On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

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

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 15:56:35 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Get back to me when you’re ready to discuss:

Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

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

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:08:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Get back to me when you’re ready to discuss:

Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

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

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 08:44:26 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent eyewitnesses.

As you know, they not only refused to interview witnesses, witnesses were warned to, "keep their mouths shut."
Not a tactic one would expect from a legitimate criminal investigation.

Unless, of course, you're a Lone Nutter. Then it's ok.

Not that any believer can publicly *admit* that eyewitnesses were told
to shut up... They simply deny inconvenient facts.

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

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 17:14:24 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

What I actually wrote was:

Get back to me when you’re ready to discuss:

Ready. Get back to me when you have the balls to answer:

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?

Don't pretend that *I'M* the one stopping discussion... your cowardice
is obvious to everyone.

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 04:23:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Remember, Huckster,
It's YOUR evidence and your argument. It's the evidence you support.
Why can't you answer a simple question about the conflicts in it ?

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 12:26:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

Gil do you have a response so we can get a civil discussion going in the few weeks this board has remaining?

Huckster do you have a response so we can get a civil discussion going
on in the few weeks before you disappear (Because you refuse to pay
for the privledge of looking stupid.)

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?

(Ran again, I see...)

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

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:37:19 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 5:48:28?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 8:19:47?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.

https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/

By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

I do the same thing... you REFUSE to answer 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 02:00:24 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.

Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

Indeed! It's amusing how believers discount your knowledge of police procedure, and my knowledge of the Marine Corps firing range.

They can't refute the specifics you bring to the table... all they can
do is whine, make broad unsupported claims, and utilize logical
fallacies.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

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

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:00:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.

Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.
THEY DID IT. And it's documented.

But **YOU** will absolutely REFUSE to publicly acknowledge this as the
truth... you will reject the evidence for it.

See how easy it is to prove a liar to be a liar?

we disagree on how you weigh and utilize it. Your opinion is worthless, as you have no expertise to write about or criticize:
1. The prosecutory system in Dallas
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's tests

More lies... Tell us Huckster - on what basis do you discount Gil's
stated expertise?

Please, tell us...

He has. You're simply lying about it. Your cowardice in facing the
evidence is obvious...

For example:

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 16:37:33 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 5:48:28?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 8:19:47?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

Straw man argument. Quote one person that said it’s okay to refuse to interview witnesses, or ok to warn witnesses to “keep their mouths shut”.

By accepting the case as authentic, you accept the tactics used to achieve that case as well.

https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/

By accepting the case, you accept this as well.

No, Gil. Don’t put words in my mouth, or the mouth of anyone else.

What Gil is pointing out is what you REFUSE TO SAY!

I do the same thing... you REFUSE to answer 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 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 9:20:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:00:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.

Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.

You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

This isn't the first time this topic has come up... you've run ...

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

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


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:10:36 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 9:20:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:00:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the
documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent
eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong.

Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was
willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated.

A statement you make is not evidence.

I just proved you a liar.

You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.

I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.

Amusingly, you snipped the cite.

Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.

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


Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:16:40 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant <hsienzant@aol.com>>wrote:

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

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 05:57:37 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant >>><hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 6:33:48?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 06:59:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant >>>>>><hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 9:20:41?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 04:40:20 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant >>>>>>>><hsie...@aol.com>>wrote:

On Friday, February 9, 2024 at 5:00:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 6:39:36?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 05:36:43 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus >>>>>>>>>>><gjjma...@gmail.com>>wrote:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30098-why-the-governments-case-against-oswald-is-bs-conclusion/#comment-526688

Sadly, believers don't click links.

Even ones as good as this one... I particularly liked the >>>>>>>>>>>documentation showing the FBI *refusing* to interview pertinent >>>>>>>>>>>eyewitnesses.

This whole series on "Why I Believe the Warren Commission's Case Against Oswald was Bullshit" is an opinion piece,
written to explain why I believe the case to be fake.

My OPINION is based on several factors:

1. The prosecutory system in Dallas was corrupt.
2. The way the authorities handled Oswald.
3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.
4. Conflicting evidence.
5. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
6. The Commission's own tests proved its conclusions wrong. >>>>>>>>>>
Apparently, the LN trolls think that it was written for their approval or disapproval. It wasn't.

We don’t disagree on the evidence

That's a lie. For example, it's crystal clear that the FBI was >>>>>>>>willing to CHANGE reports after they were written and disseminated. >>>>>>>

A statement you make is not evidence.
I just proved you a liar.

You **DON'T** accept the evidence.

I point out the facts.

And it's a FACT that the FBI was provably willing to change reports
after they were written and disseminated.
I cited for it - you couldn't accept it or refute it.

Amusingly, you snipped the cite.

Here it is again - the PROOF that you're a liar.

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

I don’t rebut links.

You already did... and you lied in doing so.

Once again, it's a FACT that the FBI was proven to have willingly
changed reports after they were written and disseminated. The cite is
merely the supporting evidence.

You've DENIED that the FBI was willing to change reports... You're
provably a liar.

I used to, until CTs started playing the “Oh, yeah? Well, what about [insert another link]” game.

If you think there’s evidence in there worth discussing, post it here, and be willing to discuss rationally and civilly.

Already done - you simply lied, then ran away.

Of course you won’t. As below, you will resort to ad hominem and red herring logical fallacies.

Anyone notice that Huckster didn't say anything relevant to this case?

All he did was prove yet again that he's a coward and a liar.

Of course - your cowardice is a proven fact:

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 Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:29:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

I don’t rebut links.

You already did... and you lied in doing so.

I don't rebut links.

You already did.

Lie again, moron!!!

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

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:28:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 10:15:11?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:29:23 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

I don’t rebut links.

You already did... and you lied in doing so.

I don't rebut links.

You already did.

Hey Gil, Ben says that Hank rebutted you. Time for you to get a new hobby.

Hey stupid!!! Are you so illiterate that you don't even know what link
was referred to?

Lie again, moron!!!

Of course, Chickenshit is well named:

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)