Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother
reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 06:37:10 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother >reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

Huckster read this - then did EXACTLY as I predicted he would - he ran
away.

He can't *STAND* being proven a coward & liar.

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

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:15?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Explain why.

Both "versions" were disseminated.

Now, either you knew this and just blatantly lied...

Or you didn't read the cited article.

Or you're simply a moron.

Which one is it? Or can you come up with an excuse I've not thought
of?

Go ahead... we'll wait.

Quote the passage that you claim makes my argument “dead in the water”

Go ahead. We’ll wait.

No.

This is YOUR problem, not mine.

It's YOUR lie... *YOU* need to deal with it.

Get busy retracting your lie, or explaining it away...

Go ahead... we'll wait.

Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother
reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

And Huckster once again proved how true my prediction is. Instead of
actually READING the cited article to understand why his "explanation"
fails, he tried to put it back on me.

Just like he's 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 Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:02:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:15?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother
reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

You made the claim.

You can't show how YOUR lying claim is compatible with the known facts
as cited.

RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

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

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:09:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant <hsienzant@aol.com>>wrote:

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 2:29:57?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:02:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant >>><hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:15?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the >>>>>>contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the >>>>>>test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning. >>>>>>
Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother >>>>>>reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run. >>>>>>
As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

You made the claim.

You can't show how YOUR lying claim is compatible with the known facts
as cited.

*WHAT* known facts as cited?

I've repeatedly told you - both versions were sent out. WHAT IS IT
THAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND???

Are you a moron, or simply the coward I know you to be?

Now, you can continue to pretend you don't understand that, or you
could be courageous enough to admit that your theory doesn't account
for that fact.

But I know what you'll do.

You'll run away ... AGAIN!

As you do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

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

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:20:01 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:09:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant ><hsienzant@aol.com>>wrote:

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 2:29:57?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:02:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant >>>><hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:15?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the >>>>>>>contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the >>>>>>>test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning. >>>>>>>
Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother >>>>>>>reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run. >>>>>>>
As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

You made the claim.

You can't show how YOUR lying claim is compatible with the known facts >>>>as cited.

*WHAT* known facts as cited?

I've repeatedly told you - both versions were sent out. WHAT IS IT
THAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND???

Are you a moron, or simply the coward I know you to be?

Now, you can continue to pretend you don't understand that, or you
could be courageous enough to admit that your theory doesn't account
for that fact.

But I know what you'll do.

You'll run away ... AGAIN!

As you do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

And Huckster did.

He simply can't face it when I'm explicit, and he can't lie his way
out of it...

So he just runs away.

You can't get Huckster to publicly admit that both versions were sent
out.

Yet he knows it to be true. Huckster's simply a liar.

And coward.

He proves it every day that he runs from facts like this...

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

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 06:09:25 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Admin@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:09:02 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 9:37:15?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Huckster has recently doubled down on his "explanation" for the
contradicting documents regarding the paper in the "paper sack."

He pretends that someone merely typed up two possible variants of the
test results in advance.

Of course, anyone who'd bothered to READ this citation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Changed_Documents_and_Vincent_Bugliosi_Was_Wrong.html

... knows that such a theory is dead in the water from the beginning.

Explain why.

Both "versions" were disseminated.

Now, either you knew this and just blatantly lied...

Or you didn't read the cited article.

Or you're simply a moron.

Which one is it? Or can you come up with an excuse I've not thought
of?

Go ahead... we'll wait.

Still waiting... looks like Huckster's going to disappear on the 22nd,
never having answered this.

Still claiming the "ball is in my court" - yet refusing to address
this.

Still a yellow coward...

Quote the passage that you claim makes my argument “dead in the water”

Go ahead. We’ll wait.

No.

This is YOUR problem, not mine.

It's YOUR lie... *YOU* need to deal with it.

Get busy retracting your lie, or explaining it away...

Go ahead... we'll wait.

Clearly, either Huckster is a moron beyond belief, or he didn't bother
reading the citation.

And... as is his habit when I prove him a liar... Huckster will run.

As he does...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

And Huckster once again proved how true my prediction is. Instead of >actually READING the cited article to understand why his "explanation"
fails, he tried to put it back on me.

Just like he's 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)