What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last fewyears of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at all in
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness. I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
No, my argument is based on:
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at allin such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be in
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness. I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
No, my argument is based on:
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:55:57 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at
I agree.
The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of the authorities making that case.
Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.
Take a criminal case where:
The police were corrupt
Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".
The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )
There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of discovery
There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and waived those rights.
Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found
The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day
The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day
Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect
The police lineups were unfair
The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested
The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for tampering
The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they found
The witnesses were threatened and harassed
Key witnesses were ignored
FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said
Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a suspect's guilt ?
REALLY
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:55:57 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:all in such a consensus? Or is it just professional money-making historians, the ones who are handsomely paid by the ruling class? Since the Retards have put forth the argument, the burden is upon them to provide the definition. The poor dears seem to be
Well, of course! But if we are to be kind to the Retards, we can agree with them that historical consensus does develop around such issues, as around Oswald's guilt. But how does one define that consensus? Are the people, the citizens, involved at
I agree.
The credibility of a criminal case is directly connected to the credibility of the authorities making that case.
Forget that we're talking about Oswald for a minute.
Take a criminal case where:
The police were corrupt
Police continued to question the suspect after he had "lawyered up".
The police lied during their testimony under oath ( perjury )
There were no chain of custody forms made out for the evidence at the time of discovery
There was no documentation proving the suspect was advised of his rights and waived those rights.
Several items currently in evidence were not photographed as found
The suspect was not allowed a phone call until 1:40 pm the following day
The suspect's family was denied access to him until the next day
Legal assistance ( ACLU ) was dissuaded by police from talking to the suspect
The police lineups were unfair
The DA was corrupt and only cared about convicting the person arrested
The handling of the evidence by police allowed for the opportunity for tampering
The witnesses could not identify the items in evidence as the evidence they found
The witnesses were threatened and harassed
Key witnesses were ignored
FBI reports lied about what the witnesses said
Who TF in their right mind could accept THAT case as an air-tight case of a suspect's guilt ?
REALLY
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >> What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the lastfew years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
There are only types of "not guilty", like "not guilty by reason of insanity" or mental illness or mental defect.
But there are no different "types" of guilty.
I asked Chuckles to post the link defining the phrase, "historically guilty" and he could not.
He could not because "historically guilty" is a phrase he invented to label Oswald guilty without being convicted.
It's nonsense coming from a pompous ass who speaks nothing but foolishness. >I'm not surprised that there are other pompous asses who support him.
History cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence.
It can present a case, it can present evidence, it can even express an OPINION, but it cannot CONVICT.
Not in America, only a judge or a jury can do that.
And their argument that because Hitler was never convicted, then he never was responsible of the murder of 6 million Jews during WW II is stupid.
Hitler's role in the Holocaust was revealed during the Nuremberg war TRIALS by witnesses who received orders directly from him.
These assholes seem to think my argument for Oswald's innocence is based on the fact that he never went to trial.
No, my argument is based on:
1. The FACT that the Dallas Police were corrupt.
2. The FACT that Hoover hated JFK and covered up his assassination.
3. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
4. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
When you look at how the authorities handled this case, you can see that they weren't handling the case of a suspect who was guilty,
but instead were handling it as if they were trying to frame Oswald for a crime he did not commit.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 5:19:10?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Because there are no different "types" of guilty.
No one gets convicted of being "historically guilty", "catagorically guilty", "undoubtedly guilty", "partially guilty" or any other word you want to put in front of "guilty".
There's only "guilty".
Yet Gil continues to try to historically acquit Oswald.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:19:10?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:few years of his life arguing about meaningless stupid stuff. Meanwhile, as Hank's wife said, JFK is still dead. Great job, Hank!
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 2:24:06?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote: >>> What else can he do? He certainly cannot defend the Official Story. Plus, he has no burden to do that. His burden only is to argue about stupid stuff that doesn't matter, or even mean anything. Yes, Hank is Historically Stupid for spending the last
Yes. There is is no such thing as "historically guilty."
Sure there is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:59:52 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,079 |