From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 12:58:34 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:14:12 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:   
   > > This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.   
   > This is one of Hank Sienzant's favorite dishonest ploys, to generalize what   
   "CTs" say, and then to demand that a particular individual defend what these   
   unnamed other people say.    
      
   These are not generalizations, but actual claims by actual CTs that I am   
   repeating here. If Gil or Ben don't believe these claims, they need merely   
   post they don't believe them. If they do, they should defend them with   
   citations to the evidence and    
   reasoned argument.   
      
   Here’s what NTF excised:   
   — quote —   
   > That, of course, is simply the facts. The ammo was old. The WC lied   
   > and tried to claim it was recently manufactured, but that's simply one   
   > of the proven lies told by the WCR.   
   > >, and then try to frame a guy   
   > They didn't "try." In your mind, they succeeded.   
      
   But not in yours, right? So explain why “they” choose Oswald, a supposed   
   poor shot, and then framed him for owning a old weapon that supposedly   
   couldn't shoot straight, instead of framing a good shooter with a good weapon,   
   or at least frame Oswald    
   for owning a good weapon.   
      
   This is the theory advanced by CTs. Explain how it makes sense.   
   — unquote —   
      
   Ben needs to explain why this conspiracy would shoot JFK from multiple   
   directions, then try to frame one lone shooter who was a poor shot with a   
   crappy rifle, instead of shooting JFK with a shooter from one place with a   
   good weapon,  then frame Oswald    
   for owning that rifle and making those shots with that good weapon. These are   
   the arguments advanced by Gil, Ben, and many others. It makes no sense. And   
   that’s why we don't see any explanation forthcoming.   
      
      
   > If he had a conscience, this trick would bother him. But Hank has no   
   conscience. Anybody who defends mass murderers, of course, has none.   
      
   Ad hominem and poisoning the well are still both logical fallacies. Good to   
   see you don't advance an explanation either, but simply call me names. One   
   would almost think you can't defend the bizarre conspiracy theory posited   
   either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)