From: chuckschuyler123@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.    
      
   You'd snip it.   
      
   The corollary is that conspiracy books DON'T hint--let alone specify--what   
   happened on 11/22/63. (Ben: "Some people did something!)   
   >    
   > 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.    
      
   Ben hits the logical fallacy Daily Double here, mixing a variation of a No   
   True Scotsman logical fallacy ("And clearly he didn't read the testimony   
   clearly enough...") with a begged question logical fallacy (...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.    
      
   Fringe reset.   
      
   >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.    
      
   Hank's reasoned position isn't a lie, little fella. It's his position.    
   >    
   > And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between    
   > "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.    
      
   Then if there isn't a disconnect, why don't conspiracy books--in your opinion   
   in response to Hank--not even HINT at who did what on 11/22/63? Puzzle that   
   one, shorty.   
   >    
   > I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.    
      
   Or doesn't incessantly post here and has other interests.   
   >    
   > 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.    
      
   There is no evidence for something this silly.   
      
   >You're aware of the evidence    
   > for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.    
      
   There is no evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll. The acoustics evidence   
   from the HSCA report was trashed decades ago. Even JFK's own library takes   
   pains to point this out.   
   >    
   > Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.    
      
   Everyone is a liar or coward or child molester in Ben's world. A college   
   psychology 101 student reading Ben's frustrated cyber bully screeds would   
   immediately recognize that Ben is projecting. Ben accuses others of being   
   child molesters when Ben is the    
   one who paws children at the Encino Judo Club. Ben accuses others of lying   
   when Ben lies all day long that his questions haven't been answered. Ben   
   accuses others of cowardice while he tried to hide his own cowardice by   
   joining the Marines.   
   >    
   >    
   > > 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.    
      
   You'd snip them.   
   >    
   > Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't    
   > afraid to let others examine it.    
      
   Done. You snip everything.   
   >    
   > But, of course, you won't.    
      
   He has. We have. You snip, snip, snip.   
   >    
   >    
   > > 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.    
      
   Shifting the Burden.   
   >    
   > But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...    
      
   Or smart enough not to take your bait.   
   >    
   >    
   > > 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    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)