Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Mark Lane #83
70 views
Skip to first unread message
John McAdams
Sep 18, 2012, 10:53:33 PM9/18/12
to
On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:
>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>
>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Lane just can't stop lying.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>
>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Lane just can't stop lying.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Sep 19, 2012, 1:41:25 PM9/19/12
to
In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
[Further comments in the open forum]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
[Further comments in the open forum]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
John McAdams
Sep 19, 2012, 4:17:54 PM9/19/12
to
On 19 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>
>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>
>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>
>
>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>
Ben turns tail and runs.
>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>
>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>
>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>
>
>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>
The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
timstter
Sep 19, 2012, 8:28:45 PM9/19/12
to
On Sep 20, 3:41 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
Why is Lane claiming the bullet is unflattened and undeformed when it
IS?
I say it's because Lane is a liar.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
IS?
I say it's because Lane is a liar.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Anthony Marsh
Sep 19, 2012, 10:56:17 PM9/19/12
to
And maybe you've never seen the first photo of the bullet before it
became CE 399.
Bud
Sep 19, 2012, 11:04:57 PM9/19/12
to
On Sep 19, 1:41 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
> >>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
> >>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>
> >>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
> >>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
> >>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
> >>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
> >>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
> >>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
> >>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>
> >Lane just can't stop lying.
>
> You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
Can you defend Lane`s claim that ce399 is undeformed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
> >>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
> >>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>
> >>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
> >>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
> >>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
> >>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
> >>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
> >>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
> >>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>
> >Lane just can't stop lying.
>
> You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 19, 2012, 11:10:53 PM9/19/12
to
Because you know CE399 was not shattered.
Ben Holmes
Sep 20, 2012, 12:33:17 AM9/20/12
to
In article <505a283d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
>about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
The photo of CE 399 viewed any way you care to view it looks as 'damaged'
as a bullet fired into a water tank.
It is in *DRAMATIC* distinction to a bullet that has been fired through
bone.
You simply cannot refute that fact.
>.John
>
>On 19 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>>
>>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>>
>>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>>
>>
>>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>>
>
>Ben turns tail and runs.
John turns tail and runs.
>On 19 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>>
>>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>>
>>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>>
>>
>>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>>
>
>Ben turns tail and runs.
>The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
>about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
as a bullet fired into a water tank.
It is in *DRAMATIC* distinction to a bullet that has been fired through
bone.
You simply cannot refute that fact.
>.John
Ben Holmes
Sep 20, 2012, 12:43:02 AM9/20/12
to
In article <7342d09e-d81b-49c1...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 19, 1:41=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams say=
>> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> took
>> >>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forc=
>bullet
>> >>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's=
>bit 399 -
>> >>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeforme=
excellent job at this. Much better than I could do.
Surely you can point to one of the photos showing a bullet which did half
the damage that CE 399 did, and even partially came close to looking like
CE 399, right?
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 19, 1:41=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl687rp2uvtrdjtc...@4ax.com>, John McAdams say=
>> >>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission=
> took
>> >>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forc=
>ed to
>> >>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>
>> >>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one =
>> >>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>
>bullet
>> >>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's=
> chest
>> >>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>> >>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each thr=
>> >>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>ough a
>> >>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>> >>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhi=
>> >>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>bit 399 -
>> >>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeforme=
>d.
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>
>> >Lane just can't stop lying.
>>
>> You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>
> Can you defend Lane`s claim that ce399 is undeformed?
The ballistics studies undertaken for the Warren Commission did an
>>
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>
>> >Lane just can't stop lying.
>>
>> You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>
> Can you defend Lane`s claim that ce399 is undeformed?
excellent job at this. Much better than I could do.
Surely you can point to one of the photos showing a bullet which did half
the damage that CE 399 did, and even partially came close to looking like
CE 399, right?
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 6:05:50 PM9/20/12
to
On Sep 20, 12:43 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <7342d09e-d81b-49c1-91d3-85a8fa132...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Since you are running from the question I will assume you can`t
defend Lane`s claim that CE 399 is undeformed.
> Surely you can point to one of the photos showing a bullet which did half
> the damage that CE 399 did, and even partially came close to looking like
> CE 399, right?
<snicker> What does this strawman have to do with anything?
