From: 19efppp@mail.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:25:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > >> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?    
   > >    
   > > In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren    
   > > Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box    
   > > Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House    
   > > Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and    
   > > Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.    
   > >    
   > > I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through    
   > > everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than    
   > > once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the    
   > > morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with    
   > > the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books    
   > > hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent    
   > > on finding them.    
   >    
   >    
   > Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"    
   > that conspirators would be found in the testimony.    
   >    
   > And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he    
   > *should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the    
   > eyewitnesses.    
   >    
   >    
   > > As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a    
   > > massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books    
   > > were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony    
   > > and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors    
   > > were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for    
   > > conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty    
   > > of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren    
   > > Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to    
   > > the evidence.    
   >    
   >    
   > Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples. I'm quite sure    
   > that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring    
   > to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but    
   > Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.    
   >    
   > And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between    
   > "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.    
   >    
   > I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.    
   >    
   > EVERY    
   >    
   > SINGLE    
   >    
   > TIME!    
   >    
   > And he'll so so again...    
   >    
   >    
   > > I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald    
   > > committed the assassination alone and unaided.    
   >    
   >    
   > Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet    
   > remain silent when Corbutt denies it. You're aware of the evidence    
   > for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.    
   >    
   > Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.    
   >    
   >    
   > > From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came    
   > > online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of    
   > > context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of    
   > > the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope    
   > > for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant    
   > > and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply    
   > > ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in    
   > > arguing for a conspiracy.    
   >    
   >    
   > So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so    
   > we can make sure you're not simply lying again.    
   >    
   > Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't    
   > afraid to let others examine it.    
   >    
   > But, of course, you won't.    
   >    
   >    
   > > One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a    
   > > morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author    
   > > (he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter    
   > > the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the    
   > > rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the    
   > > flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered    
   > > Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination    
   > > and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes    
   > > no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then    
   > > Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered    
   > > as well.    
   >    
   >    
   > Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David    
   > Lifton on the direction of the shots.    
   >    
   > But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...    
   >    
   >    
   > > Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination    
   > > Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a    
   > > Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the    
   > > shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of    
   > > Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a    
   > > shooter above and behind?"    
   >    
   >    
   > Surely you don't expect people to believe you?    
   >    
   >    
   > > He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing    
   > > that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the    
   > > question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for    
   > > Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded    
   > > nonsense.    
   >    
   >    
   > So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite    
   > or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."    
   >    
   > You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the    
   > way through. Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as    
   > "nonsense?"   
      
   Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around   
   when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His   
   wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds   
   diagram had to be    
   done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit."   
   Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)