From: brockgeorge26@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:25:18 PM UTC-6, 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?"   
      
   Yawn!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)