From: sirslick@fast.net   
      
   On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 12:07:27 PM UTC-5, 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.    
      
      "the world"? You mean the ten people who read here?    
       
   > >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.    
      
     Of course you do. Whatever needs to be believed for Oswald to be innocent,   
   that is what you believe.   
      
   >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.    
      
     You guys play silly games with "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.    
      
     Stamp collectors know more about stamps than most people. Model train   
   hobbyists know more about trains than most people.     
      
   > 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.    
      
     Nonsense. It is you looking at the wrong things incorrectly.   
       
   > 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!    
      
     You guys can pretend the observations of the doctors who treated Kennedy   
   trump the forensic examination of his death if you like, it is a free country.   
       
   > 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 refuse to make the case, relying on shifting the burden.   
       
   > 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.    
      
     Cite for you idea that some discrepancies about time means a pre-autopsy was   
   performed.   
       
   > 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.    
      
     Have you shown that a pre-autopsy autopsy occurred?   
       
   > > 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.    
      
     Of course they have. Harris claimed subsonic rounds 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 keep your specific ideas hidden, because you are ashamed of them and   
   know they are unsupportable (and they will be laughed 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.    
      
     What "medical evidence"?  No examination was made at Parkland to determine   
   whether the wounds were entrances or exits. You have never shown that making   
   such determinations is something taught in medical schools. You insist on   
   looking at the wrong    
   things, and looking at those wrong things incorrectly. Nobody can stop you.   
      
   > Indeed, many critics have wondered if the back wound, BASED ON IT'S    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)