He looks at the wrong things. This is the best that Nutters can do, because they certainly can't defend their insane theories.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words.Funny how I cite the law and you call those who disagree with you names.
In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre. I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
If not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?
If not, why not?
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
If not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be false
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
How CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
How CT of you.
Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:48:06 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:can invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:21:48 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:17:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot
Everybody knows that.
consider the testimony of the witnesses or the exhibits ( 26 volumes ) because it's all "raw data".You’re back to that nonsense. So Klebold and Harris aren’t historically guilty of being the Columbine killers.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter.
You make no sense, because you admitted the converse here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/boQzueRdAAAJ
“…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
So according to you, Oswald is historically guilty.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?You dismissed Hitler’s guilt originally because he wasn’t guaranteed rights under the constitution of the United States:
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/qfMJIfFVAAAJ
— quote —
"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?
— unquote —
The Lone Nut Trolls always fail. My 40 questions exposed just how little they know of the case.
Like the FBI and the military experts who fired the CE 139 rifle, in this test, the trolls just couldn't hit the bullseye.
Each question had a single right answer.
Oh, they'll lie and say they answered ALL the questions, just not to my satisfaction.Tell me what I got wrong, specifically. You won’t, of course.
As a group, the trolls responded 131 times to my 40 questions.
Out of those 131 responses, 116 ( 88.5 % ) of those responses were comments, insults and questions.
Nothing to do with anybody's satisfaction.
We're not dealing with rational people here. We're dealing with closed-minded people who refuse to look at the case impartially. They have "their own truth". They've heard the prosecutor's closing arguments ( WR ) and they don't have to
what the commission said, and disagreed with what the critics were arguing. I spent many a night up until two or three in the morning reading through the testimony.Not in my case. I read through the Warren Commission 26 volumes twice resolving the differences between the Commission’s case and what the first generation critics said about the Commission’s case. Everywhere I looked, the evidence supported
since you cannot defend your own insane theories, you chose to argue about this irrelevant topic of "historical guilt."Any documentation, witnesses or evidence presented in defense of the defendant is considered, "looking at the wrong things incorrectly".You don’t understand the law, we’ve established that. You think evidence is inadmissible if it doesn’t have a proper chain of custody, but I’ve shown that your understanding is flawed.
This type of judicial attitude was typical in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Some of these people may have a serious mental issue called anosognosia, but most are just engaging in stubbornness or outright denial, which is a defense mechanism some people use when they can't cope with difficult facts or diagnoses.Like Oswald being historically guilty?
Or evidence being admissible in the absence of a perfect chain of custody?
Or dead people having no rights?
Either way, whether it's a form of mental illness or just a defense mechanism, they will never, ever accept ANY evidence which casts doubt on Oswald's guilt.This describes conspiracists to a T. Anything pointing to Oswald is dismissed with a “the evidence is fraudulent” claim. CTs find reasons to dismiss everything pointing to Oswald.
These people will lie and deceive if it suits their purpose, i.e. protecting "their own truth".
Others are here only for their own "entertainment" to cast aspersions and spew their hatred on those with whom they do not agree.Ahhah. So despite your earlier denials, you do know what ”historically guilty” means.
We can only hope that future generations of internet web surfers will discover that these Lone Nut trolls were "historically guilty" of ignorance and stupidity.
Like here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/xnHo4ax6CwAJ
“ Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition. ”
“ I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE. ”
The topic of "historically guilty" is stupid and irrelevant and you are arguing about it. That's what I said. You will twist it into something else because that is what you do, but this whole question of "historical" guilt is stupid and irrelevant. AndBe specific. What parts of my post was stupid and irrelevant? Spell out the errors in logic, reasoning, or my factual errors. Go ahead, we’ll await your enlightening us.You apparently didn’t want to admit Oswald is historically guilty, so you feigned ignorance of the term and asked for a definition.What a maroon! Hank focuses on stupid and irrelevant shit. He looks at the wrong things. This is the best that Nutters can do, because they certainly can't defend their insane theories.
And that any credibility they may have had was destroyed by their own words.Funny how I cite the law and you call those who disagree with you names.
In the meantime, the best thing we can do is to ignore these assholes and let them prove to the world what they're made of.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
How CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:02:11 AM UTC-6, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
How CT of you.
If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.What about your theory? I'm not asking you to defend it, but what should the punishment have been for Oswald shooting at the motorcade from the grassy knoll?
Are you thinking a life sentence or the death penalty or something else?
Maybe some combination of prison and being forced to befriend Gil or at least clean his trailer once a week?
