"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.

Of course, Huckster can't quote me saying what he just claimed I'd
said... he's too busy molesting the neighborhood childred to face the
fact that the WCR flat lied.

There is indeed "credible evidence" that suggests shots were fired
from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.

And Huckster knows this to be a fact.

Yet he's willing to blatantly lie.

This fact tells you all you need to know about Huckster.

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 18:25:16 -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 Tue, 6 Feb 2024 03:41:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".

The old double-standard again.

You can't argue with morons... They're much better at stupidity than
you are.

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

Ben said this...

"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

And this is merely a fact. (Huckster lied about it, and you remained
silent.)

Just as true as the fact that 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 Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:08:55 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:41:28?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:25:18?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when Hank did you cried like a schoolgirl with skinned knee.

Common sense tells you to apply judicial standards but when I did you cried like a schoolgirl, "IT'S NOT A TRIAL".

The old double-standard again.

As well as cowardice:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Ben said this...

"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Indeed, your original *FIRST* response to my statement was a lie that
you've NEVER supported.

And never will. Such AMAZING cowardice, eh Huckster?

Let's not forget:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

I’ve been learning that.

But not this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Ben said this...

"And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence"...."

No, it doesn’t.

Lies cannot save you, Huckster.

Please, point out the supposed lies...

No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the
acceptance of eyewitness testimony.

Where judged *credible*.

Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible

Quote me saying this... or admit that you're molesting your own
grandmother...

You're such a despicable slimebag... Of course, you won't.

Just as you've been running from this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:56:59 -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, 8 Feb 2024 16:15:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:06:02?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:22:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

I’ve been learning that.

Ben ignores...

Huckster changes the topic and runs again... let me put it back in:

I’ve been learning that.

But not this:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!

You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Sick, aren't you?

And CLEARLY a coward:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

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

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!

You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".

Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".

Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

Coward too!

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 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:38:05 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!

You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".

Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".

Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...

Just like you can't figure out what Bugliosi said:

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 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:49:29 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:28:33?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 16:35:19 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:35:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

In your email to me, you implied that your mother was a willing
participant... it's still sick!

You're a sick sick man... get help!

We both know I never sent you any emails ever, so perhaps you are projecting once more.

Nope. Just as I've never made the claims you argue against.

Ben said "the legal system in America".

Hank said "the U.S. Judicial system".

Clearly a distinction without a difference, a tempest in a teapot with a dash of arguing to argue.

Clearly, you're too stupid to be able to figure out what Huckster
claimed I'd said.

I quoted you both.

And *STILL* couldn't figure it out...

Just like you can't figure out what Bugliosi said:

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)