My Scenario - The Conclusion

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.


So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?

There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.

This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.

And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.

It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.

The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case. http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's challenge? Of course it does.

Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.

But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.

For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.

Something he'll never do.

Nor can Huckster Sienzant...

Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.

And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...

Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his challenge.

Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.

CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.

And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.

Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.

Just as Chuckles lost.

Just as Davy Von Penis lost.

(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

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

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

My Scenario - The Conclusion

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do >precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior >assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single >witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren >Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.

So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?

There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this >assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.

This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.

And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.

It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a >conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.

The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case. >http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's >challenge? Of course it does.

Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.

But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my >scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.

For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.

Something he'll never do.

Nor can Huckster Sienzant...

Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will... >Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.

And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and >Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...

Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his >challenge.

Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.

CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.

And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.

Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.

Just as Chuckles lost.

Just as Davy Von Penis lost.

(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Another perfect prediction... Huckster read this, and ran screaming
for the hills...

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

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 11:18:34?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:23:49 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

My Scenario - The Conclusion

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do >>>precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then >>>demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior >>>assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to >>>murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single >>>witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion >>>within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated >>>that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is >>>seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that >>>reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then >>>demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren >>>Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the >>>original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid >>>chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the >>>assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the >>>medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the >>>alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16 >>>Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.


So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?

There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for, >>>all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone >>>assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this >>>assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was >>>provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.

This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put >>>forth by the Warren Commission.

And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied >>>about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.

It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a >>>conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.

The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case. >>>http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's >>>challenge? Of course it does.

Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine >>>about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.

But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my >>>scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.

For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can >>>*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by >>>citation.

Something he'll never do.

Nor can Huckster Sienzant...

Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will... >>>Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've >>>clearly done here.

And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren >>>Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and >>>Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...

Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his >>>challenge.

Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario >>>that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and >>>number of citations.

CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.

And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.

Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.

Just as Chuckles lost.

Just as Davy Von Penis lost.

(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Chickenshit admits he lost.

Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Yet you can't cite *ONE* of them.

Much like you can't answer this:

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)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 08:58:49 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 at 12:46:25?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Your fringe reset has been addressed many times.

Prove it.

A simple cite to where it's been done before would be the proof... but
we'll never see such a cite.

You weren`t challenged to lump together your favorite talking points.

Prove it.

He can't.

The WC put an explanation of this event on the table for consideration.

Prove it.

Chickenshit can't.

Indeed, polling shows that he's failed.

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

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:32:29 -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)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:30:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 9:23:55?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

My Scenario - The Conclusion

First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer.

Strawman.

You should look up what a "strawman" is. This is a declarative
assertion that *I CAN* match anything that a believer can post.

So no, it's not a "strawman"... and coming from someone who REFUSES to
post a scenario, it's quite cowardly as well.

I've done so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President.

Begging the question.

No stupid, I stated a FACT. One that you can't refute. Calling it
"begging the question" doesn't change the fact that the WC never
investigated the previous attempts on JFK's life.

Team Oswald...

Logical fallacy deleted.

I then showed that the Warren Commission had their "conclusions"
in written form before they interviewed a single witness...

In the sane world of 1963/1964, where math wasn't racist and a boy
was a boy and a girl was a girl, there was no doubt Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC, and killed JDT.

Polling shows that you're lying.

Why don't you stop with the logical fallacies, and try to support your
empty claims with evidence?

The question revolved around how it happened and whether Oswald had
any confederates or was put up to it.

Begging the question.


I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll.

There is no strong evidence for anything other than shots from above
and behind. This was true then and true today and will be true 100
years from now.

Both a logical fallacy, AND an outright lie.

I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK.

Opinion. The autopsy showed otherwise.

The Autopsy was opinion... and it was **NOT** aware of the neck wound
as anything other than a trach wound.

I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally.

Lied or off by a fraction of a second in light of newer analysis over the decades?

Lied. The WC dealt with frame numbers just as we do today.

And you think the Z film was altered, so why call their conclusions a lie if they're looking at an altered film?

Because **YOU** have no options when you believe the film to be
authentic.

I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT.

There is evidence of a transit, but you don't accept it. You do you.

Begging the question. Chuckles is TERRIFIED of citing this
"evidence," or more likely... doesn't know what it is...

I then demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren >> Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one.

Ad hominem deleted.

Chuckles couldn't refute my synopsis anymore than he could refute the
actual argument made...

I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody.

Endlessly discussed here, and no I'm not going to sift through the
hundreds of threads and posts that you'll say don't "prove you wrong"
to your unique satisfaction.

Yet another begging the question fallacy. Chuckles can't refute what
I said...

In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence.

Addressed over and over.

Yet you'll never cite even *ONE* response that refuted what the
evidence pointed out.

You can't.

The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.

ROTFLMAO!!! Chuckles had nothing to say!!!

So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?

There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.

This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.

And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.

It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.

The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Chickenshit's
challenge? Of course it does.

Now, I know that Chickenshit will whine that there's no mention of
JFK's body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see.
He'll whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine
about any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission
explained that I didn't.

But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.

For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Chickenshit can
*CREDIBLY* refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by
citation.

Something he'll never do.

Nor can Huckster Sienzant...

Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Chickenshit's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've
clearly done here.

And if Chickenshit DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren
Commission explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and
Chickenshit knows this. So does Huckster - hence his silence...

Chickenshit made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually
take the time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no
matter *WHAT* someone posted, he would be able to criticize it -
because he will NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his
challenge.

Chickenshit already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario
that he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and
number of citations.

CHICKENSHIT HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into
the coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.

And if Chickenshit cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my
scenario, then he's ADMITTING that he lost.

Just as Huckster Sienzant lost.

Just as Chuckles lost.

Just as Davy Von Penis lost.

(As well as all the killfiled trolls...)

Yawn. Same old Ben. All hat, no cattle.

Yawn... same old Cowardice... oops, I meant "Chuckles."

Not a single relevant refutation in sight... only vague logical
fallacies...

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

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 11:34:53 -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)

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:33:14 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:30:22?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< his usual mental tirade >

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence. >https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Chuckles is probably the most ignorant believer in this forum - he
literally doesn't know where Dealey Plaza is located. Or the
difference between Bethesda & Parkland.

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

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:44:59 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 2:33:16?PM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 1:30:22?PM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< his usual mental tirade >

Another coward afraid to look at the evidence.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/?do=findComment&comment=527075

Logical fallacies & speculations deleted.

No evidence to answer... no citations... no nothing.

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