Since words have meaning, let me supply the definition for deformed,
and you can tell us how it doesn`t apply to ce399.
deformed past participle, past tense of de·form (Verb)
Verb:
Distort the shape or form of; make misshapen.
Become distorted or misshapen; undergo deformation: "the suspension
deforms slightly on corners".
Obviously CE399 is not in it`s original shape, therefore it is
deformed. Lane lied about this, it is simple as that.
> In article <7342d09e-d81b-49c1-91d3-85a8fa132...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
defend Lane`s claim that CE 399 is undeformed.
> Surely you can point to one of the photos showing a bullet which did half
> the damage that CE 399 did, and even partially came close to looking like
> CE 399, right?
Since words have meaning, let me supply the definition for deformed,
and you can tell us how it doesn`t apply to ce399.
deformed past participle, past tense of de·form (Verb)
Verb:
Distort the shape or form of; make misshapen.
Become distorted or misshapen; undergo deformation: "the suspension
deforms slightly on corners".
Obviously CE399 is not in it`s original shape, therefore it is
deformed. Lane lied about this, it is simple as that.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 20, 2012, 8:50:37 PM9/20/12
to
So by your definition a test bullet fired into a water tank is
"deformed." And it can look just like CE 399.
Bud
Sep 20, 2012, 10:13:54 PM9/20/12
to
trying to say it was never fired?
> So by your definition a test bullet fired into a water tank is
> "deformed."
into a vat of pudding might deform it also.
> And it can look just like CE 399.
Towers fell, but that doesn`t make that the cause.
But you are straying away from the question at hand. Lane said that
CE 399 was "undeformed". Was that a true statement or a false
statement?
John Reagor King
Sep 21, 2012, 1:21:36 PM9/21/12
to
In article <505a7c09$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
That should have been the Slum Forum.
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ben Holmes
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> >
> > Why is Lane claiming the bullet is unflattened and undeformed when it
> > IS?
>
> Why do you not citing the unshattered?
> Because you know CE399 was not shattered.
Dearest Anthony, you know I love you.
*smooch*
But really now, "somehow" my very poor command of the English language
still allows me to understand that Tim was obviously suggesting that the
bullet was flattened and deformed. Does your superior command of the
English language allow you to understand that "flattened" and "deformed"
are not synonyms of "shattered"?
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ben Holmes
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> >
> > Why is Lane claiming the bullet is unflattened and undeformed when it
> > IS?
>
> Why do you not citing the unshattered?
> Because you know CE399 was not shattered.
*smooch*
But really now, "somehow" my very poor command of the English language
still allows me to understand that Tim was obviously suggesting that the
bullet was flattened and deformed. Does your superior command of the
English language allow you to understand that "flattened" and "deformed"
are not synonyms of "shattered"?
John Reagor King
Sep 21, 2012, 1:22:30 PM9/21/12
to
In article <505a581f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Now, finally, you have a point, Anthony. CE 399 was not shattered. Of
course it wasn't Tim who claimed that, so it is amusing that you replied
to him with that.
And there is a photo of the same bullet before it became CE 399? Does
that photo show it as not only unshattered, but additionally undeformed
and unflattened as well?
Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
it.
Watch everybody, undoubtably this photo will answer all our questions
about the assassination. We will never again wonder what the real truth
is. CTs and LNs will be living together within days.
Oh, sorry, C&C warning.
course it wasn't Tim who claimed that, so it is amusing that you replied
to him with that.
And there is a photo of the same bullet before it became CE 399? Does
that photo show it as not only unshattered, but additionally undeformed
and unflattened as well?
Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
it.
Watch everybody, undoubtably this photo will answer all our questions
about the assassination. We will never again wonder what the real truth
is. CTs and LNs will be living together within days.
Oh, sorry, C&C warning.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 21, 2012, 3:14:19 PM9/21/12
to
original shape therefore it was deformed. Its original shape was unfired.
>> So by your definition a test bullet fired into a water tank is
>> "deformed."
>
> Of course hitting the water could deform a bullet. Firing a bullet
> into a vat of pudding might deform it also.
>
>> And it can look just like CE 399.
>
> And a controlled demolition can make a building fall like the Twin
> Towers fell, but that doesn`t make that the cause.
