From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant   
   wrote:    
   > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 1:24:47 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > > > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Hank   
   Sienzant wrote:    
   > > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags   
   Here wrote:    
   > > > > > > > It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is   
   that a person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe   
   the Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did   
   it. Everybody knows    
   that.    
   > > > > > > What’s the “the Official Story verdict” on who was the Texas   
   Tower shooter?    
   > > > > > > Do you believe “the Official Story verdict” there?    
   > > > > > > If so, why? Isn’t that what ‘they’ want you to believe?    
   > > > > > >    
   > > > > > > If not, are you posting to the Texas Tower site that Whitman was   
   framed, and those who believe the the Official Story verdict are ignorant   
   sheeple and just believing their rulers?    
   > > > > > > If not, why not?    
   > > > > > I don't know anything about Your Texas Tower Massacre.    
   > > > > Of course not. Since it happened in Texas only three years after the   
   Kennedy assassination and involved an ex-Marine with similar shooting skills   
   to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a much higher building at   
   people who were far more    
   distant than Kennedy was from Oswald, we can’t learn anything about the   
   assassination or whether Oswald and Oswald’s weapon was capable of   
   committing the assassination.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > You want to stick with that answer or phone a friend for help?    
   > > > > > I'm talking about the JFK assassination because that is the topic   
   which interests me, and the topic of this newsgrouppe. Your logical fallacy   
   that Official Stories all need to be false for this one to be false    
   > > > > Straw-man Logical Fallacy. I never said that.    
   > > > > > only reveals your fundamental dishonesty.    
   > > > > The “fundamental dishonesty” is from those who employ logical   
   fallacies like straw-man arguments to make a pretend rebuttal to a point not   
   made.    
   > > > > > Everybody knows what a cowardly liar you are.    
   > > > > And there’s the ad hominem instead of a reasoned response.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > Summary: You argued against a point I didn’t make, called me names,   
   and claimed the similarities and differences between the JFK assassination and   
   the Texas Tower shooting didn’t interest you, dismissing any attempt of mine   
   to draw parallels    
   between the two and extract what we could learn from these parallels.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > How CT of you.    
   > > > Sure, you'd rather talk about something that happened 3 years later    
   > > Another straw man argument. I want to talk about both, and see what we can   
   learn, if anything, from another shooting in Texas by an ex-Marine with   
   similar shooting skills to Oswald shooting with a bolt-action rifle from a   
   much higher building at    
   people who were far more distant than Kennedy was from Oswald. You apparently   
   don’t want to talk about that, or learn anything from it.    
   > >    
   > > Do I understand your point correctly?    
   > > > because you can't defend your ridiculous Lone Nut theories.    
   > > Please be explicit and specific about what I said that you deem   
   ridiculous.    
   > > Go ahead, we’ll wait.   
   > I don't care about your true crime analogy because Oswald did not shoot any   
   rifle from the TSBD.    
      
   “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” — Carl Sagan.   
   Awaiting your extraordinary evidence. Go ahead, we’ll wait.   
      
      
   > Why should I argue that he could or couldn't have done what he obviously did   
   not do?    
      
   Begged Question Logical Fallacy. You need to establish that, not simply   
   proclaim it as a given.    
      
      
   > You are trying to have an argument with somebody else. I don't know who and   
   I don't care who.    
      
   No, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about what the evidence   
   establishes about the Kennedy assassination. You keep ducking out of that   
   discussion, yet you claim to be interested in the Kennedy assassination   
   (”I'm talking about the JFK    
   assassination because that is the topic which interests me”). I've said we   
   can learn something about Oswald’s rifle capabilities from the Charles   
   Whitman* Texas Tower shooting, and despite claiming Oswald was a shooter (and   
   deserving of the death    
   penalty, no less), you don't want to talk about that other shooting, or what   
   we can learn from it.   
      
      
   > That's something for you and your psychiatrist to work out.   
      
   And there’s the ad hominem we knew you couldn't wait to utter. Why not just   
   cut to the chase and simply call me names?   
      
   ________   
   * Do you accept that Charles Whitman IS the Texas Tower shooter, or do you   
   reserve judgment and want to insist he is presumed innocent (like Gil and   
   Robert Johnson) because he was never convicted in a trial?   
      
   Gil: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8JGtKyYuij   
   /m/QyFRel1NAAAJ   
   Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JsKjTsn   
   Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)