Re: The Truth That WCR Believers Run From... #1

On Friday, December 29, 2023 at 10:25:08 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

> My Scenario Part 1 
> 
> First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do 
> precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail, 
> and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done 
> so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. 

We don't have a "scenario" separate from the historical null hypothesis. And you've never posted a scenario. Ever. Your multi-segment Magnum Opus is simply your usually begged questions and other assorted logical fallacies.
> 
> From Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew: 

Who?


> 
> "From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy. 

What conspiracy? Claiming something else happened, somehow, or that on 11/22/63 some people did something, isn't a "conspiracy" theory.

> Four of the seven Warren Commissioners -- the majority -- including 
> the Commission's chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts 
> about the Commission's conclusions within a decade of their report. 
> They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy 
> told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that "I no 
> longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard 
> to a conspiracy...." Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he 
> commissioned. 

They all believed Oswald shot JFK. You and Gil are among a dwindling band of aging, dope smoking baby boomers who are on the radical fringes of a dying hobby who thing Oswald was a misunderstood sort of anti-hero railroaded for a crime he was 100% innocent of being involved in. Boris the Truther, Gentleman Don Willis, The Toilet, etc. all disagree with you. You all have weird, wild theories that sharply disagree with each other. Different captains on different ships, etc.

The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not 
> closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.

Cite that this is the FBI's "official" policy.

 And those were the 
> people who had supposedly found the truth. 
> 
> By any standard of historiography, the lone-assassin scenario must be 
> considered a minority opinion which is contrary to the known evidence. 

Nah. Oswald Alone is the historically accepted conclusion. Even JFK's library posts links to the WCR for people who want to learn more about the assassination. No links to your Magnum Opus or to The Tom Rossley Collection at Gil's website.


> Yet that is not enough for a vocal minority of conspiracy deniers." 
> 
> Unfortunately, the sole kook who kept referring to the "historical 
> record" - has left this forum, and refuses to defend himself anymore. 

From what? Stop shifting the burden and produce something before the lights go out here.

> But as Graf & Bartholomew point out, there never has been anything 
> other than a minority opinion which is CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN 
> EVIDENCE... as I write this scenario, I'll be pointing out time and 
> time again the evidence which conflicts with the tale told by the 
> Commission (and not even supported by a majority of those 
> Commissioners as more information came to light.) 

Keep picking nits. Keep shooting spitballs at the Warren Commission Report. Your hobby ends on February 22nd, and then it's back the the Encino Judo Club for you, to do what you do best: molest.
> 
> Now, while it's true that I've challenged believers many times to post 
> their scenario, it's clear that Conan was the last believer who would 
> ever *DARE* do so. 

If I recall, Conan posted here for a hot few minutes, figured out you were a troll, and left. Smart.
> 
> And Chickenshit is going to continue to claim that no scenario has 
> ever been posted by a critic. 

No critic at this board--at least since I've posted here for two decades--has ever posted a scenario. Ever.
> 
> He'll be lying, of course... watch, as I dismantle the Warren 
> Commission's case and present my scenario... 

Dismantle the Warren Commission's case? You are deeply delusional. You live in your little world, where you are tall and handsome and don't constantly lie.
> 
> (And yes, it's impossible to post a conspiratorial scenario *without* 
> demolishing the Warren Commission's.) 
> 
> This **IS** a scenario 

...in your opinion.

- despite any whining from believers who can't 
> post their scenario... and it does indeed conflict with, and explain 
> the evidence better than the Warren Commission did. 

...in your opinion.
> 
> This post, in all it's parts, meets ANY POSSIBLE DEFINITION of 
> "scenario" that Chickenshit can post... yet I predict that he'll deny 
> that I've posted a scenario... watch for it! 

You'll never post a scenario. Start with telling us what time JFK's body arrived at Bethesda.
> 
> The most interesting beginning for any investigation into the 
> assassination would be the two prior assassination attempts - one in 
> Chicago, and one in Tampa. (Some would also include Miami and LA 
> attempts.) Believers like to deny these - but the Tampa attempt was 
> documented in the newspaper - so believers are stuck with accepting a 
> fact that they cannot explain. 

And these are connected to the Dealey Plaza hit? How? You haven't even shown a conspiracy on 11/22/63.
> 
> http://thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf 
> http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/07/tampa-plot-in-retrospect.html 
> So we have a background of attempted assassination attempts in the 
> weeks before the successful one... most people would find it hard to 
> believe that all three plots were not connected in some manner 

Argument from personal incredulity.

- this 
> is simply common sense. And when you do a comparison of the potential 
> patsies, it becomes difficult indeed to reject the common sense 
> conspiracy: 
> 
> https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-three-failed-plots-to-kill-jfk-the-historians-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination#PointsOfComparison 
> It's truly amusing to note that *NO* believer has ever publicly 
> acknowledged these previous assassination attempts, or explained them 
> in terms of a lone assassin. The Warren Commission certainly did not - 
> and that's a *MAJOR* failing for such a large investigation to have 
> missed. 

You beg the question by assuming these are connected to Oswald somehow.
> 
> Any *real* investigation would certainly start with a search for 
> anything unusual that had PRECEDED the murder - in order to shed light 
> on the murder itself. This is simply common sense, and something that 
> real investigators do routinely. Wife dies? Check to see if the 
> husband recently paid for a new insurance policy. Post Office shot up 
> by suspect? Examine his prior history with the Post Office, examine 
> how sane he was in the weeks prior... etc. 

Kid molested at the Encino Judo Club? Check Ben's alibi first.
> 
> As David Talbot observed: "Kennedy was, in fact, being methodically 
> stalked in the final weeks of his life... In the final month of his 
> life, John Kennedy seemed a marked man, encircled by a tightening knot 
> of treachery." 

Melodramatic hogwash.
> 
> The Warren Commission refused to do any investigation WHATSOEVER into 
> these prior assassination attempts, and the Secret Service provably 
> helped by not providing any information to the Warren Commission... 
> This is a fact that cannot be explained by believers in any credible 
> manner. Indeed, in later years the Secret Service intentionally 
> destroyed files that would be requested by the HSCA & ARRB, and 
> *should* have been examined by the Warren Commission. 
> 
> Chickenshit will not even *try* to provide non-conspiratorial 
> explanations for these facts. Watch! I've predicted it. 
> 
> (And the first time this was posted, Chickenshit indeed simply ran 
> from each of these posts - never responding to a single one of them. 
> But let's not forget Chuckles, Von Penis, Corbutt, and Huckster's 
> cowardice as well.)

The Hobby ends its run at this board on February 22nd. You've got less than eight weeks of trolling left.