From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 6:08:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:   
   > On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   >  wrote:   
   > >On Thursday, February 8, 2024 at 9:32:45?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 03:58:56 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   > >>  wrote:    
   > >>>On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 9:08:30?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:05:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant    
   > >>>>  wrote:    
   > >>>>>On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 2:29:23?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:    
   > >>>>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:28:32 -0800 (PST), Bud     
   > >>>>>> wrote:    
   > >>>>>>> Ben said this...    
   > >>>>>>>    
   > >>>>>>> "And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness   
   testimony as "credible evidence"...."    
   > >>>>>    
   > >>>>>No, it doesn’t.    
   > >>>>    
   > >>>> Lies cannot save you, Huckster.    
   > >>>    
   > >>>Please, point out the supposed lies...    
   > >>    
   > >> No need. There are thousands of criminals in jail today based on the    
   > >> acceptance of eyewitness testimony.    
   > >>    
   > >Where judged *credible*.    
   > >    
   > >Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible   
   > Quote me saying this...    
      
   You didn’t. And won’t, because it destroys your argument.   
      
   > or admit that you're molesting your own    
   > grandmother...    
      
   False dichotomy logical fallacy. You’re funny, you think if you never said   
   “Eyewitness testimony isn’t always deemed credible, somehow that means I   
   must be molesting my grandmother. I don’t know what combination of confusion   
   and idiocy led you to    
   that argument, but it’s got to be the most bizarre I have ever read in   
   discussing the JFK assassination.   
      
      
   >    
   > You're such a despicable slimebag...    
      
   And when stuck, Ben resorts to his old standbys, ad hominem, as above,   
      
   And red herrings, as below:   
      
   >    
   > Just as you've been running from this:   
   > You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the    
   > description of the *location* of the large head wound.    
   >    
   > Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding    
   > paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?    
   >    
   > You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.    
   >    
   > Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?    
   >    
   > Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?    
   >    
   > Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,    
   > and exited the back of his head.    
   >    
   > More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.    
   >    
   > Are you proud of yourself?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)