Is Oswald "historically guilty" of some sort of involvement in JFK's death on 11/22/63?
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:11:46 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:02:11 AM UTC-6, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
How CT of you.
Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.What about your theory? I'm not asking you to defend it, but what should the punishment have been for Oswald shooting at the motorcade from the grassy knoll?
Are you thinking a life sentence or the death penalty or something else?
Maybe some combination of prison and being forced to befriend Gil or at least clean his trailer once a week?
Is Oswald "historically guilty" of some sort of involvement in JFK's death on 11/22/63?If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows that.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at peopleHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD. Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do? You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:11:46 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:02:11 AM UTC-6, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
How CT of you.
I am saying what I said. If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate. And if Ruby murdered Oswald, then the death penalty would be appropriate for him, too. And Clay Shaw was found not guilty just as he shouldSure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.What about your theory? I'm not asking you to defend it, but what should the punishment have been for Oswald shooting at the motorcade from the grassy knoll?
Are you thinking a life sentence or the death penalty or something else?
Maybe some combination of prison and being forced to befriend Gil or at least clean his trailer once a week?
So while not approving of what Jack Ruby did, you are saying Oswald’s death would have been the appropriate punishment by the State of Texas, only Ruby beat them to it.Is Oswald "historically guilty" of some sort of involvement in JFK's death on 11/22/63?If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate.
What about Clay Shaw? Any views there on his guilt or innocence?
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:23:45 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:15:29 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:11:46 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:02:11 AM UTC-6, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
How CT of you.
Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.What about your theory? I'm not asking you to defend it, but what should the punishment have been for Oswald shooting at the motorcade from the grassy knoll?
Are you thinking a life sentence or the death penalty or something else?
Maybe some combination of prison and being forced to befriend Gil or at least clean his trailer once a week?
So while not approving of what Jack Ruby did, you are saying Oswald’s death would have been the appropriate punishment by the State of Texas, only Ruby beat them to it.Is Oswald "historically guilty" of some sort of involvement in JFK's death on 11/22/63?If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate.
What about Clay Shaw? Any views there on his guilt or innocence?I am saying what I said. If Oswald did what I think he did, then the death penalty would have been appropriate. And if Ruby murdered Oswald,
then the death penalty would be appropriate for him, too. And Clay Shaw was found not guilty just as he should have been, since he was not proven guilty.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were far moreIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw parallels
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan. Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan. Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan. Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan. Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody knows
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan. Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJFor the record, Charles Whitman's best qualifying score was only 3 points higher than Oswald's (215 to 212). Whitman killed
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
about a dozen people and wounded many more from a much greater height and much greater distances. He wounded a guy
riding a bike more than a block away from the tower. It shows he had the capability of hitting a moving target from a much
greater distance than Oswald shot Kennedy from. Given these facts, it seems silly to argue the assassination was beyond
Oswald's capability.
What about your theory?
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:knows that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody
more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who were farIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher buildingHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
"We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:knows that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody
far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who wereIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher buildingHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:knows that.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it. Everybody
far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there? If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people who wereIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to draw
building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higherHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the JFK
There is no historically guilty, but we can judge anybody guilty. Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to yourThat's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there? If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people whoIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to
building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higherHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the
That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:09:02 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at people whoIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to
building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higherHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the death“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about the
`I think Booth and Oswald are guilty, but you will have to define "Historically Guilty" if you really want my opinion about that, which you don't because you're just trolling your propaganda. You want to bump up your insane theory to "Historically" true.That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many others.This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.Except Oswald, apparently, for conspiracy theorists.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.If you've got a better solution than the guy all the evidence points to being the guilty party, I'd love to hear it. You don't, of course. No CT does.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:35:35 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:09:02 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at peopleIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
to draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine
higher building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a muchHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about
true. You want Oswald being Historically Guilty to mean that there was no conspiracy. You are dishonest and lazy and hypocrital and very illogical. And delusionally, you want to speak for "history."That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
`I think Booth and Oswald are guilty, but you will have to define "Historically Guilty" if you really want my opinion about that, which you don't because you're just trolling your propaganda. You want to bump up your insane theory to "Historically"For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many others.This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.Except Oswald, apparently, for conspiracy theorists.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.If you've got a better solution than the guy all the evidence points to being the guilty party, I'd love to hear it. You don't, of course. No CT does.
