From: d04108200@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 9:07:27 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 04:46:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett    
   >  wrote:    
   >    
   >    
   > I thought it would be amusing to refute Corbutt's word vomit,    
   > statement by statement. He will ABSOLUTELY refuse to defend it, thus    
   > showing the world that he doesn't believe his own nonsense.    
   >    
   >    
   > >This is where once again, your piss poor reasoning skills betray you.    
   >    
   >    
   > As Huckster Sienzant says: When you start with ad hominem we know it    
   > won't go well for you.    
   >    
   >    
   > >You look at the assassination bassackwards. Instead of    
   > >looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, you   
   reverse engineer the process.    
   >    
   >    
   > This is a simple logical fallacy. You assert what you need to prove.    
   > It's also simply a lie on your part.    
   >    
   >    
   > > You start with the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, a    
   > > coverup, and a framing of Oswald and work backwards from them.    
   >    
   >    
   > No critic I know of, including of course, Gil - does that. We all    
   > started with the WCR. Then dug into the actual evidence that    
   > contradicts what the WCR claimed for it. Some have started with some    
   > book, such as Mark Lane or SSID, but *all* have ended up going through    
   > the WCR, then the actual evidence.    
   >    
   >    
   > > Anything that is necessary for those things to be true must have    
   > > happened, even if there is no evidence those things happened.    
   >    
   >    
   > This is simply a lie. We don't start with a theory... we start with    
   > the evidence. This explains why most critics are far more    
   > knowledgeable than most believers on the actual evidence.    
   >    
   > Chuckles: I've said this before, but I'll repeat it: I take NONE of    
   > this seriously. None of it.    
   >    
   > Billy Clarke: I haven't read the WC and don't intend to. What little I    
   > have read of it I found one glaring mistake. I assume there are    
   > others.    
   >    
   >    
   > >This is just the latest example of your methodology.    
   >    
   >    
   > The methodology of critics is to go where the evidence leads.    
   >    
   > Always has been.    
   >    
   > You're simply lying when you suggest otherwise.    
   >    
   >    
   > >You have accepted as a matter of faith that the bullet wound in JFK's   
   throat was an    
   > >entrance wound.    
   >    
   >    
   > No. It's *NOT* a matter of faith. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MEDICAL    
   > EVIDENCE & TESTIMONY.    
   >    
   > Indeed, the earliest statements were so devastating that Huckster    
   > Sienzant actually suggested that the press conference transcript had    
   > been "altered." Then lied about it, and claimed he'd never said this.    
   >    
   > The ones who hold a belief on faith is believers. You don't have any    
   > medical evidence that the throat wound was an exit - INDEED, THAT IDEA    
   > CAME *AFTER* THE AUTOPSY WAS OVER!    
   >    
   > Huckster was so upset with the idea that the Parkland doctors had    
   > within hours stated that the throat wound was an entry, that he simply    
   > asserted that the transcripts had been altered. This is an example of    
   > "faith" - and it's on the part of believers, not critics.    
   >    
   >    
   > > In order to explain why there are two entrance wounds and no exit    
   > > wounds and no bullets in the body, you assume somebody must have    
   > > removed the bullets, even thought there is no evidence of that ever    
   > > happening.    
   >    
   >    
   > The evidence is so strong and overwhelming that the time JFK's body    
   > arrived at Bethesda frightens you to death.    
   >    
   > Not a *SINGLE* believer has ever answered that question honestly &    
   > completely.    
   >    
   > You've PERSONALLY run every time the question was asked.    
   >    
   > So you demonstrate an awareness that you are simply telling a lie. You    
   > *KNOW* there's evidence, and you run from it.    
   >    
   > Both Gil and I have CITED evidence from Dr. Humes, as quoted in the    
   > Sibert ONeill report, and you've flat REFUSED to accept it.    
   >    
   > You just continue lying in spite of the actual evidence.    
   >    
   >    
   > >I must have happened or there would still be bullets in the body.    
   >    
   >    
   > An incoherent assertion. Presumably, you're agreeing with us that    
   > bullets were removed from JFK's body during the pre-autopsy autopsy.    
   >    
   >    
   > > You refuse to take into account how unlikely it would be for a low    
   > > velocity bullet fired from any distance to strike the intended target    
   > > and the fact you need not one but two such bullets.    
   >    
   >    
   > You refuse to take into account that making meaningless statements    
   > doesn't require a response.    
   >    
   > No critic has ever made the assertion that "low velocity" weapons were    
   > used. That's not a thing. EVERY PROJECTILE WEAPON IN THE WORLD IS    
   > "LOW VELOCITY" AT SOME DISTANCE.    
   >    
   > Likewise, to rephrase it, every single projectile IN THE WORLD is "low    
   > velocity" at some point.    
   >    
   > The idea that bullets must always exit the body is simply a wacky    
   > unsupported idea of yours that people are going to laugh at.    
   >    
   >    
   > > You refuse to even entertain the possibility that maybe one of the    
   > > bullet wounds was and entrance and one was an exit.    
   >    
   >    
   > I *have* entertained it. I rejected it based on the medical evidence.    
   >    
   > Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S    
   > SIZE, was not an exit wound. I reject that based on a feature that    
   > all entry wounds have that exit wounds do not have.    
   >    
   > Can you name this feature that medically differentiates entry from    
   > exit?    
   >    
   >    
   > > Since the back wound was provably and entrance, process of    
   > > elimination would dictate the throat wound was an exit.    
   >    
   >    
   > Despite your poor grammar, I understood that. Both back wound and    
   > throat wounds were provably - BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, entry    
   > wounds. Your "process of elimination" contains a logical fallacy, can    
   > you figure it out, or shall I tell you?    
   >    
   > Nah, you'll run, as you always do, so I might as well slap you    
   > again... you're presuming that both wounds were caused by one bullet.    
   > This logical fallacy is known as "begging the question" - as you're    
   > asserting what you need to prove.    
   >    
   >    
   > >You also ignore the fact that after the internal organs were removed at   
   autopsy,    
   >    
   >    
   > This is a lie on your part. While some internal organs were removed,    
   > not all were. And CERTAINLY not the ones you imply below:    
   >    
   >    
   > >a trail of tissue damage was observed from the entrance wound to    
   > > the contusion on the pleura, to the perforation of the strap muscles,    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)