Re: Huckster Said It - Let's See How True It Is...

On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 5:22:48 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-5, Ball-less Bud wrote: 
> > Conspiracy hobbyists insist on looking at all the wrong things. Instead of looking at the findings this expert produced, he looks everywhere but. He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred.
> And what exactly were those "findings that this expert produced" ? 

  https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

> Enlighten us. 
> 
> You'll notice that in every one of his posts, "Bud" posts no evidence. 
> No citations 
> No documents 
> No testimony 
> No exhibits 
> No witness videos 

  I included everything I needed for the observation I made, an example.
 
> To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred." 

   I`ve already determined what occurred to my satisfaction, stupid. The question is whether you can produce a better understanding of this event, and the answer is "no", you don`t even try, except some vague "the conspiracy was everywhere doing everything, with lots of people on board to make Oswald look guilty".

> It's obvious to any lurker that "Bud" is not here to debate the evidence. 

  I don`t even know what you mean by "debate". You are supposed to be posting support for the proposition that a conspiracy killed Kennedy. I then look at what you produce to see if you are looking at things correctly by applying reason and critical thinking. Often I find your ideas to be wanting, you look at the wrong things, and look at them incorrectly. You contrive reasons to disregard the right things (better supported, more pertinent, give better insight, ect). You give no reason for anyone to have confidence in your ability to process information, weigh evidence, or look at anything correctly.

> He's a troll. 

  I have the ability to discuss ideas, something you and Ben lack. When people insist on looking at the right things, you either try to grab the steering wheel and head back towards the wrong things, go silent (you), or remove content (Ben).

> "Bud" does no research of his own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. 

  What the hell are you talking about? Should I "research" whether we landed on the moon? When am an allowed to conclude we did land on the moon, when idiots say so?

  There is tons of information about this murder. I`ve looked at much of it. I conclude Oswald killed Kennedy and I see no reason to believe anyone aided him in doing so.

> "Bud" does no research or analytics. He prefers to let others do it for him, then copies their work without double-checking it for accuracy. 

 This is how things look to an idiot.

> What little sources he DOES provide are usually half-wit posters in JFK forums or some off-topic article. 

  This is how things look to an idiot.

> This is what he calls, "looking at the right things". 

  Funny, you call for debate. So I express an idea, you scoff at it, ridicule it but never contest it with anything of substance. Ultimately you run away without ever explaining how the idea I expressed was wrong. Because you or Ben cannot discuss ideas to save your life.
 
> "Bud" makes up excuses for gaps in the evidence and avoids addressing those issues.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

  Conspiracy hobbyists go the same thing, whether there is a gap, they park "conspiracy" there. Always in the dark, never in the light.

> Or as it is referred to in internet terms, he "runs". 

  I look at what you produce. When people challenge what you produce, you disappear. If you think this is me running, you have things backwards.

> Sometimes he "runs" by responding to questions with questions. 

 The questions you ask are often flawed. The questions are ask are meant to expose those flaws.

> Other times, he "runs" by "chickenshitting" word definitions. 

  You want to change the meanings of words. You want to make "reasoning" mean "speculation", for example. You think reasoned deduction is some evil that must be avoided at all costs. If someone displays actual thinking to the evidence, you and Ben go into a tizzy, cold water must be thrown on this activity, God forbid anyone do any actual thinking in regards to information.


> What "Bud" considers slickness, the world considers cowardice. 

  Idiots think they speak for the world. I`d put my thinking up against yours any day of the week.

> You won't see "Bud" click on any links, because he's afraid of what he will see. 

  Retard spin. If you link to evidence connected to an argument made here, I will click on the link. If your whole argument exists somewhere else, I won`t. I`ve explained this to you several times, but you are too stupid to grasp the concept.

> He's afraid of seeing something that will shake his world of magic bullets, moving bullet wounds and revision after revision of the evidence. 

  Nobody is "afraid" of anything you idiots say. That is a fabrication you idiots are comfortable with, it is a delusion you have chosen to accept.
 
> And his fear is not limited to what he might see. He's also "chickenshit" of what he might hear. 

  Yes, that is why I`ve been coming here for decades, because I am so afraid of what you idiots might say.

> He's already admitted to going mute like a coward when a fellow employee went on a rant that the CIA killed Kennedy. 

And this is what happens to all information that goes into your head, it comes out twisted and distorted.

> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/jYTjItta_PQ/m/7Zn8BZoHBgAJ 
> 
> Why didn't ball-less "Bud" stick up for his beliefs ? Because like all cowards, he was afraid. He didn't say anything because he didn't have the balls to open his mouth in person. 
> He talks a lot of shit here, where he can hide behind a computer and a keyboard, but he's a pussy in real life. 

  Are you smarter now than the last time I explained this to you?

> Then the idiot brags about his cowardice in a post in this newsgroup. 

 I related something that occurred, stupid. You provided your idiot take on it.
 
> "Bud" thinks his "reasoning" and common sense outweight evidence. 

  You get nothing right. I think reasoning should be applied to evidence.

> "Bud" thinks analyzing what his "experts" say about the case is "looking at the wrong things", as is any examination of the Warren Commission's case. 

  By looking at the right things I was able to understand these simple crimes. By looking at the wrong things you have yourself completely flummoxed. I think my approach must be the correct one, if I follow your approach I will be as completed confused and clueless as you are.

  That was the point of my response to Ben. You have an event you are interested in. You find the autopsy to be flawed. A new investigation appoints a panel of experts to look at the material. You don`t like the findings of that panel, so you set out to contrive reasons to disregard those findings (by looking at the wrong thing, Baden`s book).
 
> "IGNORE THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN" ---The Wizard of Oz. 

  Ignore the monsters under you bed, Gil. They don`t exist.

> That's how "Bud" and the other Lone Nutters think. 

  We think. That is the difference.

> Don't go looking behind curtains or in dark corners because you might find out the truth --- the emperor has no new clothes and is really naked. 

  That is the claim. 
 
> What "Bud" DOES post are comments, speculation, opinion and insults. 

  Among other things, yes. Sometimes I post ideas. 

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from his posts. 

  I cannot give you my ability to reason, you have to get your own.

 Think, Gil, think. You have the conspiracy everywhere doing everything. You have them on the 6th floor of the TSBD, the Paine`s house, 10th and Patton, the basement of the DPD, the boardinghouse, the bus, the Texas Theater, just everywhere, in some cases immediately, doing things in some concerted way. You haven`t shown that this is even possible, or anything even close to this has happened in all of history. A small simple break-in of the Watergate hotel and you had people stepping on their own dicks and the President of the United States couldn`t put the genie back in the bottle. But you feel an operation about a thousand times more complex is plausible. Bullets and shells are removed from evidence, bullets and shells are introduced. All sorts of people coerced to lie. Everybody gets on board with framing the poor patsy. Photos are manufactured overnight of the suspect holding the murder weapon. Fingerprints added. Bullets planted. PO boxes opened, ahead of time. Paperwork altered or manufactured. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of actions. And you are going to feed them to us one at a time, instead of you doing the right thing, and put them together into a cohesive package. But you can`t do that because it would give away the game, that you have put together a huge pile of fantastic things.
 
> To use his own words, "He does this because he has no real interest in what occurred." 

  Neither you or Ben do care about what occurred. You play silly games, is all.
 
> "Bud" is a.c.j.'s village idiot.

  When the village idiot can school you on how to think properly, what does that make you?