>
the way it looks.
Bud
Sep 21, 2012, 6:20:11 PM9/21/12
to
undeformed?
> >> So by your definition a test bullet fired into a water tank is
> >> "deformed."
>
> > Of course hitting the water could deform a bullet. Firing a bullet
> > into a vat of pudding might deform it also.
>
> Might. In other words you know nothing about ballistics.
> >> And it can look just like CE 399.
>
> > And a controlled demolition can make a building fall like the Twin
> > Towers fell, but that doesn`t make that the cause.
>
> Irrelevant. You are making up an entire history for CE 399 based just on
> the way it looks.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 21, 2012, 8:46:54 PM9/21/12
to
I have posted that photo hundreds of times.
> Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
> with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
> knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
> to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
> post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
>
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
> But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
> proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
> Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
> it.
>
All your hedging can not hide the fact that you are profoundly ignorant
of the evidence in this case. Maybe a trip to the Nation Archives would
help.
> Watch everybody, undoubtably this photo will answer all our questions
> about the assassination. We will never again wonder what the real truth
> is. CTs and LNs will be living together within days.
>
> Oh, sorry, C&C warning.
>
Anthony Marsh
Sep 21, 2012, 8:47:05 PM9/21/12
to
But CE 399 was not shattered.
Bud
Sep 22, 2012, 9:58:59 AM9/22/12
to
On Sep 21, 8:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/21/2012 1:21 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <505a7c0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> On 9/21/2012 1:21 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
true?
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 10:25:18 AM9/23/12
to
In article <505ce448$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, Dr. McAdams used the word "unshattered." But you were replying to
Tim there, who did not use the word "unshattered" anywhere in his entire
text. You really do need to learn how to follow discussions, Anthony.
> But CE 399 was not shattered.
Yeah, Tim and I were already clear on that, thanks.
Tim there, who did not use the word "unshattered" anywhere in his entire
text. You really do need to learn how to follow discussions, Anthony.
> But CE 399 was not shattered.
John Reagor King
Sep 23, 2012, 2:53:12 PM9/23/12
to
In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
No, the reality is that you've never once posted that photo in any
article I've ever read prior to yesterday. Do get your facts straight,
Anthony.
> > Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
> > with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
> > knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
> > to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
> > post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
>
> McAdams never lets me post graphics inline.
Bwaaahahahahahahahahaha! Both John Fiorentino and I have corrected you
on that less than nine days ago. I still see right now Mr. Fiorentino's
post of the very thing you falsely say Dr. McAdams doesn't let us post,
on September 14, in "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
(1)." You do sooo love to make all sorts of claims up out of thin air,
don't you, Anthony? What's so hilarious is how childishly easy it is to
catch you at it.
> I always post a link.
So do I.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
from your website at least as early as 2003.
Now, in my tremendous, knee-knocking fear, lemme look at that pic for
which you posted the link above.
Uh...
Not real clear, but that looks just as flattened at the base to me as CE
399 does.
> > But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
> > proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
> > Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
> > it.
>
> Frazier even marks it for you with "Q1."
Yeah, I see that.
> All your hedging can not hide the fact that you are profoundly ignorant
> of the evidence in this case.
That must be why you are incapable of proving that I'm wrong when I say
that less than 10% of the Dealey witnesses said that shots came from
multiple directions. In fact, you've never once even *tried* to prove
me wrong. You just "say" I'm wrong over and over and over, ad nauseum,
without ever posting even one sentence that even *starts* to prove me
wrong. And you for darn sure haven't posted any link on the Puzzle
Palace in direct reply to me in the past week that proves me to be even
slightly wrong, not even slightly, on that particular claim of mine.
Oh yeah, but still, according to you only, I'm profoundly ignorant of
obviously profoundly ignorant of what the Dealey witnesses actually said.
> Maybe a trip to the Nation Archives would
> help.
Maybe a look at what the Dealey witnesses really said might help you.
> > Watch everybody, undoubtably this photo will answer all our questions
> > about the assassination. We will never again wonder what the real truth
> > is. CTs and LNs will be living together within days.
>
> One photo does not tell the entire story of the JFK assassination.
Gee, ya think?
article I've ever read prior to yesterday. Do get your facts straight,
Anthony.
> > Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
> > with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
> > knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
> > to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
> > post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
>
> McAdams never lets me post graphics inline.
on that less than nine days ago. I still see right now Mr. Fiorentino's
post of the very thing you falsely say Dr. McAdams doesn't let us post,
on September 14, in "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
(1)." You do sooo love to make all sorts of claims up out of thin air,
don't you, Anthony? What's so hilarious is how childishly easy it is to
catch you at it.
> I always post a link.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
from your website at least as early as 2003.
Now, in my tremendous, knee-knocking fear, lemme look at that pic for
which you posted the link above.
Uh...
Not real clear, but that looks just as flattened at the base to me as CE
399 does.
> > But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
> > proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
> > Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
> > it.
>
> Frazier even marks it for you with "Q1."
> All your hedging can not hide the fact that you are profoundly ignorant
> of the evidence in this case.
that less than 10% of the Dealey witnesses said that shots came from
multiple directions. In fact, you've never once even *tried* to prove
me wrong. You just "say" I'm wrong over and over and over, ad nauseum,
without ever posting even one sentence that even *starts* to prove me
wrong. And you for darn sure haven't posted any link on the Puzzle
Palace in direct reply to me in the past week that proves me to be even
slightly wrong, not even slightly, on that particular claim of mine.
Oh yeah, but still, according to you only, I'm profoundly ignorant of
the evidence in this case.
You really think I'm that easy to fool, Anthony? You are quite
obviously profoundly ignorant of what the Dealey witnesses actually said.
> Maybe a trip to the Nation Archives would
> help.
> > Watch everybody, undoubtably this photo will answer all our questions
> > about the assassination. We will never again wonder what the real truth
> > is. CTs and LNs will be living together within days.
>
> One photo does not tell the entire story of the JFK assassination.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 23, 2012, 6:24:35 PM9/23/12
to
how Usenet works.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 23, 2012, 6:31:40 PM9/23/12
to
>>> Oh do please, I beg you on hands and knees, abjectly, share that photo
>>> with us poor unwashed masses, either by posting it in-article (which you
>>> knew years before you falsely claimed that you have to "beg" Dr. McAdams
>>> to allow it, that in reality he'll allow without you asking) or else
>>> post a link to it. Be sure it's a link that Research can get to.
>>
>> McAdams never lets me post graphics inline.
>
> Bwaaahahahahahahahahaha! Both John Fiorentino and I have corrected you
> on that less than nine days ago. I still see right now Mr. Fiorentino's
> post of the very thing you falsely say Dr. McAdams doesn't let us post,
> on September 14, in "The final photographs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy
> (1)." You do sooo love to make all sorts of claims up out of thin air,
> don't you, Anthony? What's so hilarious is how childishly easy it is to
> catch you at it.
>
McAdams allows you to call me a liar, but he does not allow me to call
you a liar.
Different rules for different people.
>
>> I always post a link.
>
> So do I.
>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
>
> And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
> site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
> other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
> know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
> Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
> from your website at least as early as 2003.
>
about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
> Now, in my tremendous, knee-knocking fear, lemme look at that pic for
> which you posted the link above.
>
> Uh...
>
> Not real clear, but that looks just as flattened at the base to me as CE
> 399 does.
>
>>> But remember carefully: you have to accompany the photo with irrefutable
>>> proof that the photo is of the same bullet that later "became CE 399."
>>> Just "saying" it's the same bullet isn't good enough. You have to prove
>>> it.
>>
>> Frazier even marks it for you with "Q1."
>
> Yeah, I see that.
>
>> All your hedging can not hide the fact that you are profoundly ignorant
>> of the evidence in this case.
>
> That must be why you are incapable of proving that I'm wrong when I say
> that less than 10% of the Dealey witnesses said that shots came from
> multiple directions. In fact, you've never once even *tried* to prove
> me wrong. You just "say" I'm wrong over and over and over, ad nauseum,
in Dallas.
> without ever posting even one sentence that even *starts* to prove me
> wrong. And you for darn sure haven't posted any link on the Puzzle
> Palace in direct reply to me in the past week that proves me to be even
> slightly wrong, not even slightly, on that particular claim of mine.
>
> Oh yeah, but still, according to you only, I'm profoundly ignorant of
> the evidence in this case.