That doesn't follow. Booth was historically guilty AND part of a conspiracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.They are not mutually exclusive, but Oswald being guilty under Hank's "Historically Guilty" Theory excludes conspiracy. Hank is trying to sneak that in under his "Historically Guilty" designation. That's why he insists on "historically" being attached to
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:09:02 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at peopleIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine to
building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higherHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of the“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking about
true. You want Oswald being Historically Guilty to mean that there was no conspiracy. You are dishonest and lazy and hypocrital and very illogical. And delusionally, you want to speak for "history."That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
`I think Booth and Oswald are guilty, but you will have to define "Historically Guilty" if you really want my opinion about that, which you don't because you're just trolling your propaganda. You want to bump up your insane theory to "Historically"For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many others.This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.Except Oswald, apparently, for conspiracy theorists.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.If you've got a better solution than the guy all the evidence points to being the guilty party, I'd love to hear it. You don't, of course. No CT does.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
Everybody knows that.
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has
been the purpose of your efforts all these years?
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:35:35 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:09:02 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
mine to draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of
higher building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a muchHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking
true. You want Oswald being Historically Guilty to mean that there was no conspiracy. You are dishonest and lazy and hypocrital and very illogical. And delusionally, you want to speak for "history."That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
`I think Booth and Oswald are guilty, but you will have to define "Historically Guilty" if you really want my opinion about that, which you don't because you're just trolling your propaganda. You want to bump up your insane theory to "Historically"For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many others.This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.Except Oswald, apparently, for conspiracy theorists.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.If you've got a better solution than the guy all the evidence points to being the guilty party, I'd love to hear it. You don't, of course. No CT does.
to guilty. That's why "historically" in this context needs to be defined. But Hank refuses to define it because then he would have to defend his definition, which he knows is arbitrary and therefore indefensible. If Hank were honest he would say, "IThat doesn't follow. Booth was historically guilty AND part of a conspiracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.They are not mutually exclusive, but Oswald being guilty under Hank's "Historically Guilty" Theory excludes conspiracy. Hank is trying to sneak that in under his "Historically Guilty" designation. That's why he insists on "historically" being attached
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?I'm not "historically acquitting" anyone.
In fact, there's no such phrase.
All I'm doing is examining the evidence in the case, evidence that you and the other LN assholes are scared shitless to look at.
And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com
P.S. Thanks for setting off the spammers.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:Everybody knows that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:35:35 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:09:02 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of committing the assassination.What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas Tower shooter?
Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?
If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?
Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building atIf not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant sheeple and just believing their rulers?I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.
If not, why not?
mine to draw parallels between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?
I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be falseStraw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.
only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not made.
Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.
Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names, and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of
higher building at people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a muchHow CT of you.Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later
about the JFK assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and deserving of“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.Do I understand your point correctly?I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any rifle from the TSBD.
because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem ridiculous.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did not do?Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply proclaim it as a given.
You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and I don't care who.No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination (”I'm talking
true. You want Oswald being Historically Guilty to mean that there was no conspiracy. You are dishonest and lazy and hypocrital and very illogical. And delusionally, you want to speak for "history."That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just cut to the chase and simply call me names?
________
* Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJWell, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.
Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
You know, conspiracy theorists."We" can judge anything we want at any time. It's your "historically guilty" bullshit which started all this, your attempt to lend credibility to your pet theory by giving it a stupid name.
The ones defending murders are those who claim a trial and guilty verdict is necessary before we can judge Charles Whitman guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, or Harris and Klebold guilty of being the Columbine school shooters.
Folks like Gil and Robert Johnson.
And now, apparently, you. For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
`I think Booth and Oswald are guilty, but you will have to define "Historically Guilty" if you really want my opinion about that, which you don't because you're just trolling your propaganda. You want to bump up your insane theory to "Historically"For if no one is historically guilty, then neither are John Wilkes Booth, Charles Whitman, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many others.This is where your “logic” that there is not such thing as historically guilty — in a vain attempt to exonerate Oswald — gets you.There is no historically guilty,
but we can judge anybody guilty.Except Oswald, apparently, for conspiracy theorists.
Why are you too stupid to understand that? I judge you guilty, right now. Historicity has nothing to do with it. By making it "historically" you are attempting to assign consensus to your own pet theory.If you've got a better solution than the guy all the evidence points to being the guilty party, I'd love to hear it. You don't, of course. No CT does.
That doesn't follow. Booth was historically guilty AND part of a conspiracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.They are not mutually exclusive, but Oswald being guilty under Hank's "Historically Guilty" Theory excludes conspiracy. Hank is trying to sneak that in under his "Historically Guilty" designation.
That's why he insists on "historically" being attached to guilty. That's why "historically" in this context needs to be defined. But Hank refuses to define it because then he would have to defend his definition, which he knows is arbitrary andtherefore indefensible. If Hank were honest he would say, "I think Oswald is guilty," and leave history out of it. But Hank is not honest.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:55:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:14:00?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?I'm not "historically acquitting" anyone.
