Taken from the censored forum:

I evaluate witnesses on their merits.

If you applied the same standard to JFK witnesses you apply to
scripture, you would reject *all* of them.

So who's being dogmatic?

.John

It's truly amusing that Johnny can say this with a straight face...
since he refuses to name a *SINGLE* eyewitness whom he believes
completely in all their 1963-64 statements concerning the murder of
JFK.

So the *FACT* is... Johnny *DOES* reject all eyewitnesses. He
cherry-picks their testimony to find things that support his faith,
and pretends otherwise.

Now... Johnny refuses to post in an open forum where he cannot control
other people when they refute what he says... so he won't respond
here.

But he *DOES* read these posts... as proven by his occasional 'theft'
of a post to be posted and answered in his censored arena... but
*this* post won't be one of them... anyone care to bet?


[No-one wanted to bet - and if they had, I won.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 06:04:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)