>
> You really think I'm that easy to fool, Anthony? You are quite
> obviously profoundly ignorant of what the Dealey witnesses actually said.
>
>> Maybe a trip to the Nation Archives would
>> help.
>
> Maybe a look at what the Dealey witnesses really said might help you.
>
Ben Holmes
Sep 24, 2012, 4:08:35 PM9/24/12
to
In article <k3e4a...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
post. So the question becomes, just who *did* "turn tail and run"? John
asserted it was me with no evidence... *I'M* still responding.
>>The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
>>about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>
>
>The photo of CE 399 viewed any way you care to view it looks as 'damaged'
>as a bullet fired into a water tank.
>
>It is in *DRAMATIC* distinction to a bullet that has been fired through
>bone.
>
>You simply cannot refute that fact.
And John didn't even *try*.
>
>In article <505a283d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 19 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>>>
>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>>>
>>>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>>>
>>>
>>>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>>>
>>
>>Ben turns tail and runs.
>
>
>John turns tail and runs.
Just a note to say that John did indeed. He has refused to respond to this
>In article <505a283d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 19 Sep 2012 13:41:25 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <2qci58dpb7fn6vtcl...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>>On 6 Sep 2012 06:37:26 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission took
>>>>>testimony from a Veterinarian for ballistics issues, yet still was forced to
>>>>>ignore the testimony since in contradicted the SBT.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Although the Commission asserted that its experts had proved that one bullet
>>>>>could pass through the President's neck and then through the Governor's chest
>>>>>and wrist and enter his thigh, the experts had never attempted that
>>>>>comprehensive test. Instead, they had fired different bullets, each through a
>>>>>different substance, each bullet suffering distortion in the process.
>>>>>Nevertheless the Commission concluded that one bullet - Commission Exhibit 399 -
>>>>>did all the damage, while remaining unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>>>>
>>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
>>>>
>>>>Lane just can't stop lying.
>>>
>>>
>>>You just can't stop making claims that you cannot defend.
>>>
>>
>>Ben turns tail and runs.
>
>
>John turns tail and runs.
post. So the question becomes, just who *did* "turn tail and run"? John
asserted it was me with no evidence... *I'M* still responding.
>>The photo of CE 399 viewed end on clearly shows that Lane was lying
>>about unshattered, unflattened, undeformed.
>
>
>The photo of CE 399 viewed any way you care to view it looks as 'damaged'
>as a bullet fired into a water tank.
>
>It is in *DRAMATIC* distinction to a bullet that has been fired through
>bone.
>
>You simply cannot refute that fact.
John Reagor King
Sep 24, 2012, 7:18:14 PM9/24/12
to
In article <505f4ea7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Yes, and did *not* repeat the word "shattered" in his reply. He only
repeated the words "unflattened" and "undeformed." Here's Tim's
complete sentence again:
"Why is Lane claiming the bullet is unflattened and undeformed when it
IS?"
I don't see the word "unshattered" there, do you, Anthony?
> That's why they call this a thread. Learn
> how Usenet works.
You're the one who still needs to learn how Usenet works, since you
couldn't be bothered to just go back and look at Tim's article to see
whether or not he himself used the word "unshattered." It took me less
than ten seconds to pull up his article and copy his sentence and paste
it here.
repeated the words "unflattened" and "undeformed." Here's Tim's
complete sentence again:
"Why is Lane claiming the bullet is unflattened and undeformed when it
IS?"
> That's why they call this a thread. Learn
> how Usenet works.
couldn't be bothered to just go back and look at Tim's article to see
whether or not he himself used the word "unshattered." It took me less
than ten seconds to pull up his article and copy his sentence and paste
it here.
John Reagor King
Sep 24, 2012, 7:18:32 PM9/24/12
to
In article <505f6f51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Prove it. And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying, oh, you meant 700
previous times in the newsgroup, period, in reply to many other posters.
Unless it was posted as a direct reply to me, you obviously weren't
addressing me or expecting me to look at the link.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
> >
> > And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
> > site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
> > other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
> > know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
> > Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
> > from your website at least as early as 2003.
>
> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
Oh, you've posted links to your website 700 previous times in reply to me?
> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
> >
> > And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
> > site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
> > other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
> > know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
> > Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
> > from your website at least as early as 2003.
>
> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
Prove it. And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying, oh, you meant 700
previous times in the newsgroup, period, in reply to many other posters.
Unless it was posted as a direct reply to me, you obviously weren't
addressing me or expecting me to look at the link.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 11:11:46 PM9/24/12
to
On 9/24/2012 7:18 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <505f6f51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
>>>
>>> And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
>>> site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
>>> other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
>>> know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
>>> Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
>>> from your website at least as early as 2003.
>>
>> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
>> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
>
> Oh, you've posted links to your website 700 previous times in reply to me?
Again you are conflating. I did not say in reply to you.
> In article <505f6f51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
>>>
>>> And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
>>> site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
>>> other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
>>> know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
>>> Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
>>> from your website at least as early as 2003.
>>
>> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
>> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
>
> Oh, you've posted links to your website 700 previous times in reply to me?
> Prove it. And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying, oh, you meant 700
> previous times in the newsgroup, period, in reply to many other posters.
> Unless it was posted as a direct reply to me, you obviously weren't
> addressing me or expecting me to look at the link.
>
killfile?
Anthony Marsh
Sep 24, 2012, 11:11:58 PM9/24/12
to
John Reagor King
Sep 25, 2012, 4:26:35 PM9/25/12
to
In article <506114a1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
your site, since you have hardly ever posted links to your site in reply
to me, and the very, very, very few times you have, I have almost always
gone right to the link you've posted, without the slightest trepidation.
;-)
> > Prove it. And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying, oh, you meant 700
> > previous times in the newsgroup, period, in reply to many other posters.
> > Unless it was posted as a direct reply to me, you obviously weren't
> > addressing me or expecting me to look at the link.
>
> How in Hell could they possibly be meant for you when you had me on your
> killfile?
Exactly. So since you already knew that, you also already knew that I've
never been even slightly afraid, not even slightly, to visit your website,
because when I *have* seen you post links to your website in reply to me
I've almost always gone straight there as soon as I saw the link, before I
even started composing my replies to you.
You make some of the silliest, most ridiculous, most hilarious, and most
unfounded claims of almost any poster in this newsgroup, Anthony. ;-)
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2012 7:18 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505f6f51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
> >>>
> >>> And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
> >>> site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
> >>> other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
> >>> know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
> >>> Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
> >>> from your website at least as early as 2003.
> >>
> >> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
> >> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
> >
> > Oh, you've posted links to your website 700 previous times in reply to me?
>
> Again you are conflating. I did not say in reply to you.
And thus you are not making a convincing case that I am "afraid" to visit
> On 9/24/2012 7:18 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <505f6f51$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/23/2012 2:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <505ce373$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >>> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg
> >>>
> >>> And where on earth do you get off saying that I'm "afraid" to visit your
> >>> site? You said that AFTER I quoted text verbatim from your site the
> >>> other day. I've been looking at your site since at least 2003. You do
> >>> know how to use the Internet, the Deja View, the Wayback, the Google
> >>> Groups archives? If so, doubtless you will be able to find me quoting
> >>> from your website at least as early as 2003.
> >>
> >> You seem to be suffering from Time Displacement Syndrome. I was talking
> >> about all the past 700 chances, not the current one.
> >
> > Oh, you've posted links to your website 700 previous times in reply to me?
>
> Again you are conflating. I did not say in reply to you.
your site, since you have hardly ever posted links to your site in reply
to me, and the very, very, very few times you have, I have almost always
gone right to the link you've posted, without the slightest trepidation.
;-)
> > Prove it. And don't try to wriggle out of it by saying, oh, you meant 700
> > previous times in the newsgroup, period, in reply to many other posters.
> > Unless it was posted as a direct reply to me, you obviously weren't
> > addressing me or expecting me to look at the link.
>
> How in Hell could they possibly be meant for you when you had me on your
> killfile?
never been even slightly afraid, not even slightly, to visit your website,
because when I *have* seen you post links to your website in reply to me
I've almost always gone straight there as soon as I saw the link, before I
even started composing my replies to you.
You make some of the silliest, most ridiculous, most hilarious, and most
unfounded claims of almost any poster in this newsgroup, Anthony. ;-)
0 new messages