In fact, there's no such phrase.
All I'm doing is examining the evidence in the case, evidence that you and the other LN assholes are scared shitless to look at.
And it's all here:
www.gil-jesus.com
P.S. Thanks for setting off the spammers.
That doesn't follow. Booth was historically guilty AND part of a conspiracy. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
There is no credible evidence of a conspiracy.
History accurately records
that there is widespread belief of a conspiracy,
but will offer no evidence to support that belief.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:55:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?I'm not "historically acquitting" anyone.
In fact, there's no such phrase.
All I'm doing is examining the evidence in the case, evidence that you and the other LN assholes are scared shitless to look at.
And it's all here:Your examination of the evidence is FUBAR.
www.gil-jesus.com
P.S. Thanks for setting off the spammers.You have the cart before the horse. The spammers were already flooding this newsgroup before I ever commented on it.
Nothing I wrote changed anything. Since you believe in a non-existent conspiracy with no evidence to support it, I'm not
surprised you believe I had the power to trigger a flood of spam. This newsgroup has been around a long time and I have no
idea who created it
and established the rules for it
but I suspect it was somebody had an app which searched for
unmoderated newsgroups which could be flooded with spam ads and came across this one. Why don't you do something
productive and drop your futile efforts to exonerate Oswald and figure out why the newsgroup has recently been the target
of the spammers. Or you can take the easy way out and just assume I am the culprit. I'm pretty sure I know which one you
will choose to do.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:35:05 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:55:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?I'm not "historically acquitting" anyone.
In fact, there's no such phrase.
All I'm doing is examining the evidence in the case, evidence that you and the other LN assholes are scared shitless to look at.
And it's all here:Your examination of the evidence is FUBAR.
www.gil-jesus.com
Chip Salzenberg: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/aD-n-HbJw5E/m/5rytUvOQtwgJP.S. Thanks for setting off the spammers.You have the cart before the horse. The spammers were already flooding this newsgroup before I ever commented on it.
Nothing I wrote changed anything. Since you believe in a non-existent conspiracy with no evidence to support it, I'm not
surprised you believe I had the power to trigger a flood of spam. This newsgroup has been around a long time and I have no
idea who created it
First post, I believe(2/24/1992): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/aa0Uu5dyC6k/m/KqB12eigWHwJ
and established the rules for itPrecursor to world wide web: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.*_hierarchy#Origin
Sorry. I didn't start out intending to rant but once I got going I couldn't stop.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
Everybody knows that.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
If there is no such thing as historically guilty...
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a jury can do that.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
Everybody knows that.The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses like Corbett and Bud.
And they try to make vain arguments to support this nonsense like comparing Oswald to Hitler. Hitler, they note, was also never tried, so does that mean he wasn't responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews ?
But they fail to mention that the Nuremberg War Trials exposed the level of Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust.
Hitler was not on trial at Nuremberg. Hitler was not convicted at Nuremberg. Nice try.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 5:13:39?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them. But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.
Everybody knows that.
The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder, he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the fact that the idiot can
"Historically guilty" as some sort of dictionary term or phrase...
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:35:05 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:55:12 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:14:00 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has been the purpose of your efforts all these years?I'm not "historically acquitting" anyone.
In fact, there's no such phrase.
All I'm doing is examining the evidence in the case, evidence that you and the other LN assholes are scared shitless to look at.
And it's all here:Your examination of the evidence is FUBAR.
www.gil-jesus.com
Chip Salzenberg: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/aD-n-HbJw5E/m/5rytUvOQtwgJP.S. Thanks for setting off the spammers.You have the cart before the horse. The spammers were already flooding this newsgroup before I ever commented on it.
Nothing I wrote changed anything. Since you believe in a non-existent conspiracy with no evidence to support it, I'm not
surprised you believe I had the power to trigger a flood of spam. This newsgroup has been around a long time and I have no
idea who created it
First post, I believe(2/24/1992): https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/aa0Uu5dyC6k/m/KqB12eigWHwJ
and established the rules for itPrecursor to world wide web: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt.*_hierarchy#Origin
but I suspect it was somebody had an app which searched for
unmoderated newsgroups which could be flooded with spam ads and came across this one. Why don't you do something
productive and drop your futile efforts to exonerate Oswald and figure out why the newsgroup has recently been the target
of the spammers. Or you can take the easy way out and just assume I am the culprit. I'm pretty sure I know which one you
will choose to do.
For the record...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 123:49:15 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,705 |