From: 19efppp@mail.com   
      
   On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 11:57:32 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 10:51:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:    
   > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant   
   wrote:    
   > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:28:42 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 12:16:35 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant   
   wrote:    
   > > > > > 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/   
   JGtKyYuijk/m/QyFRel1NAAAJ    
   > > > > > Robert: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk   
   c/JsKjTsn3Fes/m/n3T6e3AMCAAJ    
   > > > > Well, you are insane and dishonest and you defend murderers, so I   
   should call you a Nutter Shit Bag, Nutter Shit Bag.    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)