Re: Today is....
Ben Holmes <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.conspiracy.jfk |
|---|---|
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:01:15 -0800 (PST), David Drummond <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Then why won't you discuss the Lifton Theory with me? > >I already did. I said it doesn't matter what he said; all that matters is there was at least one shooter in the front. And it doesn't take Lifton to prove that. He doesn't want to discuss the "Lifton theory" - he wants you to refute what *HE* calls the "Lifton theory." But he refuses to cite for it. >> According to you, you should be able to establish in short order LiftonÂs theory is reasonable and makes perfect sense. > >lol "according to me"...I haven't mentioned him once. I find it funny that Huckster is trying to force you into a debate on HIS terms - he's quite famous for running from any topic and any post that he doesn't care to respond to. He even runs from HIS OWN WORDS! >And I don't know why you think you can browbeat me into discussing a theory that was raised several days before I even got here. As you like to say, I'll respond to any post I want, when I want, if I want. And you can put any theory you want on trial, either Lifton's or Douglas Horne or Mark Lane or Harrison Livingstone or the proctologist that twice monthly has to surgically remove the stick from your ass. It doesn't matter who's correct and who's not. All that has to be correct is there were more than three shots fired. And the fact is many bullets/shells were found in DP: > >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/9pPHYlVUIls/m/jcLg-Tv-AQAJ > >Not all of them had to be used in the assassination. Just one. But as Ben would say...Anything more than that, and you've lost.